text:
[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama           ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO BONNER, Alabama                    MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio                   JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Stephanie Myers, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).............    1
National Science Foundation......................................  143
Office of Science and Technology Policy..........................  233
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 8--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-828                     WASHINGTON : 2011
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\        NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JERRY LEWIS, California \1\          MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia               NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri             JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
KAY GRANGER, Texas                   ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho            DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas          MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DENNY REHBERG, Montana               SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana          CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JO BONNER, Alabama                   SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           BARBARA LEE, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi
1}}Chairman Emeritus
William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director
Thursday, March 3, 2011.
CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Wolf's Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf. Good morning. The hearing will come to order and
the record will be open.
We want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
fiscal year 2012 budget request of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
Our witness today is Major General Charles Bolden, the
Administrator of NASA.
We thank you for being here.
Last night looking through all the material for the
hearing, I reread your bio, and I just want to say I appreciate
your distinguished service to the country. I notice your son is
a Marine Corps aviator, and I want to thank you and thank him
for the service. Thank you very much.
Last year at this time, we were in the early stages of what
turned out to be a very lengthy and contentious debate about
the future direction of NASA's human spaceflight program. I
think everyone was hoping that the enactment of the NASA
authorization bill would put an end to the programmatic
uncertainty and conclude the debate, but that really has not
been the case.
Instead the debate has shifted to whether NASA can
effectively implement the direction provided by the
authorization, and that places the budget squarely in the
middle of the discussion. No amount of authorizing language can
hold NASA to a particular goal or commitment if that language
is not backed up by a budget that adequately funds those
obligations.
But fully funding everything that was authorized is not a
feasible possibility in the current fiscal environment. We saw
that on the CR the other day on the Weiner amendment, which cut
from this committee I think it was 300 and some million
dollars, whatever the exact number.
And so when you look at those circumstances, you really
cannot have everything.
Instead, NASA will be forced to look across its programs
and make some very hard choices. You have done that to some
extent with your fiscal year 2012 request, which holds the NASA
agency-wide total to its fiscal year 2010 level, more than $700
million below the authorized amount. In order to work within
that total, you have chosen to fund some programs significantly
below previously projected levels.
Congress has asked a lot of NASA and we need to seriously
consider whether we can afford to simultaneously maintain our
human exploration program, support the extension of the Space
Station, continue with planned science missions, advance
commercial spaceflight, and engage in NASA's many other
My disagreement with NASA comes in the decision making
about what budgetary tradeoffs are necessary to make. Your
request has chosen to sacrifice progress on the development of
the Space Launch System and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. The
levels in your budget for these activities virtually guarantee
that NASA will not have core launch and crew capabilities in
place by 2016.
Our failure to meet that goal will further erode our
international standing in human spaceflight, which I think is
beginning to take place, eventually ceding our prominency to
places like Russia, China, India, or others. That is just not
an outcome that I think is really good for the country.
I know these are complicated issues and we can spend a lot
of time on them.
And this, Mr. Bolden, is really not directed toward you. I
think until this Administration, and the President step forward
and deal with the fundamental important issues in the
entitlements, whatever concerns will be expressed by you or
anyone in the audience or anyone in the country about these
budget cuts cannot really be solved.
We are fundamentally trying to balance the budget on 15 to
17 percent of the pie, maybe even less. The President put
forward the Bowles-Simpson or Simpson-Bowles, whoever you want
to put first, Commission. It had the support of Tom Coburn, who
I have a great respect for and even more respect for after he
voted for it, and Dick Durbin, who used to serve on this
committee and who I have worked with over the years.
Nobody will ever remember except Dick Durbin, because I
remind him periodically, but I was the deciding vote on
eliminating smoking on airplanes. And I remember my side and
the tobacco industry went after me. Virginia was a big tobacco
state. And so to Senator Durbin's credit, he also supported the
Bowles-Simpson Commission.
There was an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday by
Ruth Marcus, who I read constantly, saying ``Where's Waldo'',
meaning the President. We are waiting for the President to come
forward. Leadership is doing what President Reagan did on the
Social Security issue, or what President Clinton did coming
forward to deal with the fundamental entitlement issues.
There is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ``The Boxer''
that says, ``man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the
rest.'' We cannot disregard this. Groups come in to see me and
say, ``Mr. Wolf, you are cutting this.'' But I voted for the
package that came out because we have to begin somewhere. We
have got to deal with the entitlements.
I appreciate your service to the county. I was very
impressed when I actually read your bio. You never mentioned
those things to me, and I just wanted to be totally prepared.
The way to deal with this problem is to come together in a
bipartisan way and link arms the way that Senators Durbin and
Coburn and Chambliss and Mark Warner are doing. If we do not
deal with the overall entitlement issue, and I speak now as a
grandfather of 15 and father of five kids, fundamentally this
Nation will begin to reach a tipping point.
People are going to be concerned that we are cutting this,
we are cutting that. But until we deal with the fundamental
reality of the entitlements, we will never be able to resolve
So you might tell the President, I do not even think he
even knows who I am, but Mr. Wolf said, ``if you do not deal
with these entitlement issues, no one can complain about the
budget cuts on any area unless they then come forward and say
what they are prepared to do.''
I have said I am prepared to step forward and support the
Bowles-Simpson Commission, although there are things in there
that I do not like and I would attempt to change. But coming up
for a vote up or down, I would be there with those who want to
save this country by dealing with this fundamental issue.
I will go to Mr. Fattah.
Ranking Member Fattah's Opening Remarks
Mr. Fattah. And let me thank the Chairman and thank him for
his leadership and for this hearing, and welcome the
Later on this evening, the President is going to reach out
by phone and speak to the crew of the Discovery and
congratulate you and the staff at NASA for such a great
achievement given Discovery's last mission.
You know, the chairman has made some very courageous votes
over his life here in the Congress and that is just one that he
mentioned about ending smoking on airplanes. And I think that
the President's decision to proceed with a Debt Commission was
a courageous one. The report is one that I feel very favorably
about, that if we could get it to a vote and, yes, you could
tinker around the edges, but that we as a country do need to
come to grips with this.
The other thing is that the public has to come to grips
with something, which is that we have to make investments and
we have to make sacrifices. When NASA was created, the country
was not doing as well as we are doing today, but we have made
sacrifices for space exploration and NASA has been a beacon of
hope for the country and has created a lot of aspirations among
our young people in terms of math and science. And I think that
we have to make sacrifices.
In fact, when you look at whether the President's
commission or whether you look at the majority CR, neither one
of them cut NASA as much as the public would cut NASA if given
a chance. And I think that those of us in a leadership position
have to say that the public is wrong. That is to say that we as
a country have to invest, and we invest in technology. And NASA
can be and should be always the leading technology entity in
I want to tell you that in terms of the budget request, I
am very happy to see that in Exploration, there is a
significant increase. Your leadership of the agency in a whole
host of areas has made a tremendous difference.
And your bio is quite impressive. Your work at NASA is
quite impressive, and the breakdown of the budget request in
which we have the lion's share of the dollars in human
spaceflight because I think that is the thing that excites the
Obviously there is much more work that you do, and people
in the Gulf Coast benefitted during the BP spill because of the
work of NASA in being able to track where this oil was going.
There are lives that probably were saved in Haiti because of
the work in terms of what you do in terms of science. So there
are a lot of great things that we can be proud of.
I think those of us in the Congress have to speak
forcefully on the need for our country to continue to invest in
science. We, as the world's only superpower, have to invest in
this area, plus we have others who want to join us in this
ranking in terms of superpower who are making significant
investments. And we cannot afford to be caught short. A lot of
benefits here on earth have been created through the work of
NASA in all range of activities, medical, science, and also in
industrial activities.
And so I am happy to have you. I look forward to your
testimony. And I think that on a bipartisan basis, that you
have both in the Chairman and myself and other Members of the
committee a lot of support for the work that NASA is doing now
and will do in the future.
And the Administration has put forth a very aggressive
program in terms of aiming our sights outside of Earth's orbit
in terms of human flight. And I think it is a challenging
mission, but I think that is what we should be doing. We should
be challenging ourselves to develop the technology to move in
even greater ways than we have to date.
So thank you, and welcome.
General Bolden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Administator Bolden, your full statement will appear in the
record, but you can proceed as you see appropriate.
Administrator Bolden's Opening Statement
General Bolden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah and other Members
of the committee. Let me, first of all, to the Chairman and
Ranking Member, let me congratulate both of you on your new
leadership roles, and I want to thank you both for all that you
do as well as all the Members of the committee for the long-
standing support that all of you have given to NASA.
As is obvious from both of your opening statements, we have
a common passion for space exploration and the benefits it
brings our Nation. As you take on new responsibilities, I look
forward to our continuing work together in the same collegial
fashion as we have done in the past.
I would like to take just a moment to note the absence in
the House in general of one of your colleagues, Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords, who continues to undergo rehabilitation in
Houston following the assassination attempt on her life. Not a
day goes by that I personally do not think about and pray for
Gabby. All of us in the NASA family continue to pray for her
speedy and full recovery.
Today it is my privilege to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. Despite the
President's commitment to fiscal constraint, I am pleased that
we are proposing to hold funding at a level appropriated for
2010 which, of course, continues to be our spending level under
the Continuing Resolution.
This budget request continues the agency's focus on a
reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery
leading to an array of challenging destinations and missions
that engage the public.
Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of the Committee--
Subcommittee should have a package of six charts that looks
like this. I hope you do because I will be referring to them
periodically. So, if there is anybody who does not and would
like to get one, I think we may--it just does not have that
cover on it. And the cover is not important at all anyway, so I
will hold them up as we get there.
The Authorization Act of 2010 gave NASA a clear direction.
We are moving forward to implement the details of that act with
this fiscal year 2012 budget. The President's budget for NASA
funds all major elements of the Act while supporting a diverse
portfolio of key programs.
Because these are tough fiscal times, we also had to make
some difficult choices. Reductions were necessary in some
areas, so we can invest in the future while living within our
means.
This budget maintains a strong commitment to human
spaceflight and the development of new technologies. It invests
in the excellent science, aeronautics research, and education
programs that will help us win the future. It carries over
programs of innovation to support long-term job growth and a
dynamic economy that will help us out-innovate, out-educate,
and out-build all others in the world.
Along with our budget proposal last week, we published our
2011 Strategic Plan, and hopefully, that has been made
available to everyone. If not, we can get you that.
NASA's core mission remains unchanged. It is the same as it
was at our inception in 1958, and this mission supports our
vision that is in the Strategic Plan, which essentially says to
reach for new heights and reveal the unknown, so that what we
do and learn will benefit all humankind.
Just this past week, we launched STS-133 on the Shuttle
Discovery, one of the final three Shuttle flights to the ISS.
Along with supplies that will support the Station's scientific
research and technology demonstrations, Discovery is delivering
a robotic crew member, Robonaut 2 or R2.
The Glory Earth Science Mission will launch from California
this week, tomorrow morning as a matter of fact, on a mission
to help us better understand Earth and its atmosphere and the
variables affecting our climate.
Our Space Program continues to venture in ways that will
have long-term benefits and there are many more milestones in
the very near term.
Yesterday, in fact, it was the day before yesterday, we
announced three new program offices to carry out future work.
NASA brings good jobs and bolsters the economy in communities
across the Nation.
I do not think you have the overall budget chart, so I am
going to skip that. You know what it is because it was
presented to everyone when I rolled it out, but it breaks down
the $18.7 billion, but it provides the scope of our activity in
the year 2012.
Our priorities in human spaceflight in the fiscal year 2012
budget request are to maintain safe access for American
astronauts to low Earth orbit as we fully utilize the
International Space Station; to facilitate safe, reliable, and
cost-effective U.S.-provided commercial access to low Earth
orbit for American astronauts and their supplies as soon as
possible; to begin to lay the groundwork for expanding human
presence into deep space, the Moon, asteroids, and eventually
Mars through the development of a powerful evolvable heavy-lift
rocket and multipurpose crew capsule; and to pursue technology
development to carry humans farther into the solar system.
These initiatives will enable NASA to retain its position
as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. At
the same time in our other endeavors, our priorities are to
extend our reach with robots and scientific observatories, to
learn more about our home planet and the solar system, and to
peer beyond it to the origins of the universe; pursue
groundbreaking research in the next generation of aviation
technologies; and carry out dynamic education programs that
help develop the next generation of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics professionals. That's a lot, but
NASA thrives on doing big things. We have vastly increased
human knowledge and our discoveries and technologies have
improved life here on Earth.
There has been some concern that NASA is abandoning human
spaceflight. This simply is not true. I think you all do have a
copy of our charts that look like this but show you a pie.
[The information follows:]
General Bolden. The reason I give you these few charts is
that it will show you that contrary to what is conventional
wisdom, human spaceflight in this budget constitutes a
significant portion. It is 44 percent of NASA's proposed
If you take the chunk out that deals with what it costs me
to operate NASA's centers and do other things, human
spaceflight represents an even larger piece, and it is actually
57 percent of NASA's budget. So I would say that I would not
call that shrinking away from human spaceflight when over 50
percent of the budget is going to human spaceflight.
General Bolden. The final chart that I hope you all have is
one that just takes human spaceflight, and it breaks it down
into where that money is being spent. We devote some resources
to closing out the Space Shuttle as you will see in this very
small chunk. As the centerpiece of human spaceflight and the
critical anchor for our future deep space exploration, the
International Space Station actually gets the largest portion
of funds at about 40 percent. The next generation of vehicles,
the evolvable heavy-lift rocket and the Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle received 39 percent of human spaceflight budget.
Our continuing efforts to facilitate commercial access to
space received a significant boost in this budget; however,
that still represents the second smallest piece of the human
spaceflight pie, at about 12 percent.
General Bolden. I want to commend my NASA workforce both
civil servants and contractors across the Nation for their
dedication to our missions during this time of transition and
change. These workers are our greatest assets, and they make us
proud. They fully understand the risk of exploration and
welcome the challenge. They will be the ones making tomorrow
happen.
These are exciting and dynamic times for us at NASA. The
challenges ahead are significant, but so are our opportunities.
We have to achieve big things that will create a measurable
impact on our economy, our world, and our way of life.
I thank you for allowing me to make my opening statement
and I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.
MATCHING NASA'S MISSIONS WITH ITS BUDGET
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
In the current fiscal environment, we will have to consider
the possibility that NASA has too many missions for the amount
of money that is available. If we continue to divide a
relatively static NASA budget between an ever increasing number
of programs, we will just perhaps ensure that there is not
enough money to execute any of these programs.
Do you agree with that assessment?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, these are tough times. And we
have had to make tough choices and the FY 2012 budget that the
President and I have submitted reflects those tough choices. So
I think we have submitted a budget that will allow us to carry
out the programs that the Congress and the President have asked
us to do.
Mr. Wolf. If we were to take another look at NASA's various
programs and responsibilities with the intention of reducing or
deferring some of the lower priority activities, where would
you recommend that we start?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because I think we have taken
a very thorough look at where we stand under the Continuing
Resolution of the FY 2010 spending level and that the
President's Budget for FY 2012 essentially represents a
continuation of that Continuing Resolution with some
adjustments, I would not propose any cuts.
Mr. Wolf. How about moving money around?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we did move some money. We
propose moving some money around because of priorities,
readjusting priorities. When the President submitted his FY
2011 budget, the world was different. Our fiscal situation was
different. I don't think any of us in this room thought it was
different, but everybody came to, I hope everyone came to the
realization that we are in dire straits as a Nation
economically, and so what we did with developing the FY 2012
budget was we looked at what our priorities are.
My number one priority is safely flying out the Shuttle
right now. Very close to that is providing for safe access to
the International Space Station over the next 10 years because
the President and the leaders of all of our international
partners have agreed that the International Space Station as
the anchor for human exploration should be on orbit for another
10 years, and in order to maintain the Space Station as we
operate it today, I have to be able to get cargo and crew
Because the Shuttle will stop flying in June, the only way
that I will have until I can bring aboard a commercial access
to Low-Earth Orbit for crew will be the Russians. They are an
incredibly reliable partner, but I do not think anybody in this
room wants to go for the next 10 years having to rely on Russia
to take American astronauts to orbit.
So we made an adjustment in the balance within the FY 2010
budget. We complied with the elements of the 2010 Authorization
Act, but I took a look at it with the people that I really
respect in my agency, and we decided that in order to ensure
that we would have a commercial capability for both cargo and
crew as early as possible, I needed to put a little bit more
funds in there than was in the Authorization Act. That is how
we got to the $850 million for 2012 and subsequent years. That
is far lower than what we originally needed and still believe
we need to be certain that we will bring this program on board,
but we think we can make that work.
DUPLICATION AMONG FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. Wolf. I believe your Earth science programs support
valuable work, but I am concerned that we are consuming a
significant portion of the budget to fund those activities when
other agencies have sufficient authorities and abilities to do
some of the same things.
Do you believe there are activities currently funded in
Earth science that could be adequately performed instead by
NOAA or USGS or the National Science Foundation or entities
that they fund? For projects that support those other agencies'
missions but still require NASA's assistance, could they or
should they contribute more funds toward NASA's expenses in
order to free up NASA's resources for its own unique
activities?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because these are such
difficult times, we took a look at where we were in all aspects
of our budget. Everything that we do in Earth science is unique
to NASA. We have looked and there is no duplication across
agencies. Everything that we do with weather, for example, we
manage programs that use weather satellites under NOAA's budget
that then we take to orbit, make sure that they are operating,
and we turn them over to NOAA.
So when I look at our budget, I do not think there is
duplication.
My concern about allowing other people to take the Earth
science projects that NASA does is that money will not go with
that, and so the requirements that go with those projects will
not be able to be met.
It is just like giving me operational control of NOAA
projects. If I do not get money, that means those projects do
not get done. So moving projects back and forth among Federal
agencies where there is presently no duplication does not
represent a solution. What it represents is just another way to
get rid of some of the critical programs that we have in Earth
science right now.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I do not agree with you there. I think it
would allow you to have more money to go and do what you are
doing.
I heard the other day that Senator Coburn and I think
Senator Durbin had asked for an in-depth GAO analysis. The
first initial report came out and identified duplications, I
think, of $200 billion.
Are you part of that report? For instance, GAO said there
are so many manpower training programs. I forget how many, and
I am not going to guess because I may be inaccurate. Is GAO
looking at NASA? Are you part of the Coburn request to see if
there is duplication?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we are a part of all the GAO
studies. Actually, I understand what you are saying, and there
was a previous GAO study and I will take it for the record to
bring you the exact--I do not think they gave any statistics,
but there was a definitive GAO study done on whether there were
duplications between NOAA and NASA, and that study said they
found no duplications between NOAA and NASA in the Earth
science work that we do and the climate research that we do and
the weather research that we do. The study that I think you
refer to for Senator Coburn, and I was not aware that that was
at his request----
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
General Bolden [continuing]. But I have seen that one as
recently as this past week.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
General Bolden. That one dealt with education, everything
across the spectrum of government, and I would agree that there
is duplication.
Mr. Wolf. Is NOAA part of that report?
General Bolden. NOAA and everything were a part of that,
but GAO had previously said that there was no duplication
between NASA and NOAA in our Earth science efforts.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. There is no duplication between NASA and
the U.S. Geological Survey in our Earth science programs. We do
the satellites. We do the program management for development of
the satellites and NOAA and the USGS, we recently signed a
memorandum of agreement with USGS for them to take over
Landsat. We do not spend any money on Landsat other than the
administrative cost of managing the program of developing,
building, and testing the Landsat satellite to make sure that
it is okay before we hand it over to USGS. So I do not think
there is any duplication, but I will take it for the record.
Mr. Wolf. Well, if you can. Maybe the staff can contact
Senator Coburn's office to see what the range of the GAO study
is. And they indicated that there were further reports about
ready to release, so we should see if NASA was part of that.
The report that you referenced, what was the date of that?
General Bolden. Congressman, I think that was a 2000----let
me take it for the record. I think it was a----
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
General Bolden [continuing]. 2009 GAO study, but I will
have to----
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Why don't you submit it for the record.
General Bolden. I will do that.
duplication in earth science portfolio
In 2009, the GAO conducted a study to ``determine whether NASA's
programs . . . are duplicative with other activities of the federal
government.'' [GAO-10-87R, Oct. 15, 2009] The GAO study reported ``No
Duplication Found in Earth Science Portfolio'' and ``NASA provides a
unique role in Earth Science that is leveraged by other federal
agencies.''
NASA carefully informs and coordinates its Earth Science programs
with NOAA and USGS both through regular bilateral meetings and through
interagency coordinating groups such as the US Global Change Research
program. NASA is vice-chair of USGCRP with responsibility for
integrated observations. Broadly speaking, NASA conducts leading-edge
research in Earth system science including climate change, while NOAA
is working to expand its weather prediction capability to climate time
scales and USGS is working to understand land surface change (including
water and biota).
NASA and NOAA coordinate their weather and climate activities via
regular meetings between NASA's Earth Science Division and NOAA's
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Services (NESDIS)
office, including development of research to operations transition
plans. NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division oversees NASA efforts to
develop and launch NOAA's satellites on a reimbursable basis. NASA and
USGS coordinate their land surface change research activities at the
analogous level, and NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division is working
with USGS as the latter assumes the lead role for the Landsat program.
Mr. Wolf. And then we ask the staff to be in touch with GAO
and also with Mr. Coburn's office to see if NASA or NOAA or
USGS were a part of that. We are not looking to take away. We
are looking to see if there is a function of yours that someone
else can do, not to take your money away, but to allow you to
have more money to do what you think is important.
General Bolden. Congressman, if I can----
General Bolden. Just for Mr. Ringler, I think it is GAO 10-
87R dated 15 October 2009. So that was the one specifically
dealing with duplication between NASA and NOAA.
NEW EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. Okay. One other question, and then I will go to
Mr. Fattah.
When the NASA authorization was signed last year, the
Administration assured us that it would fully implement the new
exploration program. Only five months later, however, NASA is
proposing to fund the new exploration program more than $1.2
billion below its authorized level.
How do your reconcile your stated commitment to the program
with the budget request?
General Bolden. Congressman, we have made an effort to stay
within the budget as defined by the Authorization Act and the
fact that we are operating under the 2010 funding level and
expect that we will not be operating anywhere above that.
Again, safety to crews is critical, particularly safety of
the crews on the International Space Station. So it required me
to look at how I felt I could balance the portfolio in human
spaceflight to continue the development of a viable, a
realistic deep space exploration program while not putting at
risk America's access to Low-Earth Orbit and the International
Space Station in the time that I need that.
I need for commercial entities to be able to deliver cargo
to the International Space Station by 2012. They are on target
to do that right now. I have enough supplies on the
International Space Station. Provided we successfully get the
next two Space Shuttle missions off, we can go through 2013 and
if, you know, if for some reasons, the commercial entities did
not deliver, we would be okay.
I then need to get crew there and I want to get the crew on
American-made rockets. I do not want to have to take them to
the International Space Station on Soyuz through the life of
the International Space Station through 2020. And so I think
that by 2015, 2016, we will have active operating commercial
entities that will be taking crews to the International Space
Station. That is quicker than I could have gotten there had I
done it the old NASA way.
General Bolden. So we are putting forth a genuine effort to
produce a heavy-lift launch vehicle.
90-DAY PROGRESS REPORT
Mr. Wolf. In the 90-day progress report on the
implementation of the authorized exploration program, NASA
stated that it might not be able to meet the goals of the
authorization within the schedule and budget parameters
established in that bill.
You did not provide, however, an estimate of what you
believe would be necessary. Using your standard budget and
schedule estimating procedures, what does NASA believe will be
needed to implement the authorization, and how does that
compare to the budget plan put forward in your request?
General Bolden. Congressman, because the authorization was
below the level that the President had proposed in his FY2011
budget and because we all realize that fiscal times have
changed and we have got to live within our means, we decided
that we would take a look at two things. One, can I transition
existing Constellation contracts to the new MPCV and Space
Launch vehicle; that is a legal and procurement question. I am
pretty close to being satisfied that, yes, we can do that with
maybe some limitations.
The second thing I had to determine, okay, if I can do
that, is it affordable and is it sustainable. I could do it and
get a vehicle the first time out, but then I have shot
everything I have, and I cannot produce a second, third,
fourth. I cannot produce a sustainable exploration program.
So I want to give you a realistic program that is
affordable and sustainable, and that answer, we will have for
the Congress this summer sometime.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Administrator. Let me join the
Chairman in thanking you for your significant service to our
You flew over a hundred combat missions in Vietnam?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. You led our Marines into Kuwait as the
commanding general?
General Bolden. I did not do that, sir. I served with
Marines in Kuwait between the two wars. I was happily flying
space shuttles when my fellow Marine generals led our troops
from Kuwait into Iraq in the Gulf War. I did not serve in the
Gulf War.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. But on the Marine Corps side, you were in
the astronaut office?
Mr. Fattah. And you were on the mission that launched the
Hubble?
General Bolden. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. So I just wanted to put those on the record
because the Chairman had referred to your great bio, so I took
a minute to take a look at it.
General Bolden. Sir, that is all history.
Mr. Fattah. I got you. But history is important for us to
reflect on.
I saw your appearance yesterday before the authorizing
committee. And I could imagine that that was somewhat of a--
reminded you of some of your previous duties, I guess, in some
respects. So it is challenging to come up here to the Hill----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. And deal with the various
committees of jurisdiction. Our committee has responsibility
for money.
General Bolden. Sir, if I did not believe in what I am
doing, I would be back in Houston.
IMPLEMENTING THE AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Fattah. I understand. Our committee deals with money.
The authorizing committee deals with the authorizing issues.
And the Congress has passed an authorization bill that allows
you to move forward on the President's new missions for NASA.
Mr. Fattah. So the Congress has sanctioned the fact that we
are going to now work towards human spaceflight and to space
outside of Earth's orbit. And that is going to be a challenging
moment. That is why you put together a set of programs to move
Also, the Administration and the President and NASA have
decided that you want to believe enough in American business to
commercialize crew missions back and forth to the Space
Station.
Mr. Fattah. That is correct?
Mr. Fattah. And so this Commercial Crew Program is a belief
in American business that we could take what NASA has been
doing for decades now.
General Bolden. That is a firm belief that American
industry can do what I have been doing.
Mr. Fattah. Right. The Shuttle mission is almost 300
flights, right, and you have 133 right now?
General Bolden. Right.
Mr. Fattah. But that is still a lot.
Mr. Fattah. Now, you were retired, though, and moved in
this commercial area, right?
Mr. Fattah. So the work that you see and the budget that
you are presenting for next year would follow the path of what
has been authorized by the Congress, the work that Senator
Nelson and the authorizing committees did to come to an
agreement to move forward.
And this reflects your best judgment about what the cost
would be?
General Bolden. Sir, it does.
Mr. Fattah. All right. Now, as we grapple with the
allocation, because I think absent such a limited allocation,
you would have broad-based support on this committee to do
everything we could to help you move forward, the Chairman is
interested and I am interested in where there may be
opportunities to delineate more clearly missions between NASA
and, for instance, NOAA, and whether or not, particularly in
the satellite area, there is some area to--and, you know, since
you are operating in space all the time, I mean, you got a
Shuttle mission up today, you got a launch tomorrow with--is it
Glory?
General Bolden. It is Glory, yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Right. And you still have, on Mars, Opportunity
and Spirit moving around. You have a lot going on in space,
that space-related things might be better suited at NASA, so
that is the real question around I think what the Chairman was
asking about satellites, because I agree that we want to look
to see whether there is some synergy. We are not trying to
weaken NASA or NOAA. We are just trying to see.
And for me, it is not a matter of saving money. I mean, it
is really a matter of just trying to organize the government
better because I think if we have to spend more money to have a
superior scientific advantage in this world, we, as Members of
Congress, we should be prepared to do that, that this idea that
we are going to lead this world on the cheap, I think is a
foolish notion anyway and that our ancestors and forebearers
did not operate on that notion. They sacrificed.
So, needless to say, this is the area that we are
interested in, and it is not a punitive matter between NOAA and
NASA. We want to look and see what makes sense----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. And, you know, see whether or not
there is some way to proceed. So if you would help us in that
quest. You know, it is that exploration that we are involved
in, and we want to learn and see how we can go forward.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, sir.
And just for the record, I do not want to be unfair to
anyone. We try to go according to how people come in but we
will go to seniority if Members came in together.
Secondly, I kind of made a decision--and if Members would
rather me not do it, I would like to hear from you--of not
limiting any Member on the time that they ask questions.
I served on one committee once where they had a timer, an
egg timer. And I felt that the witness knew the egg timer was
there and could see it and felt ``if I can keep talking, I can
rope-a-dope this thing so nobody has to answer anything.''
I apologize to Mr. Yoder because we did not get to you the
last time, two times ago, but I think it is better that any
Member can just follow wherever their heart takes them while
still showing respect for other Members.
So we are trying to call people based on how they come in.
If it is really close, we would go to seniority. I know Mr.
Bonner chairs a committee, Mr. Culberson does, and we have
ranking members on different committees, so we want to be sure
that the witness cannot just take up the Member's whole time.
So that is sort of the reasons we are doing this. And if there
is a difference of opinion, somebody could just say something
Mr. Culberson.
CHINESE SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bolden, we are really glad you are there, sir, and
appreciate your service to the country, both in our military
and in the Space Program.
And this committee is arm in arm in ensuring that we
support NASA and do everything we can to ensure that you are
able to continue to keep the United States Space Program on the
cutting edge of the world and a world leader, particularly in
an era when the Chinese are so aggressively moving to overtake
us in space exploration, and in so many other ways; and
becoming our banker.
The joint operating environment analysis prepared by the
U.S. Joint Forces Command, and I know this will resonate with
the chairman, that America's greatest strategic threat is our
national debt and deficit spending. It is the greatest single
long-term strategic threat to the Nation.
They also get into a detailed analysis of the Chinese and
point out that the Chinese have--the People's Liberation Army
has more students in American graduate schools than the U.S.
Military.
Given that the Chinese are growing in understanding of
America and our military, the Chinese are following their long-
standing rule that if you know the enemy and know yourself, in
a hundred battles, you will never be in peril.
The Chinese have, according to the--again, this is the most
recent analysis for looking out into the future by the U.S.
Joint Forces Command--that the Chinese have a sense that in
certain areas such as submarine warfare, space, and cyber
warfare, China can compete on a near equal footing with
America. Indeed competing in these areas, space, submarine
warfare, and cyber in particular seems to be a primary goal and
the force development of the People's Liberation Army.
And, of course, as our chairman has pointed out many times,
this committee is going to drive home the point that the entire
Chinese Space Program is owned lock, stock, and barrel and
controlled by the People's Liberation Army.
And I know the chairman has expressed grave concern and I
know the committee is concerned. And I want to reiterate our
concern, Administrator, that NASA not cooperate, it is not
authorized by law, it was stringently opposed, this committee,
in any shape, form, or fashion with the Chinese Space Program
because it is owned lock, stock, and barrel, controlled by the
People's Liberation Army.
And they are so aggressively working to steal technology,
break into our computer systems. It is a real source of
concern. And we are graduating I think a tenth of the
engineers, Mr. Chairman, and scientists? The Chinese have
vastly more engineers and scientists working on their Space
Program than we do, sir.
And you are as vital a part of America's long-term
strategic security as, in my opinion, any of the work that is
being done, for the long-term, that is being done in the
Pentagon. And God bless them, but you and I think NASA, all of
us should think of NASA as a part of national defense, as a
great strategic asset the Nation enjoys and needs to protect.
And I know the chairman feels that way and you have got our
strong support.
NASA'S FUNDING CHALLENGES PRIOR TO THE AUTHORIZATION
However, this is often forgotten: you started out with an
immediate disadvantage as soon as you came in because the Bush
administration never fully funded the vision for space
exploration, did they, sir?
General Bolden. No, sir, they did not.
Mr. Culberson. And NASA is self-insured, of course, right?
NASA is self-insured for all intents and purposes, so the
terrible loss of the Challenger and the irreplaceable loss of
the astronauts in the 1986 disaster, that Congress did not
appropriate funds to replace the spacecraft, correct?
Mr. Culberson. And in the terrible 2003 loss of Columbia
and, again, the irreplaceable loss of the astronauts, no way to
measure that, but Congress did not appropriate any funds to
compensate NASA either to buy a new vehicle or to compensate
NASA for all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions
of dollars that were lost as a result of Columbia? You were
never compensated for the loss of Columbia financially?
General Bolden. Congressman, I would have to take that for
the record. I was not in the agency at the time. I was working
on the periphery, but I think your assessment is correct. But I
would have to take that for the record.
nasa compensation for loss of columbia
NASA was never compensated for the loss of Columbia and the
resulting cost for the Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF) effort.
Prior to Return to Flight in 2006, over $1.2B of Space Shuttle funding
was reallocated to cover RTF costs from funds that would normally have
been spent on Space Shuttle operations (the Shuttle was not flying),
Space Shuttle program reserves (intended to cover Shuttle
contingencies), and the Space Shuttle Service Life Extension Program
(no longer needed given Shuttle retirement). Another $930M was
reallocated from other NASA programs--primarily Exploration and
International Space Station--in FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006, to also
address RTF costs.
The only monies specifically appropriated to NASA by Congress for
the loss of Columbia was $100M in FY 2003 specifically to respond to
the Columbia accident investigation and recovery.
Mr. Culberson. And I know my friend from Mississippi, you
were never paid for all that hurricane damage, right, Jo?
Mr. Bonner. But I am from Alabama.
Mr. Culberson. I am sorry. I am sorry. Isn't that terrible?
Texans are just awful. I mean, if it is north of--isn't that
awful? Isn't that terrible? I really apologize, Jo. Awful. I
mean, because north of Red River, east of the Sabine, we just
lose track. It is terrible. I apologize seriously.
But NASA was never compensated, all the facilities that
were damaged by the hurricanes, you were never fully
compensated, I think, for that either, right?
Mr. Bonner. I think you are right. And I think there was
damage that we were not compensated for.
Mr. Culberson. Massive damage. So in addition to not fully
funding the vision for space exploration, which--and I think
Scott, if you give me--this is the same chart that Sean O'Keefe
did.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure you all get a copy of
this. This is essentially a sand chart that I know Sean O'Keefe
prepared at the time the vision first was laid out that showed
what was necessary in order to maintain not only the vision for
space exploration, but to keep the american space program on
the cutting edge for the world. And the, again, lack of full
funding, loss of the Columbia, and the hurricane damage put you
seriously behind the eight ball.
Now we move into the Obama administration and we are
entering this new era, an age of austerity unlike anything we
have ever experienced before. And Chairman Wolf has quite
properly, and I admire him and support him strongly in his
focus on the urgent need to reform our entitlement programs to
deal with the urgent threat caused by the national debt, and
the deficit.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified,
when asked by the Senate, what is the greatest threat to the
United States' long-term strategic security, he says the
national debt.
So you have got all these difficulties you are going to
deal with and we are going to do our very, very best to help
you, sir, and the request that you have made. And the President
has asked to freeze NASA. You have not reached the authorized
level of funding in the authorization bill.
CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND THE AUTHORIZATION
One thing I know that we could do right out of the gate to
help you would be to clarify immediately the conflict between
the CR that we are under, which is the one passed under--when
we were here all together under Chairman Mollohan, which says
that you shall build Constellation, as I recall, essentially
statutory language to that effect, right, or am I just--it's a
prohibitive determination of Constellation.
And while we are under these CRs it is a continuation of
that essentially statutory, it is in the statute, I think,
requirement the--and then you have got the authorization bill
which says build a heavy-lift rocket and a manned capsule.
One thing I hope we can do to one of these short-term CRs
we are dealing with is get you some immediate clarification on
what that would be--that would be helpful, wouldn't it?
General Bolden. That would be very helpful----
Mr. Culberson. That would be a big help.
General Bolden [continuing]. Congressman.
Mr. Culberson. And the work that you are doing on--I swear
I will try to wrap this up. You guys are very gracious.
Mr. Wolf. Take your time.
Mr. Culberson. You are very kind. And we are all going in
the same direction on this, guys.
Mr. Honda. Probably.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Mr. Honda wants to clarify that. I do
not want to get him in trouble with his folks back home. But we
are all arm-in-arm in supporting NASA.
So if we get you some clarification on that right away so
that you can comply with the authorization bill which says that
you are to build a heavy-lift rocket, a manned capsule, and
test it, right, is essentially----
General Bolden. The Authorization Act does not require me
to test. And I will take it for the record, but that is the
first I have heard that the authorization bill required me to
fly a test flight on a Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle. It stands to
reason----
Mr. Culberson. Well, sure.
General Bolden [continuing]. That is what we would want to
do, but I am trying to be very----
Mr. Culberson. I understand.
General Bolden. I will take it for the record, and we will
come back and let you know if there is a requirement for me to
fly a test flight, that adds more money. To go to the
chairman's point, my hope is that I will be allowed to develop
a heavy-lift launch system and an MPCV and then make the
decision as to whether we need to fly a test flight or what.
Otherwise, you have added another cost on top of what is
already difficult.
test flight of space launch system (sls)
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 does not require NASA to perform
a test flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) prior to flying crew on
the launch vehicle. NASA is still in the early stages of formulating
the SLS program and as part of that process will determine the
appropriate ground and flight tests to perform to validate the systems
performance. The tests will depend on the architecture and systems
selected for the SLS.
Mr. Culberson. Well, if it is not a statutory requirement,
I know that when the bill was written, because we all
participated in that and discussed it, that it would be common
sense that you are not going to put human beings on a rocket
without testing it.
General Bolden. Sir, it is----
Mr. Culberson. You all are going to do it.
General Bolden. We did not fly a test flight on the
Shuttle.
Mr. Culberson. That is true. I remember reading about----
General Bolden. Sometimes you have to accept risk. What I
have tried to tell everybody is the Nation is averse to risk.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah.
General Bolden. The American public, going back to what
Congressman Fattah said, it is incumbent upon me as the NASA
Administrator to help the American public understand risk, and
that if we want to remain the greatest Nation in the world and
the technological leader in the world, then we have to do some
things differently than we have done before, and that means we
have to accept risk, which means we----
Mr. Culberson. That is true.
General Bolden [continuing]. Have to think like we thought
when we launched the first Shuttle.
General Bolden. Challenger changed everything. We would
have never flown STS-1 again after Challenger.
Mr. Culberson. Right. I remember a visit with John Young
and he said--I remember him telling me that. But to also drive
home a point that you just made, I remember President Bush
saying on many, many occasions America has become risk averse.
And it is----
General Bolden. But that is the Nation. That is NASA.
COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT
Mr. Culberson. I understand. Let me pass the microphone on
to my colleagues by asking about the amount of money that we
are spending on commercial which all of us, and certainly I as
a free market Jeffersonian conservative, support the idea of
the commercial sector getting us to low earth orbit.
What percentage of the cost, for example, as envisioned by
the budget request and the direction that the President is
asking you to go, what percentage of the cost of a typical
commercial flight will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, 50
percent, 60 percent?
General Bolden. When we get to commercial crew or now
presently under the COTS Program or----
Mr. Fattah. When we get to commercial crew.
General Bolden. When we get to commercial crew, I will have
to again----
Mr. Culberson. Ballpark, just ballpark.
General Bolden. I cannot give you a ballpark figure because
we have not gotten to the point where I will be this spring
when I have a formalized acquisition strategy performed.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. And then we can give you that answer.
General Bolden. Today I do not know that.
Mr. Culberson. I will follow-up on this in my second round,
but I am deeply concerned at the dramatic increase in the level
of funding for commercial spaceflight, I mean, from 39 to 612
is authorized and you got $850 million in this year's request,
yet you just told the chairman and just reiterated that you
cannot even afford a test flight and you do not even know if
you have got enough to even sustain a heavy-lift rocket. So it
is a real source of concern.
And, also, secondly, the President I understand is going to
make a request, make an announcement sometime in Florida that I
understand is--he is going to announce that they are going to
try to move all the manned spaceflight preparation for
commercial to Kennedy when all of that infrastructure exists in
the Johnson Space Center, along with all the expertise.
General Bolden. I think there is a misunderstanding of the
commercial crew program office at the Kennedy Space Center and
where we train astronauts. That will not change. Astronauts
will still live, train, work in Houston, go to wherever the
vehicles happen to be, whether it is Vandenberg Air Force Base
or Cape Canaveral or the Kennedy Space Center.
General Bolden. That is the way we have always done it.
Mr. Culberson. The last question on this. You will just--
when the rocket lifts off the pad, the commercial will take
over from--you will have the same structure you have today and
that is all the training, all the everything before they lift
off will be done at Johnson Space Center where we have got the
expertise and the infrastructure, but the minute they lift off
the pad, they are under the control of Kennedy?
General Bolden. That has not been determined yet, Mr.
Culberson. What I have asked the folks in the astronaut office
and flight crew operations is to give me an operational
concept: How do we want to do this. If I do it like the
airlines, they send a pilot off and he or she goes somewhere
and trains. The first time they fly an airplane, there are
passengers in the back seat. I could do that or I could do my
own training which is what I would prefer to do, but it may be
more economical for me to allow the contractor to take my
astronauts to their facility to train. That has not been
decided yet. That is a part of the operational concept
development and we are probably a year or so away from doing
Mr. Culberson. Well, I know we would encourage you to take
advantage of the resources, the assets, the strategies. You
know, you have got all the talent, the expertise, and the
infrastructure at Johnson and we need to take full advantage of
that, particularly in an age of austerity when there is no
money. And we love you and we want to help you, so please do
not----
Mr. Bonner. Will the gentleman yield for one question?
Mr. Bonner. Is Johnson in Arkansas?
Mr. Culberson. I deserved that. I deserved that.
Mr. Fattah. I think we just heard an argument for
government focused efforts versus the private sector from a
conservative Jeffersonian Republican.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your consideration of
the time and allowing us to take the time. I think that that is
a nice break from the past.
Administrator Bolden, being a Marine, I know that risk is
not something you worry about. I mean, just being a Marine
Corps person.
General Bolden. I do worry about it.
Mr. Honda. Yeah. So I think in terms of training in outer
space and astronaut training since you have done that, you
know, I have greater confidence that, you know, you have
control and oversight on that because I like to fly with pilots
who are experienced. You know, getting off is important, but
coming back down safely is important, too, so----
General Bolden. I agree.
IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING CUTS PROPOSED BY THE HOUSE
Mr. Honda. And there has been a lot of questions around how
we spend our money. It seems to me that you have been seeking
ways to create synergy and make the dollar go further and still
accomplish the mission.
I was going to ask you a question about the robotic
precursors, the tension between technology and heavy-lift,
human spaceflight interests, the space technology, NASA
scientists versus outside grants. And I think that a lot of the
stuff I will come back to later because the question had
occurred to me as we were talking about more money, less money,
and things like that.
We have spent almost 90 hours on looking at our CR in the
past few weeks. And I want to ask a question about a near-term
question. What would happen to the completion of the Space
Shuttle manifest and the long-term need and to the Space Launch
System and the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle development schedules
if H.R. 1, the continuing resolution, is enacted and how would
this impact other NASA activities? What would happen?
General Bolden. Congressman, we have not evaluated our
operations against H.R. 1 because it is something that passed
the House and still has to be determined. But we feel that we
can fly STS-135 under the budget scenarios that we looked at
which is the Continuing Resolution, the way we are operating
right now, and I am confident that we will be able to fly STS-
Mr. Honda. Based on your responses to previous questions
then, my sense is that you are at the very bare minimum in
terms of trying to get the best bang out of the bucks and
trying to make everything work and meet some of the objectives
that we have put out and the President has put out.
And my sense is that if we enact a $60 billion, $100
billion cut again, that that would negatively impact all the
things that you have done and accomplished up to now in terms
of planning and moving the NASA program forward.
Would that be an accurate statement?
General Bolden. Congressman, that is an accurate statement
because we are working now to remain with the elements of the
2010 Authorization Act, signed by the President in November. I
promise you that I will not exceed the budget, and I will do
whatever I can not to do that. I have also told you that my
number one priority is safety of my crews whether it is as we
safely fly out the Shuttle or whether it is safety of the crews
on the International Space Station. That is a triangle. If the
budget comes down, that triangle gets smaller, and I am not
going to jeopardize safety of the crew, so naturally something
would have to give. But that is not something that I am
anticipating. I am hoping, as I mentioned yesterday in my
testimony, that reasonable people can agree to disagree, but
come to what is best for the country.
Mr. Honda. And that is, I guess, our role as policymakers,
but taking into consideration the advice of our experts, that
we should take that into consideration heavily before we make
any fiscal decisions again.
General Bolden. Congressman, I would agree very strongly
with that. If I lose money for construction of facilities or
operations and maintenance, then the natural fallout is that
either I have got to lay people off or I have got to close
facilities. I do not want to have to deal with that. I would
plead with everyone as I have done in my visits with many of
the Members of this committee prior to the hearing to just be
cognizant of the fact that there are positions you can put us
in where the only alternative is to lay off more people or to
close facilities. That is not a decision that I have even
Mr. Honda. And so we have discussed a variety of scenarios
in terms of partnerships, international partnerships, level of
trust. The International Space Station, you have been there.
General Bolden. No, sir, I have not. I wish I had. I am an
old guy.
Mr. Honda. Okay. So have you had interactions with folks
who had gone to the International Space Station?
General Bolden. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Honda. Have you had relationships with those astronauts
from the other countries?
Mr. Honda. Has those interactions and the cooperation, has
that been positive and has there been learning on all sides
where the contributions towards spaceflight knowledge has been
positive?
General Bolden. Congressman, I have not served on the
International Space Station, but when you ask that question, my
last flight in 1994, I was the commander of the first mission
to involve a Russian cosmonaut as a member of the crew, and on
the day that I was told that I was going to be made that
assignment, I was the assistant deputy administrator here at
NASA, and I told them to find somebody else. I had no interest
in flying with any Russian because as a Marine, I trained all
my life to kill them and I thought they had done the same for
me. A wiser person at the time said, ``calm down.'' At least
meet them, have dinner with them, and find out whether you
really believe that, and I had dinner with two cosmonauts,
Sergei Krikalev and Vladimir Titov. Vladimir was a veteran
cosmonaut fighter pilot and Sergei was an incredibly talented
engineer. That night we talked about families and kids and
stuff like that, and I said, ``this is going to be good.''
Mr. Honda. Uh-huh. Have you had experiences with other
countries that had astronauts up at the Space Station?
General Bolden. I have probably dealt with maybe not every
astronaut who has been aboard the International Space Station,
but most of them in different form and they all--if they sat
here before you today, they would engage you in the same
conversation I have had with the Chairman every once in a
Mr. Honda. Sure. How about China?
General Bolden. I have had dealings with the Chinese.
Mr. Honda. Reaction?
General Bolden. Sir, you know, my job is running NASA and I
am intending to do that to the utmost. My focus right now is on
the crew that I have on orbit and I want to make sure they stay
safe. I am going to do that.
It is for the President and the Congress to decide what our
relationship is with other countries. The President is one who
believes in international engagement and so when you tell me
and the President tells me what to do, when the President signs
his name, I am going to do that.
Right now I do not deal in ``what ifs.'' I am concerned to
keep my crew safe, make sure that they are safe for the
duration of the International Space Station, and I think I can
do that. I believe with my heart that we can do what you have
asked me to do.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate your depth of
response and I believe that working together on common projects
like the International Space Shuttle where people from
different backgrounds and have different histories have a
chance to work together find that the project and the goals
sort of become the important thing and our history fades, you
know, in the past and we create new futures and new
expectations. And scientists, teachers are probably the ones
that are the cutting edge with our young people.
General Bolden. Exactly.
Mr. Honda. Us politicians are probably the ones that have
the hardest time letting go. I know I am one of them. But I
just wanted to say for the record that I believe you when you
say that we have a system right now that is tightly knit and
set up so that we get the best bang for our bucks. And the kind
of cuts that we are looking at right now only drive us
backwards and become less efficient and fall further behind on
our goals.
And on the national debt, the debt is a result of the way
we take care of our fiscal picture and so, you know, if we do
not do that right, some things we have to make an investment
for the future. And I think at times, we are our own worst
enemies in many ways. And the history has proved that out.
So with your experience and your background, I take your
judgment and your plans and your admonitions seriously. And I
do appreciate that and I appreciate your service to this
country, a man who has proven himself both as a military
person, as a civilian, and as an administrator for NASA which
is, you know, aeronautics is a big word in NASA. I do not want
to see that leave. I do not want to see the Administration
leave either, but you have provided the best direction that I
have seen in the ten years I have been here and knitting the
things together and being diplomatic to folks like myself in
your responses. So I just want to say thank you for your
service and your work.
General Bolden. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Dicks.
SHUTTLE DISPLAY SITES
Mr. Dicks. I deeply appreciate my good friend from Alabama
returning the favor.
Mr. Bolden, you and I have had several discussions over the
phone on the future, what is going to happen to the Discovery,
Endeavour, and Atlantis when they end their service. And we
know that the Enterprise is at the Smithsonian. I used to chair
the Interior Appropriations Committee. I have a very strong
feeling for the Smithsonian.
But we also have a great place out in the State of
Washington at the Museum of Flight which is run by Bonnie
Dunbar, a former astronaut. And the museum is the largest
nongovernmental, nonprofit air and space museum in the country,
hosting 450,000 visitors a year. The museum serves more than
120,000 K-through-12 students each year and has 22 programs
that are aligned with state and academic standards. The museum
is fully accredited by the American Association of Museums. And
their geographic consideration is supposed to be taken into
I also urge the White House to take into account the
geographic diversity in selecting Shuttle display sites. The
western United States I hope will not be overlooked. And you
know, of course, about the Boeing Company out there, and the
northwest is home to more than 25 astronauts. Two Washington
State astronauts, Commander Dick Scobee and Colonel Mike
Anderson, gave their lives in service to their country.
And I would just like you to give us an update on where we
stand on this, what is going to happen to these shuttles and it
is very important to our State.
General Bolden. I would be very glad to, sir. There is an
ongoing process. It has actually been underway since before I
became the Administrator, and I kind of tweaked it when I came
in, a process by which I have a team that is evaluating the 29
requests that came in to get an orbiter. I have asked that team
to bring that to a head, to a focus so that I can announce a
decision on the 30th anniversary of the flight of STS-1,
Columbia.
Mr. Dicks. When is that?
General Bolden. April 12th.
Mr. Dicks. Coming right up here.
General Bolden. Coming right up, sir. The chairman is
smiling. I hope that is good.
Mr. Dicks. So are we still operating under the criteria
that the recipient has to come up with, like, $26 million? Is
that still----
General Bolden. That is correct, sir. I should explain the
funding required to get an orbiter was arrived at by looking at
how much it costs NASA to perform the safety on the vehicle.
There are a lot of volatile components in the Shuttle, a lot of
dangerous components. We have to remove main engines, put
simulated main engines on, remove the Orbital Maneuvering
System engines, put simulated engines on, and all of that means
that NASA has to produce replicas of real things, and that
costs money. So when I asked what it was, it is about $28
million or somewhere in that neighborhood, so that is including
the cost of transportation. So I think if I am not mistaken, it
is in the neighborhood of $10, $11 million for transportation
and then the rest for preparation of the vehicle.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Mr. Administrator, Alabama has already given
our friends from Washington State a big gift last week, so I do
not know if we are on that 29 list of cities or states, but I
would just say probably for Ohio and for Kansas and for
Pennsylvania and Arkansas and Texas and all of the others, we
just want to make sure that decision is fair.
General Bolden. That decision will be fair, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Administrator, if the gentleman would
yield, I think the fairest way to do this would be any State
that does not already have a NASA facility of any kind might
be, like, at the first cut on these lists.
Mr. Bonner. I was hoping we would go in alphabetical order,
but regardless----
Mr. Fattah. I am trying to build public support for space
funding, you know.
NASA OVERALL MISSION AND VISION
Mr. Bonner. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I have
got a few questions I would like to get in the record for the
Administrator. He was generous enough to visit our office the
other day and I appreciated that visit so much.
Appreciate as everyone does your patriotic example for the
rest of us, young and old alike. You are truly an American hero
and we are grateful that you are serving your country again at
this important time at NASA.
We talked earlier. We had a chance to visit briefly about
NASA's overall mission and vision. And I confided that some of
us are getting of age where we remember all sitting around the
TV set in our living room and everyone gathering with great
interest in what NASA was doing and whether it was the moon or
the early days of Shuttle.
I think we are in the Ag hearing room. I have been in this
hearing room, but it looks like from the pictures on the wall
that that is where we are.
And one of my requests has been frequently with your
predecessors as well back when I was on the Science Space
Subcommittee of the Science Committee was we need to make sure
that the American people understand what NASA's mission is
today, what NASA's relationship to food safety or to medicine
or to chemical breakthrough or the other wonderful things that
NASA has played a role in in terms of science and healthcare.
We need to make sure that the citizens of this country, the
taxpayers of this country, and the people who have a soft spot
in their heart for NASA that they understand what NASA 2011 is
doing as opposed to NASA in the 1960s or 1970s.
So just two questions and the others will be in the record.
But the first one is, could you restate, and forgive me if you
did it in your opening testimony, what in your view is NASA's
core mission today? Does that differ from your goals for NASA
as it relates to the Administrator or from your perception of
what the President and those in Congress who support NASA might
be?
General Bolden. Congressman, I believe NASA's core mission
is unchanged since the 1958 Space Act, and that is to enable
the Nation to reach beyond the bounds of Earth into deep space,
so that we understand more about our planet and that we can
make life better for people here on Earth.
As you and I talked about your concern for Red Tide and
other kinds of things, and I mentioned the fact that in our
Earth science programs, while we go to space to look back and
learn things about our planet. We are on the International
Space Station now, and some of the experiments that are ongoing
that you and I did not have an opportunity to talk about, we
are doing plant growth experiments that will greatly improve
our ability to produce food for people here on Earth in places
that right now it is very difficult to do that.
We sponsor with the Agency for International Development a
program that is called Servir. It is located in three countries
around the world. The first one was in Panama, second in
Nairobi, Kenya, the third I opened in October in Kathmandu,
Nepal. These take Earth science data from a 30-year archive and
put it together with current Earth science data and help people
in those three regions of the world do what NASA does for
people here in the United States. It helps with crop planting,
developing flood and drought models, and that is being done for
East Africa, for Central and South America, for eight nations
in Eurasia. That is really important. NASA does the same thing.
When I look around, you talk about water purity. We hosted
a conference at the Kennedy Space Center last fall that was
just on water purity where people were there from all over the
world, and NASA can do that.
That may not be considered to be a core mission, but
interestingly when you go back to the 1958 Space Act and you
read what it says NASA is to do, the first thing is to perform
Earth science. I mean, it is Section 102(d)(1) in the National
Space Act, and the first thing is not flying humans to space.
It is to steward the Earth, and we do that, we have found that
we do it better when we are able to put humans outside earth's
environment and help us look back so that we can interpret what
we see better.
MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Mr. Bonner. And as a follow-up to that, since there is
probably no agency in government that is more closely
identified with leadership in math and science and inspiring
young children to grow up to want to be an astronaut or to want
to be an engineer or doctor or physicist, than NASA, can you
tell us a little bit about how your budget this year delves
into the area of math and science education as it relates to
the country itself?
General Bolden. Sure. Our budget which this year is $138
million or so or proposed to be tries to focus on three levels
of education: postgraduate, collegiate, and then secondary and
primary school.
When I became the Administrator, we decided we would also
try to really focus like a laser as people say on intermediate
school, middle school. That is the summer of innovation that we
brought about which is really trying to get students and
teachers in middle school to fall in love with math and science
and technology.
I had the privilege of visiting with the Chairman. He is
big in education, and he puts his treasure into a school that
is in the region of the district, and we went there and I was
able to do something as an astronaut or former astronaut. I was
able to go with the chairman and present the kids with
something that they would not otherwise have an opportunity to
We are not the Department of Education. I do not want to be
the Department of Education, but I have incredible content. I
have incredible employees who ask me every day how we can find
a way to justify their going out to a school. Because of
restrictions that we have and how we account for their time,
they are frustrated because they know that they can help
encourage kids to become interested in math and science. And we
do that a lot.
The Marshall Space Flight Center is incredible in what they
do. They have a worldwide competition that is called a ``Moon
Buggy Competition'' and I know you know about it. We are about
to be overrun by foreign teams because they get into this
Mr. Culberson read the assessment that came from an old
friend of mine, General Mattis, who is now the commander of
U.S. Central Command. But that study was done when General
Mattis had U.S. Joint Forces Command and he is an intellectual
and a person who understands the importance of education.
What we do at our NASA center is I have the most incredible
workforce, so let's try to use it.
Mr. Bonner. I just think that as we go through this gap of
where we will not be taking Shuttle up for or will not be
taking Shuttle up and we are going to be waiting until the next
opportunity comes for us to once again be in the driver's seat
on this, knowing the challenges that we have been presented and
that then we are going to in turn present to you in terms of
squeezing that dollar farther and farther, anything you can do,
and I think this would be consistent with the chairman and
probably other members of this committee's view, is there
anything we can do to make those investments so that children
today can see a brighter future through the lenses and the
opportunities of programs like what you are talking about with
middle school?
I do not want to sacrifice the collegiate or postgraduate
or the other areas, but that is important for us, I think, to
give our children and our grandchildren what our forefathers
gave us.
But thank you again for your great service to our country.
General Bolden. Sir, thank you very much.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator, for being here. Really appreciate
the fine work you do. And as my colleagues have said, we have
just great respect and admiration for your long career and it
is a pleasure to see you again.
I want to raise a couple issues that first concerns a
decrease over the next five years in funds for planetary
science. We are awaiting the planetary science decadal results
next week. That will provide priorities from the scientific
Several of us on the committee including my colleague, Mr.
Culberson, have an interest in ensuring that the exploration of
the solar system continues to be a focus at NASA. And I know
this has been a tumultuous time. We want to make sure that
programs that provided some of NASA's greatest successes like
the Mars Exploration Program, the missions to the outer planets
continue to receive attention and support.
How do you plan to continue that tradition given the
decreases in the planetary science budget?
General Bolden. Congressman, we are anxiously awaiting the
outcome of the planetary science decadal survey as are you.
That will help us define where we go in the next two decades in
terms of planetary science.
We have a number of missions that are on the book right now
that we intend to fly. We think that they are adequately
funded, those that are far enough along, we have them well
planned, but we will be challenged to do everything that the
decadal survey asks us to do as we always are.
But, we have the Mars Science Laboratory which I know you
are very familiar with. It is scheduled to launch the end of
next year and should get to Mars in 2012. That will be an
incredible step forward because we will be able to then take
samples and analyze them on the surface of Mars.
It is a big thing for NASA. It is the largest vehicle that
we will have ever sent to another planet other than the Lunar
Lander. It is the size of a small house or a big car. And then
we have GRAIL and Juno, two other missions that are going to go
in the planetary science series that are on cost and on
schedule. So we are confident that we will be able to manage
with the budget that we have put forth.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I just want to express my continuing
support for that investment. Through some of the darkest hours
of the Manned Spaceflight Program, these planetary missions
have provided continued inspiration. The number of visits
online to view some of the images from Mars, for example, are
in the billions and it is just extraordinary.
One of the things that I think unifies us around the globe
is watching these exciting discoveries that come out of the
planetary sciences. So I want to encourage our continued
investment in that area.
COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT, CONTINUED
The budget submission has $850 million for commercial crew.
That is a bit more for commercial crew than was authorized in
the authorization bill last year, but far less than the
commercial crew funding proposed in the budget submission last
My understanding is that the current budget is designed to
get crew flying the Space Station by 2015 which would keep our
dependence on the Russians to a minimum. I know I am not alone
in here in wanting to return flying American crew on American
rockets as soon as possible.
If the Congress rejects this budget or cuts commercial crew
funding down to $500 million a year, how much longer will it be
before we can tell the Russians and their increasing fares that
we no longer need their services?
General Bolden. Congressman, any reduction in spending
means that we have to accept more risks. My idea would be that
we end up with at least two companies that have produced
vehicles that we can rely upon to get crews to Low Earth Orbit
so I have some redundancy. With less funding, it jeopardizes
the chance that I will be able to have multiple companies
providing that service so it increases the risk.
I do not think it would take away our capability of having
commercial capability to get to Low Earth Orbit, but it
increases the risk of having that capability be sustained and
reliable, if you will.
Let me correct one thing that I may have said earlier that
might be a little bit confusing.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Administrator, in addition to increasing
the risk, wouldn't it also very potentially result in an
increased delay in the sense that if you are not willing to
accept the additional risk to the crew, it may take longer to
meet the safety standards that you set if you cannot make this
investment?
General Bolden. Congressman, I do not worry about it
increasing the risk in terms of safety. What I do worry about
it doing is increasing the cost because if I have to rely on
one provider, I am now back into a monopoly and so just as I
would be with my international partner, the Russians. If there
is only one provider, that one provider sets the price and
then, I do not have anywhere to go.
That is not the cost savings that we look for in going to
commercial entities. The reason that I want to go to commercial
entities and I wanted to put a minimum of $850 million forward
is because it takes multiple candidates forward, so that it
stays competitive. You take the competition out and maybe they
will be very patriotic, but that is unlikely. So the cost will
go up.
LEVERAGING PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you something related. This
December, we saw an amazing achievement in Florida with the
successful launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9. For less than $600
million, the company designed and built a rocket and capsule,
flew them into space, returned the capsule successfully to the
Of the $600 million, only 298, less than half, came from
NASA. The rest was raised privately. So this was accomplished
for about $300 million which is a pretty amazing bargain for
NASA. And obviously that leveraging the private investment was
pretty key.
Can you talk a little bit about how much private investment
you expect to leverage in the future and what greater
capabilities that will give NASA by virtue of the fact that if
you are able to leverage private funds for certain missions,
you can devote more of NASA's resources to doing other things.
General Bolden. Congressman, you stated it better than I
could. My total investment as a partner with SpaceX and Orbital
in the COTS Program and in SpaceX's first demonstration, I am
investing less than $300 million, and we will get a capable
system that can carry cargo to orbit as opposed to anything
that I could have produced.
So it was a fixed amount based on a Space Act Agreement
that we signed with Orbital and SpaceX. That is not like a
cost-plus contract or anything where the cost varies for me. I
know how much I am going to pay. In the future, when we go to
commercial crew, once we have an acquisition strategy in place,
that will help us to decide what type of contract we will enter
into with the commercial entities, whoever they are.
Ideally, I would like to have a fixed-price contract so
that I know how much money I am going to pay up front. If I end
up paying $3 billion for one of the two carriers to go, that is
a great savings on what it now costs me to own and operate a
system that takes people back and forth to Low Earth Orbit. So
it frees up money for exploration.
The reason I am so confident that we can do what we say we
can do with the 2012 budget is because of the ability to
leverage on the partnership with commercial entities, where it
is their responsibility to go out and raise additional funds to
supplement what the government has to pay as a part of the
partnership.
Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you a little bit about NASA as a
technological agency. All of us have reaped the fruits of
NASA's technological prowess in our lifetimes. Unfortunately,
as an excellent editorial in Space News last week pointed out,
NASA's investment in space technology has shrunk from ten
percent of its budget in the 1970s to two percent today. That
is not enough for NASA to stay an agency focused on the future.
Let me just pull one of the most pointed quotes from the
editorial. ``We spend billions of dollars on launch vehicles
and capsules, but without immediate investments in space
technologies, they will have nothing to launch and no place to
go.''
Do you agree with that sentiment? How important is the
space technology research budget to NASA's mission to explore
the solar system?
General Bolden. Congressman, the space technology research
budget is vital. The reason that is a billion dollar increase
over what was in the Authorization Act is because that is
almost bare bones.
We have a technology roadmap. Congressman Fattah referred
to it earlier. We have a technology roadmap that Bobby Braun,
my chief technologist, has laid out and it is now under
evaluation by the National Research Council. We think that is
very viable. That roadmap has been in place for decades. The
reason it has been in place for decades, as you cited, the
Nation has not chosen to make that investment.
NASA took money away from space technology and technology
development every time we needed a source of funding. We are
not going to do that in the future. That is a commitment I made
to the President. That is a commitment I made to this Congress.
If we are going to be able to explore beyond Low Earth Orbit,
then we need to have certain capabilities that do not exist
today, and they will come from space technology.
DESDYNI RADAR SATELLITE
Mr. Schiff. I just have one last question I wanted to ask
you. NASA's previous budget projections had NASA's science
programs increasing, particular Earth sciences. That was
similarly an important investment in our future. But I want to
talk about one particular satellite that is delayed in the
budget proposal consistent with the recommendations of the
National Research Council's Earth science decadal.
NASA's DESDynI Radar Satellite was an essential component
of top priority tier one research and recommended for launch
this decade. This will, once launched, contribute support to
mitigation assessment response after catastrophic natural
hazards like earthquakes, volcanos, floods, fires, et cetera,
which is obviously a very important topic to my State of
California as well as my colleagues on the Gulf Coast.
Given the critical importance of these measurements to
scientists, first responders, and governors, how can NASA
ensure there is sufficient funding allocated to keep DESDynI
Radar Satellite on an appropriate development path for launch
this decade based on the phase one studies occurring in 2011
and subsequent developments in 2012? How much funding would we
need in 2012 to meet the next milestones in project development
as well as solicit support from international partners on the
mission?
General Bolden. Congressman, I will get back to you. I will
take it for the record. But if I can get a budget for 2011,
that keeps the Earth Science Program on a course to intercept
what we have said we need in 2012.
deformation, ecosystem structure and dynamics of ice (desdyni)
The more constrained fiscal environment has necessitated hard
decisions by the Agency. The DESDynI radar mission is currently in the
pre-formulation phase and has completed the Mission Concept Review. The
FY 2012 budget request provides sufficient resources to engage
potential international partners on the radar mission, and NASA will
evaluate whether contributions from partners can allow development for
launch near the end of the decade within the overall Earth Science
Division budget constraints. In addition, NASA will work to identify an
international contribution of the lidar portion of the mission.
So, when all of you ask me what is the impact of decreased
funding in 2011, we really need a definitized budget for 2011
because everything in 2012 is contingent upon what the Congress
finally appropriates for 2011. If the amount appropriated in
2011 is significantly less than where I am right now at the
2010 levels, then 2012 becomes very problematic.
DESDynI right now is back to its original projected launch
date which is after 2020. You may remember when I talked to you
when I became Administrator and we submitted the President's
2011 budget request we were really happy because it was going
to enable us to pull DESDynI, CLARREO, a couple of other Earth
science satellites forward by as much as a year or two. Now
that we are living under the 2010 Continuing Resolution and it
looks like the funding level is not going to be better than
that, then we are back to where we were when I became the NASA
Administrator and not trending well, if you will.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Austria.
Mr. Austria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Bolden, thank you for your service to our
country. Thank you for your service as Administrator to NASA
and for being here today.
I was not going to put this pin on, but after Mr. Dicks'
comments, I had to put a pin on here that says land a shuttle
in Ohio so Ohio is properly represented. We have got a million
foot exhibition area called the National Museum of the Air
Force as you are well aware of and over a million visitors in
the Midwest and we would like to see the Midwest represented.
So I had to get my two cents in on that.
But thank you for being here today.
MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS
And, General, let me ask you first, as you are probably
aware, the NASA authorization calls for the modification of
current contracts. Specifically the language I am referring to
in here, and I will read it, is, ``In order to limit NASA's
termination liability costs and support critical capabilities,
the administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or
modify existing vehicle development and associate contracts
necessary to meet the requirements.''
My question is, do you plan to continue to modify the
current launch vehicle and crew capsule contracts as directed
by the authorization bill or do you see where this scenario of
these current launch vehicle contracts would not be modified?
And I know there has been a significant investment over the
last six years in moving forward this. Is there a scenario
where that would not move forward? And I am concerned
specifically about the tens of thousands of highly skilled
positions that are involved there and closing hundreds of vital
aerospace facilities. Those are positions that you just cannot
go back and replace with that skill level.
General Bolden. Congressman, we are working under the
direction of the Authorization Act, and we are remaining within
the fundamental elements of the Authorization Act. We are still
looking at whether or not the existing contracts under the
Constellation Program for both what will become an MPCV and
what will become a Space Launch System whether existing
contracts for the rocket itself and the crew carrier can be
transitioned over to these new programs.
I may have misled some earlier. I think I led you to
believe that we were closer to this determination than we
actually are. We are relatively comfortable that the Orion
contract could be transitioned over because Orion version
whatever it is was built, was designed as a deep space
exploration vehicle.
The Constellation Ares Launch System is not as clear cut
and so we are still evaluating from two perspectives. One, the
legal standpoint and, two, the procurement regulation
standpoint. So it is left to be determined whether we can make
that transition.
If it is determined that those transitions are possible,
then my second hurdle is to determine whether it is affordable,
and that is where I am presently working with industry to help
them understand and help me determine how, if we are going to
convert those contracts, can we do it within the limits of the
existing budget, within the limits of the 2010 Authorization
Act and the President's proposed budget for 2012.
Mr. Austria. Administrator, when do you see that
determination?
General Bolden. I should be able to bring a report to the
Congress this summer. We provided the 90-day report which was
an interim report. In that report, we said we would be back to
the Congress by the summer with a determination as to whether
or not those contracts can be converted if it is affordable
and, if not, how are we going to go through a competitive
process to determine where we go. We are just not there yet.
GLENN RESEARCH CENTER AND PLUMB BROOK STATION
Mr. Austria. Administrator, let me ask you also as far as
what do you see is the future for NASA's Glenn Research Center
in Ohio and also the Plumb Brook Station. You know, they play a
very important role and where do you see the future as far as
your plan moving forward with those type of facilities?
General Bolden. I think Ray Lugo, the Director of the Glenn
Research Center, has probably met with you on a number of times
and Ray and I both agree. Glenn is postured very well under the
funding levels of 2012 budget.
One of the things that adds confusion to the mix is we
recently announced, two days ago, we announced three major
program offices, that for the SLS at Marshall Space Flight
Center, the MPCV at Houston's Johnson Space Center, and
commercial crew at the Kennedy Space Center.
There is a common misconception that where the program
office lies is where the money is spent. That is not the case.
Glenn does not have a program office for any of these programs,
but Glenn actually sees a healthy input of funds that will go
into their community for technology development and for other
programs. It is to be determined now that we have a program
office for these three major programs, they can begin to decide
what is needed to support a program and that is where the
centers will find out what their level of work is, what their
task orders are under a particular contract for a program. We
could not do that prior to actually making these program office
assignments. So that was a critical step for us as we did day
before yesterday.
DUPLICATION IN CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS
Mr. Austria. And let me, General, ask you also, we talked a
little bit earlier, I know the chairman brought it up as far as
duplication of services with different agencies, and you said
the reports that you have seen that there is no duplication as
far as climate research as far as Earth science programs,
weather research.
And I want to just get a better understanding of this, if I
can, because when you look at, you know, NASA's involvement in
weather and climate change, you have also got the Department of
Defense, for example, mainly through the Air Force Weather
Agency spends a considerable amount of resources on weather
forecasting, gathering significant intelligence on space, and
the climate global environment. And then this data is provided
to their joint warfighters, DoD, decision makers, national
agencies, and allied nations. Similarly you have got NOAA that
is spending a significant amount of resources on weather
satellites, atmosphere research, and climate change research.
I guess whose mission is this? Is it NASA's mission or is
it NOAA's mission to do this type of research and how do we go
back to the taxpayers and explain that this is efficient? You
know, what specifically are you doing different that we need a
third government agency to be involved in this type of weather
data collection or research?
General Bolden. Congressman, NASA and NOAA have had a 40-
year partnership where we handle the program management
responsibilities for their satellites. We produce them. We fly
them to orbit. We check them out and then we give them to NOAA
because NOAA establishes the technical requirements, and it
comes out of NOAA's budget, not NASA's budget.
Earth science is NASA's responsibility. The things that I
talked about earlier with Mr. Bonner about climate, drought and
flood models, crop planting and those kinds of things, that is
Earth science that falls under NASA's purview in cooperation
with other agencies of the government.
So that is why I continue to say there is no duplication in
what we do. I do a lot of program management for satellites,
but I do not pay for those satellites. They do not come out of
the NASA budget. We will produce Landsat satellites for the
U.S. Geological Survey. That will not come out of NASA's
budget. That will be reimbursable work.
When you talk about DoD, NOAA, and NASA were involved in a
partnership on something called NPOESS that was supposed to be
a global weather satellite for DoD and the civilian entities.
That has now been broken into two. But NASA had no money in
NPOESS. NASA was the provider of instruments and the satellite
for the DoD and NOAA, and that has now been broken off, and we
are still partnered with NOAA to try to produce the JPSS, the
Joint Polar Satellite System, but that is a NOAA project paid
for and budgeted in the NOAA budget.
Mr. Austria. Sure. And, you know, from where we are
sitting, we are trying to provide the best efficiencies for the
taxpayers to their dollars. And when you have three agencies
out doing this, I appreciate your explanation because it is
important that we are not duplicating services, that you are
working together, and that it makes sense from a taxpayer
standpoint that we are being efficient with their dollars by
having three agencies doing this type of research.
General Bolden. You are exactly right, and we are even
making an effort inside NASA. All this happens because
government is so stovepiped, always has been. The President has
told us, not asked us, has told us through the National Space
Policy that came out last summer that we are going to knock
down the stovepipes and agencies are going to begin to work
together. Interagency collaboration is a really, really big
part of the National Space Policy that the President released
last summer, and so we are trying to do that.
Inside NASA, we are trying to do the same thing. If you
looked at us several years ago, the science directorate, may
not even talk to the human spaceflight people because they
jealously guarded what they had. Today that is not the case.
Ed Weiler, Bill Gerstenmaier, Doug Cooke and Bobby Braun,
the chief technologist, sit together quite a bit and they
collaborate on, okay, we do not have the money we used to have
and we are not going to get the money we used to have. How do
we optimize the amount of money we are going to get so that
science, human spaceflight, and technology development can all
provide some input and get the best for the American public?
That is where we are going. That is how we based our funding or
our funding request in the 2012 budget.
Now, if you make me do things the way we have always done
them, then the 2012 budget does not stand a chance of working.
The big premise in the 2012 budget was we were going to do
things differently. We were going to rely on commercial
entities to take people and cargo to Low Earth Orbit, not NASA.
We are going to rely on technology development to define the
way that the heavy-lift launch vehicle and the crew vehicle
evolve over decades actually until we finally put humans on
Mars, at some point in the future.
The vehicle that takes humans to Mars is not going to be
the vehicle that takes humans to an asteroid in 2025 because we
will learn, we will develop new technologies at every increment
and we have to be able to do that or we are not going to get
Mr. Austria. Administrator, thank you very much. And if you
would like to wear a pin, I have got extra pins here, you are
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Austria.
Normally we would go back and forth, but Mr. Serrano was
kind enough to let us go to Mr. Yoder. Mr. Yoder was the first
person here. And two hearings ago, he never even got any time.
So I appreciate that Jose. Mr. Yoder.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SPENDING MONEY ON NASA
Mr. Yoder. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to
learn from the questions of my colleagues, so I appreciate the
opportunity to ask a few myself today.
Administrator, thanks for your service. I have been reading
your bio here during the questioning and you have a long,
lengthy history of service. And certainly I would expect your
return to work with NASA probably is not only from your deep-
seated passion for service but your belief in the mission. And
I assume it is a very exciting position for you as you can
envision where we want to take this program and the
possibilities. I just would believe that is a very exciting
place to be.
With that then, I wanted to ask you a couple questions
about, maybe some macro questions here if you can help me out
with a couple things. When we go home and visit with our
constituents and they talk about the national debt and they
talk about the overspending in Washington, and we have heard
comments this morning regarding the greatest security threat to
our country, can you help me with some points on how we justify
spending money with NASA? There ought to be something I know
you can share with us.
And beyond that, how do we justify as we deal with
competing efforts to capture resources in this city, not just
from a perspective of, well, this is why our mission is
important, but this is why it may be more important than other
things we are doing in the budget because that is really the
essence of what we need to be doing in Washington is not only
just talking about what is good about certain programs but how
we prioritize?
I have been in Washington seven or eight weeks now and I am
one of the new Members of Congress. And this is the only
experience I have been in where we can sort of spend as much
money as we want and there is really no concern over time, over
decades and decades for the bottom line.
And so we got to get away from this idea of this is why our
program is important and move towards a this is why it is more
important than other things we are doing in the budget. And do
you feel that if we have to fight for resources that money
should come out of other programs into your budget and why?
General Bolden. Congressman, first of all, I do not think
money should come out of any other programs into my budget. I
am not encroaching on anyone else. I do not want to go there.
But I would say if you want examples of things that you can
tell your constituents on what their tax dollar is going for,
let me give you two areas.
Aeronautics is one that I do not get to talk about very
often, and Glenn Research Center is key. The Boeing 787, which
I think everybody knows about the Boeing 787, if you look at it
and you look at the engines, the GE engines have a funny
looking cell on it. The back end of it is what is called a
Chevron nozzle. That was developed in the early 1990s at the
Glenn Research Center, and they just were persistent. They kept
letting industry know it was there. General Electric and Boeing
decided for the 787 that they would pick that up and use it. It
decreases pollution. It decreases noise. It increases the
efficiency on the engine.
We are working through the Ames Research Center and Langley
Research Center with the FAA on NextGen, the Next Generation
Air Transportation System. We have developed software and
programming for something that is called constant descent and
arrival. We have run tests in the Denver Airport, Continental
and United Airlines, where they have demonstrated that the cost
savings to them following the NextGen system is in terms of
millions and maybe even billions of dollars.
When I talk about these concepts that save fuel usage, for
example, my Associate Administrator of Aeronautics told me that
based on what we have seen in our tests, the amount of fuel
that would be saved in some of our new systems, if we got one
percent of that savings to industry reimbursed to NASA, it
would take care of my aeronautics budget.
So those are the kinds of things that I would, if I came to
your area, I would tell your constituents.
If I looked at Earth science, which is always questioned,
we do water monitoring in the western United States. Water is a
critical commodity. We have fought wars in that part of our
country, you know, among ourselves over water. Water is a
valuable commodity and we are doing water research for the
western United States. There is an alliance of states out there
and we are contributing to that.
So those are the kinds of things that I would offer to
constituents who said what I am getting back for my dollar to
NASA.
Mr. Yoder. Well, and I think those are helpful for a couple
good examples. I do want to suggest, though, that one of the
things we have to do in this town is decide what our priorities
are going to be and we do have to decide whether our dollar is
going to go into your program or whether it is going to go into
many of the other priorities of this government. So I encourage
you to not only pitch why.
I mean, we hear from folks every day. They come into my
office. They come into committees. This is an important value
to our country. Very few folks come and argue that it is not an
important value.
So how do we grade our dollar invested into NASA versus our
dollar invested into education or to highways or to social
services? And that is the challenge I think that we have to
engage in here. And so that is difficult and uncomfortable
because your drill is to pitch NASA.
But it is helpful to us if you can pitch it, at least to
me, if you can pitch it in a way and why and a dollar invested
here is maybe not perceived as a short-term benefit as getting,
you know, food to hungry people, but long term, the value is so
great that we cannot ignore the mission.
So we have got to be able to--because I think it is an
incredible mission and the mission statement, you know, reach
for new heights and the unknowns so that what we do and learn
will benefit all mankind. That is a pretty all encompassing
statement. That covers a lot of ground benefitting all
humankind. And so we need those tools, or I do at least, to be
able to pitch how we are doing that.
NASA'S LONG TERM GOALS
And I guess my second question would be, again on the
macro, what is the vision? We have talked a lot about specific
things we are doing in the 2012 and you mentioned 2025 being
able to go to an asteroid a second ago. What is the 50-year,
100-year vision? I know that is really hard to do, but I assume
when you get up in the morning, one of the passions is seeing
where this could go.
And recently, in recent years we have seen new satellite or
I guess new data related to planets and other solar systems.
You know, I cannot speak for the rest of the committee. When I
grew up, you know, we talked about the planets in our own solar
system and tried to learn, you know, the ordering and all those
things. But now it is so broad.
And how expansive does this get and where do you see things
going in 50 years?
General Bolden. Congressman, space is the ultimate high
ground. If I go to where Mr. Culberson is, I am not interested
in controlling that high ground, but I want to be there so that
whoever is there with me is there as a partner or at least I
can keep them from doing something untoward.
If I have the capability of putting humans on another
planet, if I have the capability of putting humans on Mars, I
can look even deeper into our solar system and even beyond. To
some people, they say, okay, but that does not feed little
kids. It does. Everything we do in order to reach these new
heights brings about some technology that we did not have
yesterday.
I love to give people the example of something very simple.
An emergency medical ambulance, an EMT and an ambulance that
goes to Anacostia to get a gunshot victim, if you will, if you
want to be stereotypical, which I hate, but that is what you
see on the news. That gunshot victim gets, one little patch put
on his or her chest that has no wires to it. By the time that
gunshot victim gets into whatever hospital they take him, the
doctors have all the vital signs. They know what kind of
condition they are in. They know where to put him in triage and
they can save a life.
The same thing on the battlefield. Because of things we
have done to go to the Moon, we are able to save soldiers,
marines, coast guardsmen and sailors because we have
technologies that were developed for other reasons, but they
come back to Earth.
That is what we mean when we say we reach for the unknown.
We do not have a clue what we are going to find when we
explore. If we did, it is not exploring. We could decide, okay,
there is no value there, I am not going there. We are not that
smart yet. So we explore, and every time we explore, we
discover something that we did not have a clue.
When I took my flight on STS-60, I discovered a lot about
me as a human being with other people. That is why we do it.
Mr. Yoder. Yeah. I can see your passion for it and I
appreciate it. And I think it is one of those things that
inspires Americans to great heights and it is more than just
being a consumer-driven society where we consume products on
this planet. It is about finding our ultimate destiny.
And so it is pretty amazing and I appreciate the fact that
you are leading that effort. And thanks for sharing your vision
in doing that.
I want to ask you some micro questions now, just a few
things that in reading some of the materials. We had the
inspector general in some weeks ago and I was just reading
through his report. And I am sure you have seen it. I just want
to get some of your response to these things so we know how
these things are being resolved.
There was an issue, and one of the things we are trying to
figure out in Washington in saving money is, is there unneeded
property or unneeded land, buildings, things that we could
sell, I think the President even spoke about this in the last
few days, that we could sell to try to save the country money.
And I noted here that it says NASA is the ninth largest
Federal Government property holder, controlling a network of
5,400 buildings and structures, that the 2008 management plan
shows that 10 to 50 percent, that is a pretty big range, 10 to
50 percent and 30 to 60 percent, 10 to 50 percent of warehouses
and 30 to 60 percent of laboratories are underutilized. And it
says that there is agency-wide deferred maintenance.
And I guess I would ask you just to comment on that. And
are there things we can do to consolidate?
I was in the state legislative process and appropriations
process there and we found if we do a little auditing, we could
take agencies that had multiple buildings and convince them
that they could operate things under less buildings, save
money, even though it was uncomfortable for the agency to do
Are there some uncomfortable things that we are avoiding
here? How do you resolve this?
General Bolden. Sir, because of our system of government,
there are always uncomfortable things that we avoid. However,
we have a facilities master plan that is being developed where
we are looking across the agency at all of our infrastructure
and trying to determine what is excess, what is underutilized.
We are trying to look for partnerships within industry. We are
looking for partnerships with other agencies so that we get the
best of the facilities available and optimize their use.
We have the first iteration of that facilities master plan
that has been completed, but it is work ongoing. And it will go
on forever probably. We will never be ideally sized, but we
keep working on it.
Mr. Yoder. Well, do you think there are some buildings that
can be sold in order to try to save money in order to fund some
of these larger destiny functions we are trying to focus on so
we are not wasting money?
General Bolden. I am hoping that when the facilities master
plan is completed, the first iteration of it, that I will know
whether there are some facilities that can be closed.
We have already taken one step, one small step. We had an
ARC Jet Facility at the Ames Research Center and an ARC Jet
Facility at the Johnson Space Center. An ARC Jet Facility for
somebody who may not know generates a lot of heat. So, if we
want to evaluate the effect of a hole on a tile on the Space
Shuttle, we put in an ARC Jet Facility and simulate what it is
going to be like during reentry, and we have had to use that in
the last few years.
We felt we did not need two ARC Jet Facilities. So we went
in and did a study and we determined that, yes, that is true.
So, I have directed that we close down the ARC Jet Facility at
the Johnson Space Center, transfer those capabilities or those
assets to the Ames Research Center out in Mountain View,
California so NASA will have one ARC Jet Facility. That is an
example.
Mr. Yoder. I appreciate that example. And for me, it shows
me that you are interested in trying to find savings within the
agency. And so I would encourage you to do things like that as
I consider how I would vote on measures and where we would
prioritize things.
I want to spend money with agencies that are being very
efficient with the resources we are already giving them and
reward good behavior and good efficiency and not reward folks
who are not.
So as you go down that road, I think if you can find ways
to show Congress that you are finding savings internally and
becoming more efficient because I know you do not want to waste
dollars either, you want folks on mission.
COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES
And then, finally, and I appreciate the chairman's
indulgence to have some time this morning, the final question I
had for you is something that I see a lot of reports we get and
it is something that is really hard to explain back home.
It is very frustrating, in fact, when we talk to folks at
home about government spending. They assume that there is a lot
of bureaucratic waste, that there is a lot of abuse, that there
is a lot of opportunity for overruns and expenses.
And one of the things I noted in the inspector general's
report, it says that NASA has historically struggled with
establishing realistic cost and schedule estimates for its
science and space exploration projects. And it shows an example
of the Webb telescope. And it says that its estimated cost of
$1.6 billion scheduled for launch in August of this year. The
plan launch date is now June 2014. The estimated cost has
exceeded now $5 billion.
And the independent review of the program released in
November 2010 cited problems with budgeting and program
management rather than technical performance. And that sounds
like a management failure from our own people in terms of how
we are managing these programs.
And so I would ask you just first are you concerned about
that reputation?
General Bolden. Sometimes I think there is a conspiracy to
make me continually say how angry I was when I found out about
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). And I will repeat that:
nobody was as angry as I was. However, that is, I cannot do
anything about where we were when I found it.
Mr. Yoder. Absolutely.
General Bolden. However you are absolutely right, and when
we discovered the condition that JWST was in from a budget
standpoint and a management standpoint we made some changes in
the management structure. Not only did NASA make changes in the
management but we got together with our prime contractor and
they made changes in their management. Because it was agreed
there were problems on both sides.
We are doing a bottoms up review right now. James Webb was
baselined just before NASA turned to something that we now call
Joint Confidence Level (JCL) process, where we take a look, we
have independent assessments on our cost and schedule. GRAIL
and Juno are two satellites that we talked about a little bit
earlier. GRAIL and Juno are coming in on cost and on schedule
because they were subjected to the JCL process, where we had
independent assessments as to what our real cost is going to
We have a habit in NASA of falling in love with our plan
and our estimate. We are finding that the worst person to ask
that is the principal investigator or the program manager, and
so we now go outside and we get independent assessments. I am
confident that we are going to find that our track record on
cost and schedule containment is going to rapidly improve as we
see more and more projects fall under the JCL.
Mr. Yoder. Well I appreciate your focus on that. And
certainly as we continue dialogue over the years and your
service continues I hope that when we have a chance to do this
again you will see good progress in this area. And it is just
so frustrating to read things like this and try to explain
those back home. And when an article comes out, you know, it
appears that Congress is not doing its job on oversight. And so
it is one of those things that I think really challenges the
trust that this country has in that its tax dollars are being
spent wisely. It makes----
General Bolden. If I can ask your indulgence for one,
thirty seconds, what I do need for people to understand is the
critical importance of the James Webb Space Telescope. I do not
want to leave anyone with the impression that it is a bad
project. It is, as all the independent assessments have said,
technically it is very sound. We are taking actions now to
contain cost and schedule so that we can launch James Webb. The
promise that it has for the world, not just the nation, is
absolutely incredible.
If you look at what Hubble has done in terms of
publications, changing textbooks, everything, the curve went
like this. We project that JWST will just jerk it to the
inside. It is going to be ten hundred times better than Hubble.
Mr. Yoder. Well and I, that is all good, and I appreciate
that, and I am glad that project is moving forward. But the
concern related to the actual management of our own people and
our effect on causing things to be mismanaged and therefore
costs raised, it is tough to explain outside of this building.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I understand.
Mr. Yoder. So keep doing, keep working hard on that. And
your efforts to improve quality and management of the dollars
we are giving is so critical to reinforcing support for your
agency. And I appreciate your comments. And Chairman, I
appreciate the time this morning.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late, but like so many members I was at another hearing. Where
I will just say that the EPA Administrator was not being
treated with the same kind of respect----
General Bolden. She is a regulator.
SHUTTLE TRANSITION
Mr. Serrano. Exactly. Besides NASA, like NOAA, have a
reputation of being agencies that people like and are excited
about. And notwithstanding budget cuts and the needs for
balancing budgets, we know the importance.
Let me ask you a question. With the cancellation of the
space shuttle program there will be folks unemployed, there
will be folks moved to other areas, will those folks be
absorbed? And Mr. Chairman, a reminder of something you and I,
you know well because I have asked this question over the
years. But one of our country's best kept great secrets is the
fact that every time one of our space flights go up, you know,
there are a lot of folks on the ground who are recruited from
the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. And I single out
Mayaguez because that is where I was born. You know, I have got
to do a little shout out. So it is a two-pronged question. What
happens to the folks that are there now? And secondly, what
happens to that great recruiting program that you have had
there for so many years which has really made an impact on how
those folks view the federal government, NASA, their role
within the United States. When you live within a territory, and
I do not want to get into that issue, sometimes I think you
ask, you know, where am I? Well the folks you recruited out of
Mayaguez have always known where they are, and their families
know where they are and what role they play in the greater good
of our country. So what happens to folks in general? What
happens going forward to the recruitment program?
General Bolden. Congressman, the best news story on the
shuttle is it was not cancelled. It was a close-out that was an
orderly close-out that began in 2004 after the Columbia
accident, the President decided that we should phase the
shuttle out and move on to a next generation to access to
space. So, we have had a very rigid transition program in place
for people to move from the space shuttle program into newer
programs, or other programs.
When you talk about young people from Puerto Rico I have
had the privilege of meeting many of them. A lot of them come
to the Goddard Space Flight Center. So, they are still as
excited as they ever have been because a lot of them are in the
Earth science arena. A lot are in our science and technology
arena. Some of them are working for Dr. Bobby Braun.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
General Bolden. So they, they would push me to go faster
than I am going in the development of commercial crew for
access. They would push me to go faster than we are going in
exploration, human exploration, but they are patient because
they recognize that we are limited by budget. But they are
General Bolden. Every time I meet them I have always asked
them, why do I have so many young people from Puerto Rico here
in this place? They said, ``because we want to explore.''
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM)
Mr. Serrano. It is interesting how sometimes recruitment,
it reminds me of something Mr. Fattah and I have discussed on a
totally different subject but one of my favorite subjects,
baseball. There was a camp in Puerto Rico once, and some kid
got up, this is the truth, thirty years ago. And said, ``What
is the quickest way to the major leagues?'' And the coach says,
``Do not ask that silly question.'' And the American, the scout
from the States said, ``Catching. Nobody wants to catch.'' And
then you have got Posada, and Pudge Rodriguez, and Benito
Santiago, and it was on, and on, and on. And everybody became a
catcher.
In the States and in the territories NASA does a wonderful
job in STEM education. And it is so important. I have seen it
in the schools in the South Bronx, I have seen it in other
areas, it is just wonderful. Not only the educational programs
but the visits also from NASA are always so important to our
community. With budget cuts in that area already seen, what is
the future of those programs? What is the future of that
involvement? Because it is really key. And I have been
listening to Presidents, and Governors, and Speakers for 37
years of public life making statements at the beginning of the
year. I have never heard a speech where one piece stuck to me
so much as when the President said this year we need to
continue to be innovative. We need to continue to invent.
Americans do that well. And we know that NASA has played a
major role in that. Where do you see that going?
General Bolden. Congressman, I see us continuing to be as
energetic about education as we always have been. And you know,
the President makes an incredible point that the nation that
out-educates wins. If you do not do that then you become
second, third, fourth. I listened to something this morning, I
think we are fifteenth in reading, seventeenth in science, and
twenty-fifth in math. You know, not many of us would stand for
our local baseball team being at that category, and yet we are
willing to let our kids fall to those levels. NASA will
continue to do what we do.
I cannot say enough about my employees. We are so good in
education because they give of their time and their talent, and
they do not get paid for it. We are the biggest supporter of
the FIRST Robotics program in the nation. No one does as much
for FIRST Robotics as does NASA. We have, I will get the number
wrong, but it is probably three hundred and some odd teams
around the country. This is international competition. I
mentioned the Marshall Space Flight Center sponsoring the World
International Dune Buggy Competition. These are things that
employees do out of their own pockets.
So we have budgeted to a level that we believe will help
sustain the President's Educate to Innovate program, will help
in the Race to the Top, will help in the First Lady's program
of education. Everything that we know we need to do for
education NASA is going, we are going to be able to support
NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS
Mr. Serrano. Let me for my last question bring you back to
the Island of Enchantment, and that is with the Arecibo
Observatory. As you know, in some cases it has almost been
scheduled to close. And then you have folks who write about
this issue who say it is a vital service, we need to continue
to make sure that we study the possibilities of foreign bodies
hitting Earth, and what that would mean at that moment or for
the future of our planet. And so there seems to be a
contradiction, whether with those folks who would want to close
it down and those folks who claim that it is not just something
you close down, it is something you grow because it is that
Obviously to the folks there, not only the actual
observatory, but the symbolism of it being there, has always
been important. What is the state of the Arecibo Observatory,
General Bolden. Congressman, at the present time Arecibo is
incredibly valuable in helping with our assessment of Near-
Earth Objects (NEOs) and threats to the planet. The future, I
cannot tell you what it will be because people who are really
serious about the threat from NEOs would tell me that our money
might be better spent if we put something in orbit around the
planet Venus and let it look back across Earth because we would
pick up more NEOs that way. WISE, which we recently finished
collecting data on found thousands of previously unknown Near
Earth Objects. So Arecibo is an important part in that network
of instruments that look for near Earth objects. So, you know,
we continue to use it.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Well thank you for your honest answer.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
COOPERATION WITH CHINA
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. We have a whole lot of
questions going. But I wanted to address the China issue that
came up. The CR that passed the House carries language that
says, ``none of the funds made available by this division may
be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, design,
plan, promulgate, implement or execute a policy, program,
order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or
coordinate in any way with China or any Chinese owned company
unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law
enacted after the date of enactment of this division.''
Some people say, ``Well, you know, what are you talking
about?'' I just want people to know what I am talking about. I
think there is an economic issue. There is a moral issue,
because man does not live by bread alone. And there is a
national defense issue.
I quoted Simon and Garfunkel, ``a man hears what he wants
to hear and disregards the rest.'' When you are getting sort of
warm feelings about China, keep in mind the People's Liberation
Army has a program that will, for $55,000, execute someone in a
prison and sell you a kidney. That is a reality. We have the
pictures, we have the facts. If you are Catholic, there are
about 30 Catholic bishops that are in jail or under house
arrest. To me that is pretty significant, but maybe some people
have different views. There are hundreds of Protestant pastors
in jail, as well as house church leaders. I went to China two
years ago before the Olympics. We had a dinner set up. Every
house church leader who was scheduled to come was arrested that
night except for one, and he was arrested the very next day,
and pummeled, and beaten.
Hu Jintao, who President Obama gave a state dinner for, is
the one who put together the program for cracking down in
Tibet. I have been to Tibet. We snuck in with a trekking crew
years ago. They have destroyed the country, they have bulldozed
the country. So as you get your warm feelings about China, keep
in mind they have the Nobel Peace Prize winner in jail, and his
wife cannot even get out of her apartment to move around town.
In addition, there are cyber attacks. The IG testified a
couple of weeks ago, and there are a number of cyber attacks
attributed to China. For the record, could you furnish how many
cyber attacks by China there have been against your computer
system?
chinese cyber attacks
NASA does not specifically associate incidents on the basis of
country of origin. Of the thousands of incidents tracked in 2010, a
much smaller number of incidents (less than 100) involved cyber attacks
specifically targeting sensitive NASA assets. Of those, roughly 15-20
included gross indicators suggesting a foreign China association.
The NASA Office of Inspector General does seek prosecutions for
general computer crimes and has worked in concert with other Federal
agencies to bring cases to the attention of the foreign governments
when they are able to be identified.
NASA is implementing enhanced cyber security processes and tools to
better identify and mitigate specific targeted cyber attacks against
the Agency. We believe these efforts will not only improve our security
posture but will assist in collaborating across government to defend
against cyber attacks.
Next there is Darfur. The President cares. The Congress has
spoken out against the genocide in Darfur. I was the first
member of Congress to go to Darfur with Sam Brownback and China
has been the number one supporter of the genocidal government
there. The Antonov bomber is funded by China. The Soviet HIND
helicopter is funded by China. The weapons that the Janjaweed
carry when they come into villages and kill the men, rape the
women, take the kids away, come from China. China has the
largest embassy in Khartoum.
I love the Chinese people. The fact is, when most of the
dissidents come into the country, they come through my office.
I personally believe that this government in China is going to
fall. I believe that what you are seeing taking place in
Tunisia, and Algeria, and Egypt has so frightened China that
they are blocking the Jasmine Revolution on the internet. They
are so spooked in China that they are blocking Ambassador
Huntsman's name from showing up. They are frightened. Because
they know they are running a dictatorial government, and they
know that the Chinese people want freedom, and love freedom,
and are going to rise up. In 1986 very few people thought that
the Berlin Wall was going to fall. Ronald Reagan did. He said,
``Tear down that wall,'' and he did certain things. I think
this government is going to fall. And I think in my lifetime we
will see freedom and democracy for the Chinese people. Then,
when we see that and the administration comes up and says,
``Let us have this exchange program with the democratic people
of China,'' I will be at the top of the list. I will say, ``Let
us get them on. Let us be involved.''
But we cannot forget the kidney program, Catholic bishops,
Protestant pastors, the plundering of Tibet, what they are
doing to the Muslims and the Uighurs. What they are doing to
the Uighurs in China is brutal. The leading Uighur dissident,
Rebiya Kadeer, who lives out in northern Virginia, her two kids
are in prison. No one says anything.
And so that is why we have this language. And I will fight
to the death for this language. We do not want these joint
programs because I know what they are doing and they are spying
against us. And so when we get all warm and fuzzy about China,
remember how in Nazi Germany during the 1936 Olympics they took
down the signs. They did not let people know the Holocaust was
taking place, and not many people wanted to speak out about it.
Bad things are happening in China now, too.
Even if we are talking about jobs, I saw in the Wall Street
Journal, that General Electric just signed a contract with the
avionics operation in China to develop an avionics program that
will put Boeing out of business in a few years. So that is why,
as long as I have breath in me, I will speak on this issue of
China. I think it is a moral issue, I think it is an economic
issue, I think it is a national security issue. And I love the
Chinese people. I am looking forward to, when the revolution
begins, getting on an airplane and flying over there and being
with them. Then China would be our friend as Germany is
currently our friend, and Japan is currently our friend, and
Russia is becoming our friend. But until we see China stopping
the spying and cyber attacks, and the crack downs, and the
torture of the Chinese people, we cannot participate. We can't
give their government that opportunity whereby they can compete
with us and do some of the things that hurt their own people.
So that is why this China issue is so important here. But,
let me get to some of the other issues on the questions.
MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE (MPCV)
The members of the contracting community who will develop
and build the launch system and the crew vehicle have told us
that the program goals are achievable within the parameters set
in the authorization. Have you looked at the data they are
using to reach this conclusion? And if so, what assumptions are
they using that differ from your own?
General Bolden. Are you talking about the Orion conversion
to MPCV? Congressman, we are actually working with the
contractors even as we speak to help determine whether or not
we can make the transition from the Orion contract to the MPCV,
and then how do we make it affordable if that can be done? So
we are working with them. Hopefully the data is the same
because that is where we get it through our program office from
the contractor. So I would hope that we are all citing the same
CONSTELLATION SPENDING UNDER THE CR
Mr. Wolf. Okay. The NASA IG issued a letter in January
stating that the provisions of the current CR are causing NASA
to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on aspects of the
Constellation program that might otherwise have been cancelled
or scaled back. Many people have interpreted this letter to
mean that NASA is wasting that money. NASA has not made the
final architecture determinations yet for the new exploration
program, so is it premature to say that any particular program
element is definitely unnecessary? Could you please state for
the record whether you agree with the characterization that the
current CR is causing NASA to waste money? Do you agree or
disagree with the IG?
General Bolden. Congressman, I disagree that we are wasting
money and I think we sent a letter to that effect. However, I
do agree with the IG that the soonest possible relief from the
restriction of terminating the Constellation program, then the
better off we would be because it causes difficulty in managing
how you control assets.
Mr. Wolf. Now there is language that is in the CR, that is
still pending, because it did not----
Mr. Culberson. Prohibition, it is cancelling Constellation.
Mr. Wolf. But does the fact that there is House-passed
language to address this not give them any flexibility at all?
Would there be, and I am just asking, a way of doing the
language in the next CR extension that could give you the
ability to do what you think is appropriate, even though it is
not a final CR? I will talk to the staff.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. Congressman, whenever the
language is changed, and I am freed up to terminate the
program, we will do so wisely and in an orderly manner. But
right now, the money that we spend under the Constellation
contracts are money that--it is the way that I directed, that
we spend money on things that are useful for future programs.
Programs that we see we will need for heavy-lift launch
vehicle, for MPCV, for technology development. If they fit that
category, then we have asked that we continue to spend the
funds on that. But not spend it on something that we know has
no use, and that is what we are trying to do to the greatest
extent possible.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, I have a number of questions on commercial
crew, which we will submit for the record. One you have covered
with regard to the $350 million requested over the authorized
level. With the requested fiscal year 2012 money, NASA expects
to fund a third round of proposals to advance potential
commercial vehicles to the preliminary design review stage.
While this is significant, it is still a long way from having a
functional vehicle that can serve as our primary transport to
the Space Station. When do you expect the first commercial
crewed flight to take place? Will this require NASA to extend
its current contracts with the Russians to provide interim
transportation? And in addition, what is it costing us per
flight with the Russians? What was the negotiated price? How
did we reach that? I think you made a very good point earlier.
If they are the only car dealer in town, you have got to buy
your car from them. And so do you expect the cost to continue
to escalate the longer it goes? Do you see any sign that they
are moving to change that? Is it a fixed contract? Can you just
sort of wrap all that into an answer?
General Bolden. Congressman, I am not at liberty to talk
about the specific dollar values because there is ongoing work
right now to finalize the agreement that would take us out to
2016 to be able to buy seats on Soyuz if necessary.
My belief, going back to your first question, the
commercial entities have told us that three years from the date
of signing a contract to produce a human, a commercial crew
vehicle, then they would have the ability to deliver. So, that
would mean if we are able to go on the schedule we are on right
now, we are talking 2015-ish before we have our first crew
vehicle. That is about four years from now, four, five years if
you go to the end of it, which is significantly less than where
we were before. I am confident we can do that, provided we get
the funds to keep a competitive process going. When I say I had
to stay within the budget, and I want to keep my crews safe,
and I want to live within the constraints, the major elements
of the Authorization Act, I looked at what I needed to do to
buy down risk on commercial crew, and that was invest some
money over the amount that was in the Authorization Act. And
that is where the $850 million estimate came from. That allows
me to keep at least two contractors in the competition when we
finally get to the end.
Mr. Wolf. I do not want you to share your cards necessarily
with regard to the Russians, but what is the cost of the first
trip?
General Bolden. Congressman the present, I think, let me
take it for the record. Because I think, I know the present
contract is in the neighborhood of $50-some-odd-billion a
flight, a seat. But that includes training, facilities----
Mr. Fattah. You mean $50 million a seat.
General Bolden. What did I say? Did I say----
Mr. Fattah. You said billion.
General Bolden. Oh, no, no, no. Not billion. I am sorry.
No, we do not, but I will take it for the record, sir. Because
we need to let you know what it is that we are paying for.
contract cost for seats on soyuz
The most recent modification to NASA's contract for Russian
services, including crew transportation and rescue using the Soyuz
spacecraft, was signed in March of 2011. The modification had a value
of $753M, and provides services through June 30, 2016. The modification
covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training
and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and crew rescue
of long-duration missions for 12 individual space station crew members.
The contract will provide for the launch of six people in calendar year
2014 and six more in 2015, as well as their return to Earth in the
spring of 2016 after a six-month stay aboard the station. This results
in an average cost of about $62.7M per seat, which also includes other
associated services and some minimal cargo on Soyuz.
Mr. Wolf. Do we have to pay luggage, like in the commercial
airlines, less for carry on?
General Bolden. No, sir. But we do, but it does, there are
costs that we have that we pay when we pay the Russians that we
would not pay a commercial entity because we would be paying
them for seats and some other services. The contract that we
have with the Russians is for an extensive amount of support--
Mr. Wolf. But what about the second and third? How does
that quite work out for the next time?
General Bolden. We are still living under the agreed upon
amount through--I need to get back to you, sir. I do not want
to give you a date. It is like 2014 or so we are under----
General Bolden [continuing]. We are under an amount that is
defined already. The contract that we are working on with the
State Department, and if we get approval, will go through 2016.
But I will get you----
Mr. Wolf. Okay, if you could have----
General Bolden. I will get you that information.
seats on soyuz
spacecraft, goes through June 2016.
Mr. Wolf. If you could have your staff----
General Bolden. But we are not, I can tell you that unless
something changes we will not be able to give you the
negotiated amount right now because the contract has not been
finalized. I am told that it is just not available.
Mr. Wolf. Is this a positive thing for the Russians, too,
though? Sometimes somebody in a business deal can become so
greedy that they are holding out, and all of a sudden the other
person walks away. Do they not also need this revenue to
continue to do certain things that they are doing, too? Is
there an equal benefit in some respects?
General Bolden. The Russians are a valuable partner, and
they have been a valuable partner throughout the life of the
International Space Station. They have provided access to Low-
Earth Orbit in the International Space Station when we had
none, after the Columbia accident. So there is great value in
remaining in this partnership, all of the partners, all five of
the major partners. When you talk about the European Space
Agency, fifteen growing to twenty-some-odd, everyone benefits
from this partnership. Everybody wants to remain a member of
the International Space Station partnership. So there is value
in it for everyone.
Mr. Wolf. Much of the flexibility in the development
schedule for commercial cargo has been eroded over the past two
years, and there is a strong likelihood that more problems and
delays will arise as work continues. Given this likelihood, how
confident are you that the remaining milestones will in fact be
completed on time? And what are your contingency plans for a
delay in the commercial resupply capability? How is this risk
reflected in your budget?
General Bolden. Congressman, the budget is good as it
stands right now. We sized that budget so that we would be able
to have available cargo delivery under the CRS system by early
2012. That does represent some delays along the way, but we are
confident that we will have cargo availability from two
carriers by early 2012.
Orbital still has to fly their first flight. But Orbital, I
must remind everyone, is a very reputable, very experienced
company. Has been around since the 1980s, 1990s, has flown 155
successful missions with satellites of all kinds. They have
flown 100 percent successful missions for NASA, in the Minotaur
vehicle which we hand to them for processing after we get it
surplus from the Department of Defense.
SpaceX has had one incredible flight when they launched
Falcon 9 and Dragon back in December. So everybody right now is
marching along at a pace that makes me comfortable that we will
have commercial capability to deliver cargo reliably to the
International Space Station in the early 2012 timeframe.
SPACE STATION SUPPORT
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Leading to the Space Station in the next
question, the decision to continue supporting the Space Station
through 2020 costs about $3 billion a year. This is money which
could otherwise be used to meet exploration goals, increase
aeronautics research, or do other important activities. If we
are going to sacrifice those opportunities in order to support
the Station, we need to be sure that we are getting our money's
worth, and that means making sure that the Station is being
fully used for its intended research purposes. What is the
current research utilization rate of NASA's share of the Space
Station? And how do you expect that rate to change as we
progress through fiscal year 2012?
General Bolden. Congressman, I would have to go back to my
opening statement and remind everybody of one thing. I think I
used the term yesterday. The Station is the new Moon. The
International Space Station is the anchor for all future
exploration on the part of not just the United States but our
international partners. So, if we lost the International Space
Station we are dead in the water. We do not have a place in
microgravity that is available for us to do the types of
research and development that we need for new capabilities that
enable an exploration program. So that is how valuable the
International Space Station is.
That was what caused me to change my mind about the size of
distribution of funds. I have to have an exploration program.
But if I do not have an International Space Station that is
crewed and supplied, and by the commercial entities. Because
that is the decision that was made, it was actually made in
2004. And I would have to say, I generally do not complain
about the past because that is water under the bridge. The
decision was made in 2004 to rely on commercial entities for
access to Low-Earth Orbit and it was ignored. There was no
money put toward it. My predecessor was, to my knowledge, was
the first to really start putting money toward a commercial
entity, but it was half-stepping.
President Obama has said, ``Look, we cannot get there
unless we carry out what previous administrations decided was
necessary.'' So we are going to get there, and the commercial
entities are going to be a vital part of that partnership that
gets us there. But, if I lose the International Space Station
that will set up exploration, any type of exploration, human
exploration for decades.
CREW TIME FOR RESEARCH
Mr. Wolf. Following up on that, astronauts on the Station
have a variety of demands on their time, including daily
operation and maintenance work and crew health sustaining
activities. While these are clearly necessary, they reduce the
amount of time available for actually conducting research. When
we talk about reaching a goal of 100 percent research
utilization, what does that actually mean in terms of the
number of hours spent per day on research?
General Bolden. Congressman, let me take it for the record
to give you the hours per day. But the balance of crew time, at
least the last time I was talking to somebody about it, was two
of the crew members are generally considered to be the
``maids'', if I can use that term. They will not like that, but
they will rotate duty in maintaining the Station. The other
four will be totally involved in research, and that is the way
we will operate the Station.
Background on how NASA tracks crew time for research
Because the planning and execution of space missions is complex,
crew activities are tracked in great detail, including their personal
time and break time. A normal crew day includes 6.5 hours of scheduled
work tasks, 1 hour for lunch, 2.5 hours for exercise and hygiene, 50
minutes for daily planning conferences, and 70 minutes for work and
plan familiarization and procedure review, 2 hours of pre-sleep
(including 1 hour for dinner), 8.5 hours of sleep, and 1.5 hours for
post-sleep (including 50 minutes for breakfast). When NASA reports
``crew time for research,'' this only counts those scheduled work tasks
from the 6.5 hour block that is for research activities. Important
research data collected during the exercise period, and much of the 70
minutes of work familiarization and 50 minutes of daily planning
conferences, is also part of conducting research each day.
Scheduled work tasks include research and facility work; assembly
work; maintaining life support systems; vehicle traffic operations,
such as docking, undocking, loading and off-loading; internal and
external maintenance; medical operations; on-board training; and other
routine activities such as news media interviews, equipment audits,
computer maintenance, inventory management, tag-ups and communications
system testing. Crews generally work five days a week, but on weekends
they have many housekeeping duties, so they effectively receive only
3.25 hours of unscheduled time on Saturdays, and 7 hours of free time
on Sundays.
Crew time reporting is also split among the three NASA and
international partner astronauts (called U.S. Operating Segment, or
USOS, crew members), and the three Russian cosmonauts. NASA integrates
and plans the time for the USOS crewmembers, though the entire crew
works as a team in maintaining and operating the ISS.
Amount of crew time for research
The strategic target for research crew time during ``full
utilization'' is an average of 35 hours per week for the three-person
USOS crew, with a similar target for the Russian segment cosmonauts. As
ISS shifts from assembly to the research mission through 2011, the
Program is approaching this target and expects to reach it in 2012.
This is equivalent to 7 hours per day of a 5-day workweek for formally
scheduled hands-on USOS research activities; the Russian segment has a
similar target. Research activity in future years should continue to
increase as ISS operations grow more efficient through activities
funded within the ISS functionality budget, part of the FY 2012
President's request.
It also should be recognized that crew time is just one component
of research, since much of the research is being accomplished by
facilities working automatically being tele-operated from control
centers around the globe. Experiments on the Station are designed
specifically to minimize the amount of crew interaction required. For
example, one recent physical sciences experiment used 9.5 hours of crew
time for installation, but supported more than 6,000 hours of
experiment operations.
What will change in the near term, as soon as we are able
to announce a non-governmental organization (NGO) that will
assume responsibility for the evaluation and selection of
research and experimentation to be flown on the Station, some
time no later than this summer will be that NASA will get out
of the business of evaluating and selecting the experiments
that go on board. That will be handled by a nongovernmental
organization. And at some point down the road----
Mr. Wolf. Who will that be?
General Bolden. We do not know yet. It is a competition
right now that is underway. And so someone will take that over.
Ideally where we would like to get will be to the point where
even NASA experimentation and research is folded into the
evaluation----
Mr. Wolf. What is an example of that?
General Bolden. Oh, what would be an example?
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
General Bolden. For example, the salmonella vaccine that is
under development right now is about to enter human test. That
would have been, if we had a non-governmental organization,
that research would have been selected by this non-governmental
Mr. Wolf. But when you say non-government, just give me an
idea of----
General Bolden. Oh, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Space
Telescope Science Institute is an NGO. It is, if you go up to
the campus of Johns Hopkins there is the Space Telescope
Science Institute, and they handle the scheduling, they handle
everything for the Hubble Space Telescope. We have NASA
astronomers who vie for time, but we do not physically run the
operation of Hubble. That is a, I would classify that as an
example of----
General Bolden [continuing]. Sort of a non----
Mr. Wolf. Who is going to make that decision?
General Bolden. Bill Gerstenmaier, who is the Associate
Administrator for the Office of Space Operations, is the
selecting official.
Mr. Wolf. And when is that expected?
General Bolden. I talked to him as late as yesterday and he
told me probably early summer.
Mr. Wolf. And who is competing for that?
General Bolden. Who is competing?
General Bolden. Sir, let me take that for the record. I do
Mr. Fattah. Open solicitation, Mr. Chairman, right now.
Mr. Wolf. It is?
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. Online----
Mr. Wolf. How many have applied?
General Bolden. Congressman, let me get back to you. I do
not have that information.
cooperative agreement notice (can)
NASA posted the Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for the ISS
National Laboratory non-governmental entity on February 14, 2011. Due
to the competitive nature of the selection process, NASA is not able to
provide the names of respondents, but by March 4, when notifications of
intent were due, the Agency had received eight responses.
Mr. Wolf. If we could just know, if it is public record,
who has----
General Bolden. Oh, it is a matter of public record now.
Who the, I will get back to you because I do not know whether
the bidders, you know, the competitors are known publicly. It
is like any competition that we do.
General Bolden. It is like any competition. But we will get
that to you.
The authorization act requires NASA to provide initial
financial assistance to the nonprofit lab manager. Does your
budget request include funds for that?
General Bolden. The budget request for 2012 includes the
funds to start the nonprofit----
Mr. Wolf. And how much is that?
General Bolden. Congressman, let me get back to you. I will
take that for the record. I do not know exactly what that is.
Mr. Wolf. And do all the entities competing know what that
is? How do you make a bid if you do not know what the budget
will be?
General Bolden. Congressman, the way that contracts are
generally handled is that we look at a reasonableness factor so
that we let the bidders know what we think the range is for
pricing. We give them that range. And I, you know, my guess is
we have done the same thing here. So anybody that bids outside
that range probably----
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, the solicitation indicates about
$15 million a year would be available for an entity to manage
this laboratory on----
Mr. Wolf. Now where did that $15 million come from? Or was
that in just sort of a----
get back to you on the specifics of that. That was developed in
the Office of Space Operations Mission Directorate.
NASA is currently conducting a competitive acquisition for a
cooperative agreement with a non-profit organization to manage the ISS
national laboratory component of U.S ISS utilization. In accordance
with statutory requirements under the NASA Authorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-267), 50 percent of the U.S. share of ISS utilization
capacity will be made available for use by organizations other than
NASA under the National Laboratory initiative. The President's FY 2011
and FY 2012 budgets for ISS include $15M per year for this ISS National
Lab non-profit organization. The $15M per year level was determined
during development of a reference model for the organization. NASA
believes this is an appropriate level to both operate a small non-
profit organization and set aside approximately $3M of the $15M for
strengthening of the basic research grants. It's important to note that
this was a reference model for cost-estimating and scope determination
purposes. While the $15M per year remains the current funding
allocation for the cooperative agreement, the proposals and final award
will determine what portion remains available to strengthen the grants
component. After the final award, NASA will assist to identify areas to
reduce overhead costs as appropriate. In addition, NASA will encourage
the non-profit organization to become a self-funded organization as it
matures in future years.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well we have a number of other questions.
Mr. Yoder asked about James Webb, and we have a number there,
too. We will have a number of questions on the launch vehicle
On aeronautics, I looked at your chart here. Aeronautics is
really almost an orphan. Has anyone ever thought you ought to
change your name?
General Bolden. Congressman, the reason that I have opted
to put as much into aeronautics as we have, and it is not
nearly enough, is because I want to return the big ``A'' to
NASA. NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space
Mr. Wolf. No, I agree with you. Believe me, you have my
total and complete support. The aeronautics program is not as
highly visible as many of NASA's other missions, but it has an
outsized impact on the American economy and on the everyday air
travel experiences of regular Americans. Have you done any
economic impact studies to measure the return on investment
provided by the aeronautics program to the American aviation
industry?
General Bolden. Congressman, I have, and one of the ones I
attempted to cite for you, was our new airplane engine concept
that we have been working with American industry. That is where
we have found, and industry agrees, that there is potential to
reduce about 40 percent of the fuel consumption in the engines
that we are, engine technology that we are helping them
develop. That is where I got my number.
We looked at 19.6 billion gallons of jet fuel were used in
2008. If you take that at $3 a gallon that is $58.8 billion
just for jet fuel in 2008. If I got back, so if they realize a
40 percent savings on that and you gave me 1 percent of it I
could run my aeronautics budget right now at $588 million.
Mr. Wolf. Well they are talking about $4 a gallon by the
end of the----
General Bolden. Then that makes it even better, sir. But
that is an example of the economic return on NASA's minimal
investment of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Wolf. Could we get more of that? Because I am a strong
supporter of doing what we can. It would pain me to see GE sign
the contract with the Chinese to develop their avionics system,
and to take jobs away from Boeing. In essence, they are selling
the rope that they are going to use to hang Boeing. And yet,
the President picked Immelt, head of GE, to be his big jobs
man. This was a jobs program for China. So I want aeronautics
to be here. I want it to be more American.
Which leads to the next question. Where are the jobs? That
is the mantra of everyone in both parties. Where are the jobs?
Jobs give men and women dignity and money for their families,
but also keep America number one economically. We seek no
domination of power, we seek freedom and liberty. Ronald Reagan
said the words in the Constitution were a covenant with the
entire world. I want American to be number one for those
reasons. Not for money, but for freedom and liberty and
So when NASA develops new aeronautics technology, and
matures it into the point that it can be transferred to the
industry, how do you ensure that the benefits of that
technology go first to American aviation companies?
General Bolden. Congressman, the best way we can do it is
to continue our cooperation with U.S. industry the way that we
Mr. Wolf. Have you ever thought about bringing all of the
aviation industry people together for a conference to say,
``Okay, where are you going? And where would you like to be?
How can we participate to develop a partnership?'' I know there
are some in this Congress that say there can be no partnership
between government and the private sector but other countries
are doing it. Have you ever thought of bringing everyone
together, or maybe you do, and saying, ``Where are we today?
What would you like to be doing? What should we be doing? Maybe
we are going to plus this up. Maybe we are going to do more.''
General Bolden. Congressman, that is the way we determine
what our aviation portfolio is. Dr. Jaiwon Shin, who is my
Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, goes to the industry
and asks them what is it that NASA should do for you? That is
how we know that they want us to work on engine technology.
They do not, for example they do not want us to work on
development of alternative fuels. They want us to work on the
development of engines that can use anything. Water, junk----
Mr. Wolf. In the interest of time, I am going to go to Mr.
Fattah. Could you have Dr. Shin come by?
Mr. Wolf. I do not know that we can do this. But I would
like to almost write every avionics and aviation company and
say, ``What is NASA doing that you like? And what is NASA not
doing that you would like to see them do?'' Because they
technically are your customers, but they are also the people
that pay taxes. And so you ought to be doing what puts America
first. I want to know that there is a connectivity, and not
because there was a congressman one day that pushed this or
pushed that. So if he could come by and he could talk to me----
General Bolden. I will have him do that, sir. He can give
you background on something, for example, like the continuous
descent and arrival program that we developed that represents a
cost savings of about $1.2 billion to the airline industry. We
had Continental and United participate in tests at Denver----
Mr. Wolf. Do you think if I asked the people in the
aviation industry they would say enough money is being spent to
do what you----
General Bolden. Oh, they would tell you no way. I hope they
would. If they tell you that enough money is being spent on
aeronautics research then I would be very disappointed in the
industry. I would hope that they would be my biggest proponent
and my biggest cheerleader, saying that we need to spend more--
Mr. Wolf. You know, you might tell your friend at the White
House, Dr. Holdren, that he ought to tell me what he was doing
in China for twenty-one days. What do you do in China for
twenty-one days? Who is he meeting with? We do not want the
Chinese aeronautics industry to surpass Boeing or EADS. So
maybe we can informally ask a couple of trade associations,
``what would you like to see NASA doing that it is not doing?''
Therefore we are not just taking your person's word.
I saw the other day, did you see the story, that a Chinese
company was going to bid to do Air Force One, the helicopter?
General Bolden. The helicopter?
General Bolden. Marine One?
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, Marine One.
Did you see that, Mr. Fattah?
Mr. Fattah. No, I missed that, Mr. Chairman. I would be
beside myself if we were going to have a situation where Air
Force One, or Marine One, would be developed by anything other
than an American company.
Mr. Wolf. Well I tell you what we should do, then. Maybe
the Committee ought to carry language prohibiting that. And I
will tell you----
Mr. Fattah. I would be in support of that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I am on a resolution with another member from
your side, which I will talk to you about later, to kind of
prohibit that. The thought of Marine One being made by a
Chinese company just would not be good. So I appreciate Mr.
Fattah. We are both from Philadelphia, we were both raised in
Philadelphia. What high school did you go----
Mr. Fattah. Overbrook, the best in the world.
Mr. Wolf. I went to Bartram. In fact, that was the big
competition, Bartram and Overbrook.
CONTRACTING PRACTICES
We have some other questions. Let me cover the contract
issue. And I am going to go to you after this, Mr. Fattah. A
review by GAO last year found that more than half of NASA's
biggest development projects had exceeded their baseline
estimates. The average cost growth was 19 percent and the
average schedule delay was fifteen months. You instituted a new
cost-estimating policy in 2009 that was intended to address
NASA's problem with inaccurate baselines. But due to the
recentness of the policy change we have not seen evidence that
it is working. Do you feel confident that this policy will
noticeably increase the accuracy of your baselines? When will
you have sufficient data to actually demonstrate that
improvement? And one other question, so you can round it in--
under the policy, projects need to be budgeted at a level that
ensures a 70 percent chance they will be completed within
budget and schedule parameters, but there is a provision
allowing exemptions from this rule. In what circumstances would
you make an exception to allow a project to move forward with
less than 70 percent confidence in its budget and schedule?
General Bolden. Congressman, we work under what is called a
JCL, joint confidence level, that was instituted in 2009. I
gave the example of Juno and GRAIL being two of the earliest
projects that were run under that concept, and I am told, are
coming in on cost and schedule. I am cautioned, however, by my
experts that we need five, six, seven years to tell whether we
really got what we said we were going to get. Because operating
costs is a part of a contract and everything.
So, but if you look at where we are in development and
progress to launch for those two projects which came in under
the JCL, it is working.
Mr. Wolf. Well your contracting practices have been on
GAO's government-wide high risk list for more than twenty
years. And so----
General Bolden. Congressman, you are absolutely correct.
Mr. Wolf. Well I guess the question would be, as I go to
Mr. Fattah, when do you think you will get off of it? Twenty
years is pretty----
General Bolden. Congressman, may I, please do not
misinterpret what I am about to say. My Deputy and my Chief
Acquisition Officer, who is my Chief Financial Officer, look at
this every single day because they have to talk to GAO. But we
are probably never coming off the high risk list because we
build one-of-a-kind things. Almost every time we build
something, it is a new experience. What we hope to do with the
JCL is prove that we can effectively and accurately project
what cost and schedule are going to be. So, if that is
successful, you will find us come off the----
General Bolden. I hope that that would be sufficient for
GAO to take us off the high risk list. But I am not sure how we
get on there, to be quite honest. So, other than the fact that
we do risky stuff.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, I have other questions on that.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah?
Mr. Fattah. All right, let me thank the Chairman. And when
these questions of international human rights come up, it is a
pretty lonely area because a lot of people want to focus on
more important things, or more business. And I really want to
make sure that the Chairman understands that the fact that he
is unrelenting on this question of improving human rights in
China is not lost on me, and is appreciated I am sure by many
even if it is a lonely pursuit. So I want to thank you.
And I am going to go out and visit the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory later on this month, and I am also going to go to
the Dryden facility. I think it is important, I am a
politician, so I really do not know much about rocket science,
you know? And I think that when we have to make these decisions
it is helpful, it is helpful at least for me to try to get my
arms around some of the challenges that the agency faces. But
when I look at this just from a political standpoint and I see
a little small country like Singapore, they are investing over
$5 billion this year in their national science foundation. Now
this is a country with less than five million people in it, in
the total population. Here we are, we are a nation of 300
million people. We are trying to win a competition against
countries, you know, China is, what, a couple of billion
people? India with a billion people. And, you know, when we get
to our science foundation we are going to be in the single
digits, in terms of billions, in terms of the level of
investment.
I do not want to join in any of the pursuit around trying
to round out the numbers, and the cost cutting here and there.
I think that the argument we need to be making is that the
country cannot afford to lose this race. That America cannot
afford to concede space or science to others anywhere in the
world even if it actually costs us money. That is, even if we
have to pay to do it, that as American citizens we would have
to pay taxes so that we do not position ourselves as a nation
fifty years from now, and a lot of us will not be around, that
the position, the curious situation for our children and our
grandchildren, a situation where they are being victimized by
these human rights abuses that the Chairman is talking about
because we refuse to make the investments.
Now we need to be clear about this. We have a situation
within our schools in terms of earning doctoral degrees in the
hard sciences, two-thirds of those who earn those degrees in
our country will not be, they will not be American citizens and
they will not be staying here. That is to say, they will not be
applying for citizenship and hanging around. They are going to
take these intellectual tools and they are taking them some
other place.
So I just want to say, I heard the comments from the
gentleman from Georgia. I am not a Member here who has a NASA
facility in their state, even though I think we have members on
the panel from California where there are a number of NASA
facilities. I know about the important work of the Glenn Center
in Ohio, and in Texas, Johnson, and all this. My interest in
this is, and even if I had a parochial interest, I think all of
our interests have to be focused on the nation's interest. I
mean, investment in space is not a jobs program. This is a
question of the survival of our country and prosperity of our
So I just think that we have to get focused on what are the
needed investments. We talk about estimates and, you know, when
you looked at the estimates for the Capitol Visitors Center,
what we priced to build something in brick and mortar that has
now come in two or three times that amount, right? You know, we
are not trying to put somebody on the moon. I mean, this is
just a basic brick and mortar structure and we could not get
close to what it would cost. And Vice President Cheney said
that the Iraq War was going to pay for itself.
So I think we ought to be mindful that as we go forward,
and I think that the Chairman has talked about this in very
important ways, that we need to be focused on, to the degree
that we are focused on fiscal restraint we need to be focused
on the areas of the budget where we are spending money. This is
not an area where we are spending a great deal of money, even
though it may sound like a lot of money. But in comparison, it
is not. I just think that we have to think in longer terms
about what we are doing, make the needed investments we need to
make, and we need to get competent administration. And
obviously you, and the President in his selection of you to
lead this agency is, you know, is an extraordinary gift for the
nation, given your background and your leadership policies. But
we need to give you the tools so that you can function.
And I am happy to hear that the Chairman says in the next
CR we are going to try to work out the problem that we created
between authorizing you to proceed past the Constellation, but
at the same time requiring you to spend a couple of hundred
million a month on Constellation. It puts you in a bind. And it
does not help us make the investments that we need to make. So
I want to thank you for your testimony.
I have a couple of questions in particular about the Space
Station. So now we have built this over the last ten years. We
have had continuous human astronauts on the Space Station for
ten years, right?
Mr. Fattah. Over 200 people have been on the Space Station,
rough number?
General Bolden. I will get you the exact number. I am not--
There have been 198 different visitors to the ISS, representing 15
Mr. Fattah. All right. And now it is going to be a national
lab?
Mr. Fattah. But it is also the kind of, you say it is the
platform for our further efforts, and I am interested in that
part of this. How we see the Space Station, which is about the
size of a football stadium right?
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
General Bolden. About a hundred----
Mr. Fattah. I tell you I am, you know, and now the Mars
Rover was about this size, right?
General Bolden. Yes, sir. Now Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)
is going to be a lot bigger.
Mr. Fattah. The first one.
General Bolden. But Spirit and Odyssey are, Spirit and
Odyssey are little things.
Mr. Fattah. Right, I got you. And Spirit we have not heard
from for a few months, but I bet NASA that it is still going to
function. So I am in total agreement. So I am just saying in
terms of perspective, we plan on using the Space Station as the
base from which NASA would go in terms of its further efforts.
If you could expound on that for a minute, that would be
helpful. And I was figuring out about the $3 billion that you
want to spend. Now $3 billion sounds like a lot of money. We
are spending that amount, we are spending that in an average
week in Afghanistan. Just so we are clear as a nation about
putting these things in some perspective. So if you could help
us think about what you are trying to do on the Space Station?
General Bolden. Congressman, let me give you just three
examples if I can. The first one would be one of the, the
seventh crew member on Discovery, on STS-133 last week was
Robonaut 2, a humanoid robot. And Robonaut 2 will----
Mr. Fattah. Now that was done in partnership with GM?
General Bolden. That was done in partnership, I was going
to say, that was a Space Act agreement with General Motors that
is ongoing. It is not over. And General Motors came to us and
said, ``We have a need.'' And NASA said, ``We have a need.''
And so we came together, collaborated with industry. I was
telling Congressman Clark, who is from Detroit, yesterday, when
he said, ``I do not have a NASA center. I do not have anything
that has anything to do with NASA.'' I said, ``Congressman, let
me send you some stuff because you need to go back into Detroit
and make people in Detroit proud that they are now on the
International Space Station.'' Because they are, in the
presence of Robonaut 2.
R2 is going to start working this spring to see how we can
collaborate, how a robot, a humanoid robot, can collaborate
with astronauts on board. At some point we are probably going
to, you know, I do not know when, but we will probably put R2
outside and see how much R2 can do to alleviate putting
astronauts at risk by having them do space walks. Eventually we
would like to demonstrate the fact that we do not have to put a
human on the surface of Mars to build the infrastructure. That
by the time we send humans there the village will be built,
because robots will have done that.
I have got to be able to integrate science, aeronautics,
human exploration, and technology into one big thing. That is
what we are trying to do in NASA now. We are looking at an
integrated picture. We are not doing things the way we used to.
And that is the message I am not getting across to people very
well. Because when you asked me why do I believe in my budget,
and why do I think we can do what I say we can do, it may take
us longer to do aspects of it. It may take me longer than 2016,
for example, to have a heavy lift launch vehicle and an
integrated crew exploration vehicle. I do not know that yet, it
may, but we are going to get there. Because these are difficult
fiscal times. And we have had to adjust the budget to fit
within these difficult fiscal times.
While, you know, my job, the President has asked me to lead
the greatest civilian organization in the world, bar none. Keep
astronauts safe: I am doing that. Explore: we are doing that.
We do that every single day. We are going to launch another
satellite called Glory on Friday and it is going to do great
I get emotional about this because it is important. And it
is important for me to be able to articulate how important we
are to the nation, and how important it is for us to carry out
the President's plan for education. Because everybody on this
committee has said this all day long, you know, we are so
close. As I said in my opening statement, we are all in synch.
Believe it or not. We may be different parties, or you all may
be different parties because I am apolitical. But we all talk
about the same things we want to do. It is just how we get
there. And because these are very difficult times and we have
to make very difficult choices I need your support when I make
a hard choice.
HUMAN-LIKE ROBOTS
Mr. Fattah. So let me see if I can put this together. We do
not have the technology yet to take a human being to Mars. We
know we can take an object to Mars, right?
General Bolden. Oh, yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. We have done that a couple of times.
General Bolden. We have done that. Right. Hard to do it,
but we have done it.
Mr. Fattah. So when we take an R2 and put it on the Space
Station in part we are thinking about a humanlike robot that at
one point we may be able to put on Mars to build out an
infrastructure so that when we deliver a human being there,
there would be the protection of the infrastructure because----
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I do not want a human to have to
go build something.
Mr. Fattah. Right. And plus the, once you get out into deep
space there are the radiation challenges, the other challenges
are much more significant.
General Bolden. That is human physics.
Mr. Fattah. So you build, this is like a stepping stone----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. To where we are going. Now we do
not have the technology yet, but four years ago we did not have
the technology to go to the Moon, or do any of these other
things, or----
General Bolden. Well we did at one time but we forgot about
Mr. Fattah. Yeah. Or to build a Space Station.
Mr. Fattah. It took some ingenuity, right?
SUPERIORITY IN SPACE
Mr. Fattah. That is why we know that we are an exceptional
nation, because we have done exceptional things. So now the
President has set a much deeper goal for you and we are trying
to build to getting it done. I just want to conclude with a
question that gets to the different programs. We have got earth
science, we have got space exploration, we have got a lot of
different pieces here. I want to focus a little bit more on the
purpose of this, right? So I want to just conclude if you could
help the Committee understand and the country understand what
it will mean if we forfeit or concede this race for superiority
in space to others who have untoward interests to our own as a
nation? What the costs will be to our country?
General Bolden. Congressman, we are fifteenth, seventeenth,
and twenty-fifth in reading, science, at math. And I may have
the numbers not precise. We will fall further behind. We, right
now every nation looks to us for leadership when I go to the
International Space Station. Whenever I go to a meeting of my
international partners, the heads of agency, everybody says,
``We need for you to lead.'' If we give that up they will turn
to somebody else and it may not be somebody we like.
So, you know, my job is to lead this agency. As I said,
make sure we do what you and the President tell us to do
through appropriations and authorizations and that is what we
are doing. Stay within budget, which is something that people,
you know, do not think we are serious about but we are really
serious about it. And make difficult choices. And we have made
some difficult choices but there will be much more difficult
choices. When you talk about infrastructure, these kinds of
things, and then everybody is going to run away from me. I do
not want you to do that. I want you to help me stand up to the
scrutiny and, the way you all always do. But I, you know, we
have got difficult choices ahead.
Mr. Fattah. Well I want to thank you again. When we finish
voting today, I am going out to visit a couple of our national
labs. And I think that this whole area of the country's work is
vitally important. You cannot disconnect it from educating our
children, or making sure that we have the agricultural
capability to feed our population. Running the greatest country
on Earth costs money.
Mr. Fattah. I know we have some very well-meaning people in
the Congress and in the country who want us to cut costs. You
know, we need to be wise about what we are doing here. Because
we do not want to cut costs that end up creating a circumstance
for our nation in which we have cut off our nose to spite our
General Bolden. Congressman, may I say one thing? And it is
just because I have been, I have cut one partner out, and that
has been industry. We have not had an opportunity to talk to
them a lot, and I know some of them are here, some of them will
hear this. I have the best partners in the world in American
industry, and I have faith in them. And I need to have, I need
to have other people in positions of leadership have faith in
them. They once, several of their leaders told me, and I wrote
it down, a piece of something is better than all of nothing.
Industry is coming together now. And companies that in the
past in terms of our contracts would not even think about
talking to each other, they understand----
Mr. Fattah. Well let me just say this, because I know we
have to wrap up. I am for us working with American industry.
Mr. Fattah. There are cross currents here, though. We have
to be very careful. And we are going to have to be a little
different than we have been. Because all this open source
information, if we are taking American taxpayers' money and we
are developing technology, I do not necessarily think that that
technology should then be made available to people who have not
invested around the world, and then used against American
industry in competing against us and going after an opportunity
to build Marine One. I think we do not want to work against our
own purposes as a nation at the end of the day.
So we need to have American industry. We also need to have
some proprietary control over the technology that American
taxpayers are investing in, in ways that do not put our own
country at a disadvantage at the end of the day.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson?
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not agree
with you more strongly, Mr. Fattah, and I will absolutely be
working with you arm in arm on that. I wanted to, we are
apparently going to have votes here in a few minutes. And
Administrator, I really appreciate you being so patient and
staying here with us. We are really devoted to you, and really
want to find ways to help you in every way we can to get you
the money you need to do your job better and also give you some
longer term support. I was just talking to Chairman Wolf about
perhaps us getting together to do sort of a joint hearing after
we get through the appropriations process to talk about the
long term. How do we make sure, we for example, I know and my
dear good friend Mike Coats, the Director of Johnson Space
Center tells me, and that you all are dear good friends. And
you may be able to tell me more precisely, Administrator. But
in the time that you have been an astronaut, worked with NASA,
Mike tells me, because I think your careers are very similar,
and the time that you have been together----
General Bolden. We have been together for forty, more than
forty years. We came together in the summer of 1964.
Mr. Culberson. 1964?
General Bolden. In the Class of 1968 at the Naval Academy.
Mr. Culberson. At the Naval Academy?
Mr. Culberson. So you were both in, both then saw service
in Vietnam?
Mr. Culberson. And then joined the space program, and the
time that you have been with the space program, did Mike tell
me that you all have seen the Congress create and then cancel
over twenty different, major----
General Bolden. My deputy right now is looking at a study
that we asked for on programs that were started and stopped and
it is more than twenty-some-odd. But I would say if you want to
look at one thing that we did to the end, it is important for
the American people to note that their investment in the
International Space Station came to fruition day before
yesterday. Because we have completed construction of the
American elements of the International Space Station. So if
somebody says we cannot do something and finish it, we have
completed construction of the U.S. element of the International
Space Station.
Mr. Culberson. And we are immensely proud of that
achievement. I want to make sure that Mr. Fattah catches that.
I was just getting for the record, Mr. Fattah, that the, NASA,
could you be sure that you repeat that----
General Bolden. The space walk that we did day before
yesterday----
Mr. Culberson. No, before that.
General Bolden. Oh, before that?
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, how many programs, how many----
General Bolden. Oh, there is some twenty-plus programs.
When we finish the study we can make it available.
Mr. Culberson. The point is that NASA----
General Bolden. We are trying to find out why we did it.
You know, how does it happen?
Mr. Culberson. We did it to you. Congress did it to you.
General Bolden. Well, I am not pointing fingers.
Mr. Culberson. No, I know you are not, I know. But these
wonderful people that devote their lives to, what is it Captain
Kirk says? To explore brave new worlds? To explore new worlds
and go where no one has gone before. We have over the years,
Mr. Fattah, created and then canceled over twenty----
General Bolden. Twenty-some-odd programs.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Major rocket programs, space
exploration programs. Well no wonder you all have had so much
difficulty over the years, and then inadequate funding. Plus
they get their hopes up, boom, get their hopes up, boom, work
on a program, boom. That has got to stop. And you are
absolutely right about thinking in the longer term. And I want
to work with you and the chairman after we get through our
appropriations process. Let us think about having a joint
hearing in great detail to talk about how we get NASA on a
predictable, stable funding and planning path that does not
subject these wonderful people to this up and down. It would
really, I think, help them immensely. Would it not?
Mr. Fattah. Sure, that would be great. That would be a
worthy thing for us to spend some time doing.
Mr. Culberson. It really would, after we get through all
the appropriations cycle.
General Bolden. That would be an incredible gift to the
nation. I tell everybody what we want to do is something that
is affordable, sustainable, and realistic.
Mr. Culberson. Bingo, we are there.
General Bolden. And if we can do that--
Mr. Culberson. Well we will help you with that.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Administrator, what I want to do is beat
everybody else. All right? I want to make sure that America is
Number One. Even if we have to spend beyond what we might feel
comfortable at a particular moment.
Mr. Fattah. I still like to be in the lead. I think the
view is always better from the top, right?
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. And I will certainly help you
with that. National Journal just ranked me as the tenth most
conservative member of Congress. I am still trying to figure
out what I did to screw up and only get number ten, but I am
with you on this. I mean, I voted against the RSC budget for
that reason, because it severely cut NASA. Law enforcement,
Chairman Wolf, you and the staff protected NASA in the proposal
that was submitted. The amendment, there was only one adopted
that really cut, was Mr. Weiner's that shifted I think cross
agency money, $300 million over to the COPS program. And we are
going to work to help make sure to protect that in the CR.
ORION PROGRAM
Let me ask you a couple of specific questions and then some
broader ones. Will the Orion program, sir, be canceled or
transferred into the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle? Just simply
renamed into the Multi-Purpose----
General Bolden. Congressman, what we are looking at is
trying to find if we can transition the contracts for Orion
into the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
Mr. Culberson. And so----
General Bolden. And we will know that and we will know, we
will have an assessment as to whether it is affordable by the
summer when we give----
General Bolden [continuing]. Our next report to you guys.
Mr. Culberson. With this up and down in mind I do not want
to lose that talented workforce, those wonderful people that
have put their heart and soul into building the next manned
space capsule. You are going to keep all those folks? You are
not talking about any layoffs, or----
General Bolden. Congressman, I wish I could say that. I do
not control, and I have told my center directors, do not get
involved in the business of our contractors. I do not make
those decisions.
CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND THE AUTHORIZATION,
Mr. Culberson. And the thing that is fouling you up is of
course you cannot, you have this language, one of these things
that is fouling you up is the language and the statutory
requirements. You cannot cancel Constellation, which of course
includes Orion. And that was signed before the December 10th
CR. The CR language that Mr. Mollohan did that predates the
authorization. The statutory language in our appropriations
bill from last year that Mr. Mollohan put together with all our
support that says you cannot cancel Constellation, that is
statute, right?
Mr. Culberson. And then after that in December there was a
continuing resolution signed in December that was silent. Oh
excuse me, the authorization was then signed in October which
says you are going to build a heavy lift rocket and a manned
capsule. And the old rule, the statutory interpretation is the
last statute signed controls. I think this is where you all
wrapped around the capsule. So we have got to get you some
clarification pretty quickly.
Mr. Culberson. And the chairman, I am delighted we are
going to work on that with the help of Mr. Fattah, all of us
together, to get you some clarification. What you need is
clarity so you can follow the authorization, right?
Mr. Culberson. Okay. That would really help you a lot?
Immensely?
General Bolden. Sir, it would. The authorization act
postured us very well. The President's proposed budget for 2012
postures us very well. So----
Mr. Culberson. But you need to follow that authorization.
It is hard for me as a lawyer to explain how it works.
Mr. Culberson. I mean, it got me tangled up.
General Bolden. If I can get relief from the restriction on
terminating Constellation, that will help.
Mr. Culberson. And all of those, all that research, all
that work that you are doing on Constellation to develop a
heavy rocket, to develop a manned capsule, that all transitions
very easily into the authorization language to develop a heavy
lift rocket and a manned capsule, does it not?
General Bolden. No, sir.
Mr. Culberson. They are pretty much----
General Bolden. I am not able to say that. That is what I
am, I do not want to be boxed into a corner. I am still looking
at the contracts for Orion and the contracts for the rest of
Constellation to see if we can legally and within procurement
regulations move them. If that is the case, then they have to
be affordable. So----
Mr. Fattah. Maybe we could clear this up. I think it would
be safe to say that you see it as being desirable to have the
least disruption to this workforce----
General Bolden. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. There you go.
General Bolden. That is so vitally important as humanly
possible, but you have to operate within the law.
I have to operate within the law.
Mr. Fattah. And with what budget is available.
Mr. Culberson. And we need to give him some statutory
clarification as soon as possible.
NASA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF DECADAL SURVEYS
Mr. Culberson. That would be great. Okay. The decadal
survey is about to come out, very soon. We are about----
General Bolden. That is correct.
Mr. Culberson. Throughout the history of NASA, the United
States being the leader, and number one, we have throughout
history until very recently always flown the top priority
mission in the decadal survey in each one of the categories. I
think, and it is my recollection as an avid student of the
space program and history, I think that is an accurate
statement. Until recently NASA----
General Bolden. Congressman, let me get back to you on
that. I do not know because when I left NASA in 1994 I did not
know what a decadal survey was.
Mr. Culberson. I have researched it personally and I can
tell you that we have----
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I am just, you asked me for an
answer and I cannot give it to you. Right? I do not know.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. I can tell the committee I have
researched it personally. This is near and dear to my heart
that we----
Mr. Fattah. That could almost qualify you to be a member of
Congress----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. And it is, the reason I am bringing it
up, sir, is that I am concerned that, I want to make sure that
you have got the funding that you need to pursue those top
priority missions in each one of those categories. Are you
satisfied that the funding level that the President has
recommended, that you have in front of you, is sufficient for
you to fund and fly each of those top priority missions in each
one of those categories?
General Bolden. Are you talking about----
Mr. Culberson. Just the number one missions.
General Bolden. You mean the one that is coming out----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
General Bolden. Congressman, since I do not know what the
decadal survey is going to give me I cannot say that. I do not
know. The FY 2012 budget was put together without any knowledge
of the decadal survey. So they, provided they come out without
something that is reasonable, and they use the FY 2012 budget
in their prioritization, then I would be able to say yes. But I
have no idea whether they took the the 2011 budget. It used to
be that the decadal surveys did not pay any attention to the
budget, and they did what the science community wanted and
expected us to eat it. At least nowadays, I am told that the
decadal surveys, the teams are generally pretty judicious about
looking at where they think the budget is going to be.
Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm.
General Bolden. Now since this one was convened when the
President, I think it was convened maybe even before the 2011
budget. But I will get back to you on when it convenes.
NASA requested the NRC conduct the new Planetary Science decadal
survey in a letter to the NRC dated December 5, 2008. The Survey
steering committee held its first meeting in July 2009 and its final
meeting August 2010. The President's 2011 budget request with its
outyear funding projections through FY 2015 was the information on
budget availability the NRC had in hand when planning its approach.
Mr. Culberson. But what I am driving towards, Mr.
Administrator, is for the committee, for Mr. Fattah, and
Chairman Wolf, that for all of us to recognize that we are
entering an age of austerity unlike anything we have seen
before. We have got to protect NASA's ability to make sure that
America has the world's premiere, number one, manned space
program and unmanned programs. We are all committed to that. I
want to make sure that we are, as a Nation at least funding the
top priority missions of the decadal survey. The best source
for us to look to if we are going to try to prioritize
planetary missions, missions like Hubble looking beyond the
solar system, it would be the decadal survey, would it not? I
mean that is really----
General Bolden. That is the voice of the community.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
General Bolden. Whether it is astrophysics, planetary, or
whatever, we put a lot of stock into the voice of the
community. What the community may not know is where NASA sits
budgetarily.
General Bolden. So, that is where we have to prioritize.
Mr. Culberson. So if we as a committee wanted to build a
firewall around, of course, only the manned program to make
sure that we protect it, whether it be Mr. Weiner, or Mr.
Jordan, our friends on both sides trying to come after NASA. If
we wanted to build a firewall, the committee, this subcommittee
wanted to build a firewall around NASA's manned spaceflight
capability and your unmanned capability, talking about the
unmanned missions first and robotics. Would not a good firewall
be to say that NASA needs to, we need to make sure this
committee preserves the ability of NASA to fund and fly the top
priority mission designated by the decadal survey in each one
of the categories?
General Bolden. Congressman----
Mr. Culberson. Would that make sense?
General Bolden. It makes sense. But if you wanted to build
a firewall----
Mr. Culberson. That is what I am looking for.
General Bolden [continuing]. I would say empower the NASA
Administrator to work with the Congress and the White House
each year once the budget is established so that we can
reestablish priorities or readjust priorities----
Mr. Culberson. No, I understand.
General Bolden. [continuing]. In accordance with fiscal
constraints.
Mr. Culberson. It makes sense.
General Bolden. If you put a firewall around the results of
the decadal survey today and the Congress changes everything
next year, then I am back where I am----
Mr. Culberson. No, I understand. We would protect you
statutorily as well. I am talking about protecting you for the
long term. And we really are going to dive into this, and I am
going to do my best to work with this subcommittee and the
authorizing subcommittee so we can flesh this out with NASA's
input and guidance to figure out a long term glide path that is
predictable, stable, consistent. You do not have to worry about
these year to year struggles and you can actually, all of you
magnificent people that work in the space program, can predict
with some certainty that you can pay the mortgage, send the
kids to school, and still go where no man has gone before and
discover brave new worlds and new civilizations.
Okay, the Europa mission in particular is a big flagship
mission. It was in the last decadal survey. It is probably
going to--almost certainly going to--be the top priority of the
decadal survey in this mission, in this decadal survey. And I
mention it to you because I have also found out, you know,
Europa first of all has more saltwater than the Earth, liquid
saltwater. They have confirmed that. It has got tidal flexing,
like when you bend a credit card, that means there is a lot of
heat down there in the bottom of that ocean where the pressure
is equivalent to the deep ocean on Earth where we have already
shown that the plate boundaries have got incredible colonies of
life. So Europa is almost certainly going to have life. If you
are going to find life anywhere it is going to be on Europa. So
the decadal survey has made it a top priority--there is the
vote. I want to be sure to point out to Mr. Fattah and Mr.
Wolf, and you may not be aware of this either, sir, that
apparently in a very recent study that I read in Science--or I
forget, maybe the journal of Nature--discovered that the water
ice on Europa being bombarded by the radiation from Jupiter all
these billions of years, the radiation strips away the hydrogen
and leaves the oxygen. And then the oxygen is churned back down
into the liquid saltwater ocean. So the saltwater ocean of
Europa not only has heat but it has been oxygenated for
billions of years. Which makes it an even higher priority.
That is going to be an expensive mission. It is a flagship
mission. And I wanted to ask you about it. Are you guys
planning for that, to make sure that we are flying that
flagship mission to Europa that needs to include a landing----
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for one quick
second?
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. Because you just announced within the last two
months, right, that you found a number, five or so, Earth-like
planets----
Mr. Culberson. Right, beyond the solar system----
Mr. Fattah. You might want to just respond in general to
this point and----
Mr. Culberson. But it would start with Europa.
General Bolden. Well Congressman I was just going to say
that the decadal survey when it comes out
Mr. Fattah. Is that in Texas?
Mr. Culberson. No, and it is not even flown out of Texas.
General Bolden. When the decadal results are announced next
Monday then we will take a look at what they said and we will
look at how we prioritize it based on where we are in our
planetary budget.
Mr. Culberson. But the Europa mission is built in, is it
not? Have you built in----
General Bolden. No, sir. You know----
Mr. Culberson. It was in the last decadal, it is going to
be in this one.
General Bolden. Let me get back to you. Because you are
asking me to verify that we are flying----
Mr. Culberson. You are upsetting me, dodging that. That is
a big one. We are really going to be short of money. And we are
going to need to build a firewall, Mr. Chairman, around these
decadal survey missions. We cannot cede either the manned
program leadership to China or anybody else, and we certainly
cannot cede the leadership in flying these big missions,
whether it be to the sun, or Mercury. We are about to go into
orbit around Mercury any day now, right? Is it Messenger?
General Bolden. Messenger? Yes, Messenger is due to get to
Mercury----
Mr. Culberson. In the next couple of weeks.
General Bolden. It is.
Mr. Culberson. I think, it is going to go into orbit around
Mercury. And of course the Webb is, I am glad you got those
cost overruns, and Mr. Fattah when you visit the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory----
General Bolden. We are not there yet, sir. I do not want
you to overstate what I said.
Mr. Culberson. Right, right, right. But----
General Bolden. We are trying. We are going to get them.
Mr. Culberson. You are doing your best. But it is an
extraordinarily important mission. And when you go to JPL you
will meet Charles Elachi, who is another national treasure.
They do great work out there. But one of the problems they have
had over the years is they will give, they think by giving,
over the years giving us low estimates at the beginning of a
big mission that maybe we are going to fund it. And then the
estimates, boom, the reality comes in higher. Dr. Elachi has
told me that they are working hard from their end, and I know
you are on your end, to give this subcommittee more realistic
estimates of what these big missions are actually going to cost
on the front end.
General Bolden. That is the joint confidence level process
that I----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
General Bolden [continuing]. That I talked about a little
bit----
Mr. Culberson. That is critical. That is where a lot of
these cost overruns come from. I know we are in the middle of
this vote. I can submit a lot of these for the record because
we are short of time. And you have been very generous, Mr.
Chairman, and Mr. Administrator, with your time, sir. Thank
ASTRONAUT CORPS
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. We have a number of questions we will
submit for the record. I just wanted you to make one comment on
one issue. How are you adjusting the size of the astronaut
corps, and the programs that support the corps, to reflect
reduced flight opportunities between the end of the Shuttle and
the first flight of the new exploration program? And the
missions being contemplated under the new exploration program
are significantly different than the missions executed by
Shuttle astronauts. How will the requirements of future members
of the astronaut corps differ from the requirements of the
General Bolden. Congressman, we have a study that was
instituted through the National Research Council that we expect
to get back within months that is going to help us answer that
question. So I do not have, the study is not complete yet. We
are looking at what should be the size of the astronaut office,
what type of support apparatus, whether it is airplanes or
other things. We are looking at what we need to have to support
the astronaut office of the future. And I do not have that----
Mr. Wolf. And when will that be ready?
General Bolden. Let me get back to you, sir. I am, it just
escapes my mind right now.
The National Research Council (NRC) study on the future of the
Astronaut Corps is due to be delivered in August 2011.
General Bolden. But I would remind everybody, we just named
three, the crews for three more increments to the International
Space Station. So, we are continuing to assign astronauts to go
to the International Space Station for six month increments for
the next ten years. So, we still have astronauts who are going
back and forth to Russia to train and spending these two years
of their lives investing in getting ready to go to the
International Space Station. And we just named three new crew
increments.
Mr. Culberson. Can I do one more, real short?
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Sure.
ALPHA MAGNETIC SPECTROMETER
Mr. Culberson. Just real short. I want to ask about the
final shuttle flight. Administrator Griffin had put on the
manifest that it was a high energy observatory----
General Bolden. That is the next flight is AMS----
Mr. Culberson. And that will be flown?
General Bolden. That is STS-134.
General Bolden. And that is the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer. It is now mated in the VAB. I think we did that
yesterday. So we will launch AMS on the Shuttle Endeavour, let
me make sure I have got the right one.
Mr. Culberson. Is that the last flight?
General Bolden. No, sir. The last flight will be on
Atlantis in June.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. Go ahead.
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
Mr. Fattah. Just to conclude, and I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman. We have to go vote. You are relieved of duty. But
when you led the first Marine Expeditionary Unit into Kuwait,
you know, there were Kuwaiti kids who were here at American
universities when Kuwait was overrun by Iraq. And they were
here studying. You know, the Kuwaiti government provides
unlimited educational support. These kids can go, if they want
to get a doctoral degree in nuclear physics, or aeronautics, or
whatever. So they were here studying. And our young people, you
were leading them in----
General Bolden. Congressman you, I do not want to get in
trouble with General Boomer. I was not there.
Mr. Fattah. No, no, you were there.
General Bolden. No, I was not there then.
Mr. Fattah. But you were leading the First Expeditionary?
General Bolden. I led the First Marine Expeditionary Force
forward in 1997. But that was, that was between wars. I was----
Mr. Fattah. I got you. My point is that these kids from
Kuwait----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. The country our young people were
protecting----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Have a benefit, and had a benefit,
an educational benefit that allowed them to pursue their God
given----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Intellectual talents.
Mr. Fattah. That is not a benefit we provide to our young
people in this country. And I just want us to be clear, we need
to get our priorities in order as a nation about what we need
to be doing to prepare ourselves to compete in this world. And
it is an unfortunate paradox that we could provide the
resources to protect their country with our young people while
they provide their resources to educate their children.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony. The hearing is
adjourned.
General Bolden. Congressman, thank you so very much.
Thursday, March 10, 2011.
DR. SUBRA SURESH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Opening Remarks of Vice Chairman Bonner and Ranking Member Fattah
Mr. Bonner. Good morning. Chairman Wolf is testifying at
another hearing and we expect him here in just a few minutes.
In the meantime, he asked us to go ahead and get started.
I had the pleasure of introducing myself to the witness
earlier. My name is Jo Bonner. I am from Mobile, Alabama, and I
am pleased to serve as vice chairman of the Subcommittee.
I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today on
the fiscal year 2012 budget request of the National Science
Foundation. Our witness is Dr. Subra Suresh, the Director of
NSF.
Sir, thank you so much for being here with us today.
Dr. Suresh, you are sitting before a subcommittee which I
hope you know is very supportive of your agency and its mission
to advance the country's scientific research and educational
enterprises.
Our national struggles in these areas have been well
documented, most notably in the 2007 report entitled ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.''
Unfortunately, in spite of the increased visibility of the
problem, it appears we have made very little lasting progress
in reversing some of the trends that were outlined in that
report. In fact, an update of ``Gathering Storm'' issued just
last year concluded that our situation has only gotten worse.
We have an enormous challenge ahead of us. We are facing
unrelenting competition from other countries that are highly
motivated to overtake our position as the global leader in this
global economy. And we have to face that competition while we
are still dealing with a very slowly recovering economy, one we
hope continues to recover, but I think by all accounts is the
worst recession since the Great Depression.
It is clear to Members on both sides of the aisle that NSF
will play a key role in meeting that challenge and helping to
push the United States back to the forefront of technical
Your ability to play that role obviously depends on the
size of the budget at your disposal, and that is what we are
here to discuss today.
The NSF budget request for the fiscal year 2012 is $7.8
billion. It represents, as you know, a 13 percent increase over
your last enacted appropriation. That is a significant new
investment, particularly given the constraints on the larger
federal budget.
Just as a quick aside, I came to Capitol Hill in 1985 as a
young staffer for my predecessor in Congress. At that time, the
deficit was $1.8 trillion. Now it is over $14 trillion.
And as we all know, just the other day, it was reported
that the deficit for February was $223 billion. So our Nation
truly is struggling with serious financial challenges in front
But as I said earlier, the NSF is so important to our
mission as a Nation.
Within your total request, you have a number of significant
new program proposals as well as some suggestions for where NSF
can or should scale back its involvement.
I know I will have some questions for you, as will the
Ranking Member and others who will be coming. There are several
committee hearings taking place at this time, so please do not
take offense at Members coming and going throughout the
In a moment, Dr. Suresh, we will have you give a summary of
your written testimony and then we will proceed with the
But before we do that, I would like to turn to my friend,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania and our Ranking Member, Mr.
Fattah, for any opening remarks he would like to make.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank the chairman. And it is a pleasure to
see him in the chair even though this is not his formal role on
this committee, but our chairman will be here momentarily. I
was watching him testify before a hearing in the Homeland
Security Committee.
But let me welcome you. It is good to see you again.
I agree with the chairman that the national debt is a very
important priority. In fact, next week, I am going to be
offering legislation to address the national debt in the most
forceful way that would have been suggested to this point.
So I do not minimize it, but I do not see the glass as half
empty. I see it as mostly full. That is to say, we are the
wealthiest country in the world. We have well over $900
trillion in transactions, money moving around in our economy
every single year.
The notion that we cannot afford to pay our bills I think
is a faulty one. Whether we cut one and a half percent of the
budget this year or something a little less than that, which is
the debate between the $41 billion and the $61 billion between
the two parties, is not going to address our debt. It is not
going to address our deficit. It is really a distraction. We
spend a lot of time being distracted here in Washington.
I want to focus on the question of the country's future. I
think we have this kind of sense that we are a declining power,
we are broke, we cannot afford to do the things that we need to
do to prosper as a Nation, that is to educate our children or
to invest in science and innovation. I do not believe that
about our country.
Now, I spent the weekend with some of my Republican
colleagues. We went out to visit a couple of our national labs.
I was at Sandia. I was at one of the other nuclear weapons
laboratories, at Los Alamos. I saw how exceptional our Nation
truly is. I mean, I saw in the work of these scientists what is
really being done.
And when you look through the great work of the National
Science Foundation, whether it is the over 1,200 scientists you
have at the South Pole or all of the other investments and
building blocks, as you call them, in our country's future, I
think that we should be inspired as a Nation.
Now, I think that is a paltry sum, that is this $7.8
billion, even though it is a 12 percent increase, 13 percent
When you look at a country like Singapore with less than 5
million people, 4.8 million people investing $5 billion in
their National Research Foundation, making a commitment as a
nation that takes three percent of their gross domestic product
and have it in scientific research, it should suggest to a
Nation like our own that we risk being pushed aside on this
kind of innovation highway if we are not careful.
First of all, we cannot be a superpower on the cheap. We
cannot fight two wars, not pay for it, add it to the debt, give
away tax breaks to people and not account for it in any way,
and grow the domestic side of the budget all at the same time,
which is what we have done over the last ten years and then be
intellectually surprised that we have a debt or a deficit. I
mean, it is just that the two do not add up.
But at the same time, we cannot afford not to make the
investments in science for our national security, for our
economy. And I think that the Congress, whoever is in the
majority, and the other team is in the majority at the moment,
we owe it to our country to make these investments because as
we compete with much larger countries like China or India, the
only way a country of 300 million people is going to be able to
position itself is through the same decision that Singapore
It is a very rational decision that if you are going to
have a smaller population, then, you have to innovate more. You
have to educate more. You have to do these things.
And so I am looking forward to your testimony and I hope
that as we go through this that we will not try to apply an
unscientific approach to protecting our country's security
economically and in other ways, that in some notion that we can
somehow dumb down our population, do less research, less
investment, and somehow still stay ahead.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Dr. Suresh, your written statement will be made a part of
the record and now you may proceed with the summary of your
remarks.
Director Suresh's Introduction to the FY 2012 Request
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Chairman Bonner, Ranking Member Fattah, soon to come
Members of the committee, it is my privilege to be here with
you today to discuss the National Science Foundation's fiscal
year 2012 budget request.
My name is Subra Suresh and I am director of the National
Science Foundation.
I came to the United States as a young engineering student
because it was the world's beacon of excellence in science and
education. The mission of NSF is to sustain that excellence as
we continue to lead the way for the important discoveries and
cutting-edge technologies that will help keep our Nation
globally competitive, prosperous, and secure.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for NSF, as the
chairman said in his statement, is $7.8 billion, an increase of
13 percent or $895 million over the fiscal year 2010 enacted
NSF's request is consistent with the President's Plan for
Science and Innovation and with the America COMPETES
America's economic prosperity and global competitiveness
depend on innovation that comes from new knowledge, new
technologies, and a highly-skilled and inclusive workforce. NSF
has an unparalleled track record in supporting the best ideas
and the most talented people for over 60 years.
The fiscal year 2012 budget builds on these past
accomplishments and provides a direction for future success.
NSF will strengthen support for basic research in education,
the building blocks of future innovation while strengthening
our disciplinary excellence.
A new NSF-wide investment of $117 million will accelerate
the progress of science and engineering through the deployment
of comprehensive cyberinfrastructure. Cyberinfrastructure
Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering will explore
ways to handle the vast quantities of data generated by today's
cutting-edge observational and computational tools, broaden
access to cyberinfrastructure, and support community research
Research at the Interface of the Biological, Mathematical,
and Physical Sciences, a new $76 million investment, will
explore nature's ability to network, communicate, and adapt and
apply this understanding to engineer new technologies.
This program aims to discover new bio-inspired materials
and sensors and support the advanced manufacturing of bio-
inspired devices.
Today's most challenging research problems often bring
together insights from across computer science, mathematics,
and the physical life and social sciences. INSPIRE, new to the
NSF portfolio, is a $12 million investment to encourage
investigators to undertake the interdisciplinary research that
is the hallmark of much of contemporary science and
Because NSF supports research across all disciplines, we
are positioned to catalyze the new fields and new research
paradigms that emerge from this cross-fertilization.
Many NSF activities provide incentives for investigators to
undertake use-inspired research that translates basic
discoveries into applications for the benefit of society and
the economy.
A $15 million investment in Enhancing Access to the Radio
Spectrum will pursue innovative ways to use the radio spectrum
more efficiently, enabling more applications and services used
by individuals and businesses to occupy the limited amount of
available spectrum.
Over the next five years, NSF will receive $1 billion from
the Wireless Innovation Fund or WIN established with receipts
from spectrum auctions.
NSF's support of advanced economics research led to the
FCC's current system of spectrum auctions that have netted over
$45 billion for the Federal Government since 1994.
The Wireless Innovation Fund is expected to provide $150
million to NSF in fiscal year 2012 for research on cyber-
physical systems such as smart sensors for buildings, roads,
and bridges. Many fields are on the threshold of discoveries
that can establish U.S. leadership in next generation
In the 1960s and 1970s, NSF's support of mathematical and
process innovations led directly to rapid prototyping and
revolutionized how products are designed and manufactured. The
budget includes $190 million for a new advanced manufacturing
initiative to pursue innovations in sensor- and model-based
smart manufacturing and nanomanufacturing.
Another investment of $30 million in the new interagency
national robotics initiative will focus on robots that will
work cooperatively with people in areas such as manufacturing,
space and undersea exploration, healthcare, surveillance and
security, and education and training.
NSF will continue to play a lead role in the multi-agency
National Nanotechnology Initiative with an investment of $456
million, $117 million of which will explore signature
initiatives in nanoelectronics, solar energy collection and
conversion, and sustainable nanomanufacturing.
NSF's support for nanotechnology research is already
producing returns. Over the past decade, NSF nanotechnology
centers and networks created 175 startups and developed
collaborations with over 1,200 companies.
U.S. leadership in science and engineering requires the
most knowledgeable and skilled science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics or STEM workers in the world.
Three new programs in STEM education, each funded at $20
million, will improve teacher preparation, strengthen
undergraduate STEM education, and broaden participation of
under-represented groups in the science and engineering
People and their ideas form the core of a robust science
and engineering enterprise, but leading-edge tools are also
needed to advance the frontiers and train students for the
workplace.
The budget sustains investments in major recruitment and
facilities projects that are already underway.
To conclude, One NSF characterizes my vision for NSF as a
model agency. NSF will work seamlessly across organizational
and disciplinary boundaries to create new knowledge, stimulate
discovery, address complex societal problems, and promote
national prosperity.
Robust NSF investments in fundamental science and
engineering have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives
and livelihoods of generations of Americans. The Fiscal Year
2012 NSF Budget Request will carry this success into the
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony. I thank you for your leadership. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you very much for that testimony.
We have been joined by our colleague, Mr. Aderholt from
Alabama, who also has the pleasure of chairing the Homeland
Security Subcommittee. And I think he indicated that he
actually has to go out and prepare for a hearing that is coming
up, but he may have some questions to submit for the record, as
will other Members.
Let's go into a few questions. And I think the first one
probably should be the fact that we are operating under a
Continuing Resolution at the present time. We are on a short-
term two-week extension. We will see where that goes in terms
of whether we will have to do another one. Hopefully, though,
Democrats, Republicans, Congress, the White House will be able
to come to an agreement in the next few weeks so that we can
have some certainty to finish fiscal year 2011.
IMPACT OF CONTINUING RESOLUTION
How is the CR impacting the work of the NSF at the present
Mr. Suresh. I think we are continuing with plans to honor
commitments. We are spending wisely and carefully. We are very
mindful of the need for continued workforce development. But it
is constraining our ability, so there are two aspects to this.
One is the real impact of it, but equally importantly and
perhaps more importantly the psychological impact of it on
students, faculty, and researchers in the country.
And I would say that we wish we did not have a Continuing
Resolution. We are working very hard to assure the community
that we are doing everything possible within our constraints to
make sure that their activities will continue to be supported
by NSF while we are looking to the future at the very cutting
edge in both research work and instrumentation for the
Mr. Bonner. You know, it is interesting. I think Mr. Fattah
would agree. I do not know any Member of Congress that likes
the CR either. It is one of the hands that sometimes we are
dealt.
There may be some additional questions about the balance of
fiscal year 2011.
INCREASED FUNDING FOR GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Let me shift, however, to the fact that your budget request
proposes an increase in funding for the Graduate Research
Fellowship Program and within that program, an increase in the
educational allowance and stipend levels.
My sister is the provost at the University of Alabama so I
know how important this work is as it relates to graduate
students throughout the country, at great universities like
Penn State and Alabama and Brown and others.
Higher allowances and stipends will certainly make the
awards more useful to the individual recipients, but increasing
the per award cost will reduce the total number of awards that
can be made.
Why in your view is this increase in the value of each
award worth the loss of additional fellowship opportunities?
Mr. Suresh. Thank you for that question.
I think the Graduate Research Fellowships are an important
part of what NSF does. Since 1962, NSF has supported 46,000
graduate research fellows. I have had the honor and privilege
of supervising more than ten students in two different
institutions who have received NSF graduate fellowships.
We have maintained a commitment to keep the increase that
was introduced in 2010 for Graduate Research Fellowships. So in
the fiscal year 2012 budget, we will have 2,000 graduate
research fellows. But at the same time, the cost of education
allowance has not kept up with the increasing cost of education
over the past many years. So in the fiscal year 2012 budget, we
will be increasing it from $10,500 to $12,000.
Also, the cost of living has gone up quite a bit and
graduate students already live in many places under substandard
conditions. So we want to make sure that in the not-too-distant
future, we also increase the stipend for graduate students so
that we can address that as well.
Because all three are important, I think if we do not
support the students adequately, then their ability to go into
graduate education is going to be reduced. At the same time, to
improve the workforce, we have to support enough numbers and
increasing numbers of graduate students.
If you look at our budget, we have made some very difficult
choices. It is not that we are asking for increases. There are
also six programs that are going to be terminated. There are
some programs that are being reduced which will impact graduate
students. And I think this is a mechanism that we are trying to
The other mechanism we are looking at, and it is also in
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, is that the graduate
research funds will be supported through a combination of funds
allocated to EHR and also to the Research and Related
Activities category of the budget.
PROGRAM TERMINATIONS
Mr. Bonner. I am going to have some additional questions,
and I would like to yield to Mr. Fattah, but could you tell us
about the six programs that you are proposing to eliminate?
Mr. Suresh. Sure. So of the six programs, the major program
that will be eliminated will be DUSEL, Deep Underground Science
and Engineering Lab. The National Science Board, which is the
oversight body for the National Science Foundation, in its
meeting in December unanimously and very clearly articulated
that the model that was proposed for stewardship of DUSEL was
inconsistent with the mission of NSF and was not acceptable.
In light of that, the Administration has proposed to
terminate the fiscal year 2012 budget for DUSEL. So that will
be one of the programs.
The other program is the Graduate STEM Fellows in K through
12 Education or GK-12. GK-12 is a program that was initiated in
1999. This program has had a rich and successful history. We
have had some very good outcomes out of this, but NSF always
funds good things, learns from the experience, gets community
feedback, and funds for a long period of time.
But we have to move to new directions as well. So as a
result of this, we will incorporate the best practices of GK-12
into other programs as we move forward. We will honor existing
commitments for GK-12 in 2012, but there is no new funding for
GK-12.
The third program is called National STEM Distributed
Learning program or NSDL and, again, with increasing emphasis
on cyberlearning and other activities across NSF in different
portfolios, including in EHR and some of the new programs that
will come into existence, it was decided that we take the best
practices of this and terminate this program for fiscal year
The fourth program is Research Initiation Grants to Broaden
Participation in Biology. Broadening participation is at the
core of NSF. It is in every activity that we do. And since
joining NSF, I have made a very firm commitment to broadening
participation in everything we do.
So one of the things we decided to do was to take in this
program and fold it into other activities. And one of the new
programs that will be initiated in EHR will address aspects of
this program as well.
The next one is the Science of Learning Centers. These have
provided useful input. Now, we have had extensive reviews of
the successes of these programs and some will continue and
terminate over time. And those that have served their useful
purpose, we take the input and then we will wind them down over
the coming years.
And the last one is a Synchrotron Radiation Center at the
University of Wisconsin. This is a 30-year-old center and just
refurbishing it will not keep us at the forefront of this
field. So, therefore, it was decided to terminate it.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fattah. Let me work from the general for a minute here
and we will get to some specifics.
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
The National Science Foundation has invested in the
research of a couple hundred thousand scientists and a whole
range of areas that statutorily you have been instructed to do
basic research in. And this is the only entity of the Federal
Government that has this singular responsibility in terms of
basic scientific research.
You are involved with the National Academies both here and
in other countries, Germany and the like. I wonder if you could
share with the subcommittee your perspective on this kind of
international race in terms of science.
Let me give you a for instance. The computer was obviously
developed here, and I would have the chairman note, at the
University of Pennsylvania in my district. But today if we are
looking for the fastest supercomputers, they would not be in
the United States of America. They would be in China.
And so when you go to talk about simulations, we do not
have the world's fastest or the greatest computers anymore. And
you could go over all kinds of areas where we see competition
successfully challenging America on this front.
So I was wondering if you could, given your perspective,
give us a sense about what you think it means to our Nation if
we allow others to move substantially ahead of us in these
areas of scientific discovery.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
As you mentioned, I have been fortunate and very privileged
to have had the opportunity for a number of international
experiences. I received my first degree in engineering from
Indian Institute of Technology and came to the United States.
I am quite active in a number of academies, the German
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering in the U.S., and the Engineering and Science
Academies in India, and the Science Academy in Spain.
And you mentioned in your opening remarks about the
investments that the government of Singapore makes. The
Singapore government created the National Research Foundation
on January 1, 2006. In fact, I know the existence of that
particular entity since the day it was founded. And I had
interacted quite a bit with that foundation through my
activities as dean of engineering at MIT.
And one of the things that is happening now as we face the
biggest budget constraint since the Great Depression and the
biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, we are
also facing unprecedented competition from the international
arena, from countries large and small.
I met with a number of colleagues from China who tell me
that over an already increasing base for research funding over
the last two decades or so, over the next five to six years,
there is discussion that China will increase its research
funding including basic research funding by 50 percent from
already a high level.
Singapore, as you indicated, a tiny country of 4.6 million
people, invests billions and billions of U.S. dollars into
research. And I have seen the infrastructure go up in front of
my eyes over the last two decades or so.
And the concern that I have both from personal experience
and these observations is that unlike the time in 1977 when I
came to the U.S., at that time, there was no question in my
mind where I wanted to go. There was only one place to go and
that was here.
And to some extent, some would argue this is still the
same. But there are growing indications that this may not be
the same ten years from now if we are not careful. Let me give
you a few data points.
Germany, Japan, South Korea spend more money on research as
a fraction of GDP, non-defense research spending compared to
the U.S. and they also passed us in 2000. For ten years, we
have been lagging behind those three countries and they have
become major forces in science and engineering discovery and
Smaller Scandinavian countries have also surpassed us like
Finland, for example, and other Scandinavian countries.
Singapore is on a path to significantly increase research
funding. So that is one problem.
The second problem is that we have--let me give you one
piece of anecdotal information. This is not yet a trend, but
this is the most compelling data that I have seen. In my
graduating class in engineering, all branches of engineering
from an elite national institution in India, there were 250 of
us in 1977. More than 200 of us had an opportunity to come to
the U.S. to pursue graduate education. All 200 of us came and
all 200 of us stayed here. Pretty much all of us became
American citizens and we joined academia, industry startups,
created jobs.
Fast forward 32 years. The most recent year for which we
have data which is 2009, the same campus, still 250 people,
only 16 percent of those students chose to come here. Eighty
percent could have if they tried.
And one of the remarkable things about the American
scientific enterprise as a Nation is that this has been the
unquestioned destination for many, many decades, for more than
half a century or even longer. And if we lose that, I think we
are going to have a problem.
Mr. Fattah. The chairman in his opening statement referred
to this report that kind of benchmarked what we needed to do to
stem the tide. We have not done much of that.
And your sister is a provost. And to talk about graduate
school, we look at the students who pursue degrees in the hard
science. Less than a third of them are American students and it
is decreasing and decreasing whether at the great University of
Pennsylvania or at the University of Auburn. And this is a real
challenge.
Mr. Bonner. University of Alabama.
Mr. Fattah. Alabama.
Mr. Bonner. Auburn is that other university.
Mr. Fattah. So this is a great concern because if we are
not growing our own or if others are not coming and staying, it
just positions our country in a very bad way.
When I went out to visit these labs, I was struck by the
fact that way back in the 1940s and for every year since, our
country has made a very significant investment in research. And
the labs I was visiting had to do with our nuclear weapons. And
obviously some of the issues were classified.
But what was fascinating about this was that, in one
discussion about a much smaller country and what they were
doing in this regard, I asked how they could afford to do this.
The response of the person giving the briefing was that, and
quoting the briefer, their position was they would eat grass if
necessary in order to pursue this research.
Now, this was in a much more defense-related posture, but
the point here is that the question becomes what is our resolve
as a Nation to make sure that we position ourselves at the very
front, to win and win consistently. And if we want to do that,
we cannot afford to abandon our investments in this regard.
Now, a 12 percent increase in this budget, given the
financial climate, I guess we can say, is a step forward. But
when a football team from the University of Alabama and Penn
State line up, it is compared to what. It is not just what are
you doing compared to what you did last year. It is what you
are doing compared to the other teams that you are lining up
against.
So we are competing economically with countries that seem
to have decided that winning is important. And the question
becomes, since we have historically been winning, whether or
not we have decided that we no longer want to win and that what
we would rather do is to do something less than our best.
And I just think that rather than just the details of the
budget, that what is important--because we have heard the
Patent Office in this room say that for the first time in the
year 2000, the same year that you mentioned, we crossed over a
rubicon in which the majority of the patents being sought in
our country are sought by people who are not Americans or not
American entities, right?
So, you know, so goes research, so goes to innovation, so
goes intellectual property, and we know what follows from there
because then it is taking those products, to the market,
manufacturing them, and they are going to go other places.
So we have to really think about how we are going to go
forward and even in our rush to cut, we need to think that we
do not want to create a situation where, unlike those who made
these investments in the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s,
that somehow we want to be the generation of leaders who
decided to diminish America's place in the world.
And I think that where the rubber meets the road is at this
point of innovation. It has nothing to do with party or
partisanship. If four percent of our population are scientists
and engineers, we need to make sure that they have the very
best opportunities to succeed here.
Mr. Bonner. So that I do not get in trouble with my home
State, we also have a great university in Auburn. We are the
only State that I know of that has won back to back national
championships and has back to back Heisman Trophy winners. And
we are proud of that.
But Mr. Fattah raises a good point. In this Nation, we have
spent a lot of time, probably an inordinate amount of time
focusing on the achievements on the gridiron or the football
field and do not put near the emphasis that we should as a
Nation on the achievements of our scientists and our biologists
and our engineers. And that is something that I think we can
all agree is one of the reasons that we are in the position
that we are in today.
POTENTIAL DUPLICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Last week, the GAO issued a report identifying areas of
potential duplication between government programs. You just
previously identified six programs that you are proposing to
eliminate.
One of the report's major findings is that the government
has 82 distinct programs whose purpose is to improve the
quality of American teachers. Those programs are divided among
ten different federal agencies, including both NASA and NSF.
Do you believe that your teacher quality programs are
duplicative of those offered by other agencies. Then a follow-
up question to that is, what kind of government-wide
coordination takes place to ensure that these programs are
effectively and efficiently aligned?
Mr. Bonner. The real chairman is here now.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you for the question, Mr. Bonner.
The GAO report is something that I have looked at. In
response to your point, NSF's goal in the education arena
whether it is K through 12 or undergraduate, postgraduate, and
higher education is that we develop models and practices
through scientific research, test them out, validate them, and
they are taken up by other agencies for large-scale
And as you saw in the six programs that we terminated, we
continually look at things that are effective, that are not
effective, so we work very closely with the Department of
There are three new programs that I mentioned in my opening
remarks that have been articulated for the fiscal year 2012
budget request. And those are intended to look at what we have
done well, how to take them and then how to expand them.
One of the new programs is WIDER and this is essentially
geared at large-scale implementation for undergraduate
education. And as part of that, we look at all the existing
things including things that could potentially be duplicate
activities and remove them or try to eliminate them.
I have charged the head of our EHR, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, who
is sitting behind me, with looking at how EHR can work with all
the directors within NSF to bring education to everything that
we do, not just in one particular unit, but across NSF.
Conversely how do we take the best practices in education
across all the different activities and then bring them back to
EHR.
So we are very aware of this and we are looking at this.
And, you know, one of the unique things about what NSF does is
across the spectrum of fields and from a scientific perspective
creating models rather than large-scale implementation.
Mr. Bonner. It may just be pennies on the dollar, but
whatever you can save in eliminating duplicative programs can
be invested in other areas of the important work that you are
One of the things, just as an aside, going back to Mr.
Fattah's comments, I have advocated for years with NASA is that
they need to do a better job of letting the American taxpayer
know where their work is making a difference in our everyday
lives.
COMMUNICATING RESULTS OF NSF INVESTMENTS
You know, when we passed the stimulus bill, some of us
voted for it, some of us voted against, but all of a sudden,
you see these road signs all across the country with the emblem
that this is a project of the stimulus bill.
I do not know whether NSF is able to brand itself on the
work that you are doing. I know the good work you are doing is
paying dividends not just in this country but around the world.
But I really think that might be something that if the
American taxpayer is in the grocery store and they are picking
up a bottle of detergent or whatever and they see your work
helped lead to the discovery of that ingredient, it just might
bring a better understanding of your important work. And that
way, we would not be arguing over whether NSF should have a 13
percent increase or whether it should be a 25 percent increase.
The fact is people could have a better grasp of the impact you
are making on their daily lives. Just a thought.
Mr. Suresh. You are right on, Mr. Bonner. In fact, these
very comments resonate very well with the first retreat that I
held since arriving at NSF. How can we make the work that NSF
does be available or at least accessible so people can
understand what NSF does, not just the scientists and
engineers, but a much broader population.
So let me mention a few of the specific things that I have
started in the last few months. First and foremost is improving
all channels of communication. So I have actually set up a task
force that within NSF will look at how we communicate the
outcomes of what we do to The Hill, to K through 12, to middle
school students, and so forth. This is very important and it is
increasingly important.
The second thing is to update the technology that we use to
do that. And it is not conventional technology anymore. There
are a variety of media, especially that are appealing to
younger people increasingly so. How do we tap into that?
The third one is not only gathering data but making the
data accessible to a broader cross-section of people, both
public information but also scientific information.
So we have a variety of programs that are underway. STAR
Metrics is a program that we are working on right now in
collaboration with some other agencies as well like NIH. And
this is something that during the course of this year I hope
will be a very strong medium through which the impact of NSF's
work is broadly recognized.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for just one
second because the chairman is going to jump in here.
I totally agree with you. I mean, I think one of the
problems is when we look at NASA, we look at National Science
Foundation. Even though there are literally tens of thousands
of very important discoveries that have contributed to our
country and to the world, the public has no concept that this
was through these investments or through these entities.
We know when we go after a great football coach or a
player, we are all rooting for our team no matter what the
price. Sign the guy, sign him because we want to win. And that
is the same kind of attitude we have to bring in this area of
innovation, that we want to win. We want to know what it costs
to win and then we want to pay the cost because we really do
not want to pay the cost to come in second to some of these
other nations in our world.
Mr. Bonner. If I might, this will be my last question and
then I am going to go to another hearing. I really have enjoyed
being with you and I appreciate the chairman allowing me to be
in his chair for a few minutes.
Yesterday the prime minister of Australia was here and
twice, at the beginning of her speech and at the end of it, she
cited as a young girl, and I could relate, as we are
approximately the same age, how all the way down under, she was
able to look to the United States and the world leadership we
were providing by putting a man on the moon. And then when she
closed with that, basically it was a challenge for America to
always continue to lead.
And, you know, sometimes it is refreshing to hear from
outside the role that we play and that we should continue to
Thank you, Chairman Wolf.
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. I want to
thank you for chairing the hearing. I was at another hearing
testifying, so I appreciate it very much.
And I agree with what both Mr. Bonner and Mr. Fattah said.
K-12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT
This is a question based on my disappointment in NSF and in
Dr. Bement. Back in 2009, I asked the NSF to pull together a
team of experts to identify the best practices in K-12 STEM
education and make recommendations on how these practices could
be replicated across the country. Despite all the time, two
years that has gone by since then, that team of experts has yet
to meet. And the earliest we can get the recommendations would
be early summer. We have actually lost a couple of young kids
from pursuing STEM subject because of the failure of NSF to
respond.
When is the NSF going to fulfill this directive, and what
is the justification for this unnecessarily long delay? We did
the same thing on prison reform. Mr. Mollohan to his credit,
and I want to make sure he always gets the credit, had the very
best hearing on prisons and prison reform.
We asked the Pew Foundation and the Council of State
Governments to do an in-depth review, bringing the best minds.
They finished their report. They published it. They have gone
out to all the governors and you all have not even responded.
Two years have gone by.
So when you say that you are really that excited about
education, I do not see the results. So what is the
justification for this unnecessarily long delay, and when are
you going to fulfill the directive? Why the delay first?
Mr. Suresh. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. But I
also want to thank you for your interest in STEM and your
leadership in this area.
Let me respond to that. As you know, I arrived at NSF on
October 18th last year, about four months ago. As soon as I
found out about the need for this report, I had charged the
head of our EHR unit, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, who is here, to give
me an update on this, but also to look into how quickly we can
have this report submitted.
There are three parallel activities that are going on----
Mr. Wolf. Why did it take so long to do it, two years?
Mr. Suresh. I think that there are three reasons for this.
One is to identify the best practices in STEM education. There
was an NRC Committee that was set up with experts from around
the country. And they are submitting written material ahead of
a meeting that is going to be held in May of this year, on May
11th and 12th.
And, in fact, I very much hope that you will be available
to kick off that meeting. There was an invitation that was sent
to your office about two weeks ago or so. And we very much hope
that that event will take place. And that event will be a
culmination of all the background work that has gone on. So
that was one factor.
The second factor is that NSF has also charged the Urban
Institute to look at two states where we can take the best
practices and use them in the report with enough careful
scientific data. This is a very important topic and NSF is
extremely grateful to you for the leadership you have shown in
this. This has galvanized us actually to do a scientific study
that typically the way NSF does and to give you a report that
is complete and comprehensive and that addresses the issue.
The third reason for this, NSF has also engaged the COSMOS
Corporation to look into the best practices of the American
Science Program and to incorporate the findings with respect to
STEM education into the report. And they are also charged to
get that.
So I asked the head of EHR to give me an interim report on
where things stand with specific deadlines. That report was
given to me about a little more than a week ago and that report
has been forwarded to your office as well.
And the symposium will take place in May and the
preliminary report will be done in June of this year. And the
final report will be submitted by mid July of this year.
Mr. Wolf. Well, just the thought of two years is so long,
and I am really disappointed in the former director. He left
town. How hard you work on the last day is as important as how
hard you work on the first day, and on the last day, he did not
finish this. He specifically sat there and promised that it
would be done.
I am concerned that NSF's actions in response to this
directive may be too narrow and will result primarily in a
report to this committee. It is interesting and this committee
will look at it. But what are you going to do to make
policymakers, school officials, teachers, and other interested
parties aware of the findings so that they can actually put it
to use?
The purpose is to make sure the superintendent of schools
in Fairfax County and the city of Philadelphia and Harrisburg
and Richmond get this thing quickly. And as you know, school
years begin, curriculum is set up.
How are you getting it out to the real people that matter,
not to this committee? It really does not matter what you tell
this committee. What are you going to tell the superintendents
and the guidance counselors and the science teachers around the
country, and how will you get it into their hands so that it
can be implemented?
K-12 STEM EDUCATION COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
Mr. Suresh. So if I could quickly answer that question. One
of the things I have also charged not only Dr. Ferrini-Mundy
but our communications folks is a communications strategy for
these kinds of very important reports. That also goes back to
Mr. Bonner's earlier question which is very relevant to this
particular issue.
I fully agree with your sentiment on making this available
as broadly as possible and so we are looking into that strategy
right now to get it to as wide an audience as possible.
Mr. Fattah. If I could suggest to the chairman, we would
love for your second favorite city, Philadelphia, to host a
roll-out of the study for all the school superintendents from
around the country and----
Mr. Wolf. You going to go?
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. We could tie them in by web if
they cannot travel. We could do it at the great Constitution
Center and NSF could roll this out in a very large media market
that would get a lot of exposure. And the chairman and I could
be there to help open up the discussion. So we will be glad to
work with you.
Mr. Wolf. I would be open to do it. We could go down to
Pat's Steaks and get a steak.
Mr. Fattah. I am paying for the steak. All right? So I
think we have a bipartisan agreement that we should roll this
study out in Philadelphia.
Mr. Wolf. You want to do that? You want to work out
Mr. Fattah. I want to work with NSF on that regard.
Mr. Suresh. Mr. Chairman, I also want to assure you we
definitely want to do as the National Science Foundation better
than the Department of Prisons, so we will do everything
Mr. Wolf. Well, the prisons people turned it around. Pew
Foundation and Council of State Governments did it very, very
fast. It was quite a report. I was going to bring it today, but
I did not want to embarrass you. It is very impressive.
MAINTAINING STUDENT INTEREST IN STEM
At what age do you think you lose a young person? First,
second, third, fourth, fifth grade? Very few people go to
college and major in business and then transfer into sciences
or physics or chemistry.
When I go into the schools, I have my own perception. But
what grade do you think you begin to lose somebody? If you lost
them, I cannot say you never get them back, but it is very
tough. Fifth grade, sixth grade, seventh grade, first grade?
Mr. Suresh. Well, it depends on a number of circumstances,
but I would say it is very early. I think one can always
energize them with the right mentoring at different stages, but
the earlier we excite somebody about the importance and the
impact of science and engineering, the better it is.
There are some constituencies where we lose certain
segments of our scientific workforce at a much later stage. For
example, in the case of women in science and engineering, 40
percent of the postgraduates in the country in science and
engineering are women, but in the workforce, they are only 26
percent. We lose them in their early career stage after they
have been trained, after they have made the initial impact for
a variety of reasons.
But in terms of capturing the attention of young minds, the
earlier, the better.
Mr. Wolf. There must be an age. There has got to be a point
when the line crosses, and I am trying to get when that is.
Mr. Suresh. Well, I mean, obviously the earlier, the
better, but I can only give some response. I have two
daughters. Both are into science and engineering and one got
interested in science at fourth grade. And fourth grade
according to data is what studies suggest. But there are also,
you know, differing circumstances. But if you are asking about
based on scientific studies on average, it is about fourth
grade.
Mr. Wolf. So whatever we do with limited resources, we have
to put the emphasis on kindergarten, first grade, second grade,
third grade, fourth grade and fifth grade to keep these kids
active and interested in science.
Well, that is what we are looking to find out and what
schools have done----
Mr. Suresh. Right.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Not just in two states but around
the country to bring that about.
NSF INTERNATIONAL OFFICES
NSF has permanent offices located in Beijing. Can you
describe what this office does and why it is necessary?
Mr. Suresh. So, Mr. Chairman, before you came here, we had
a lively conversation about international engagement and
growing competition and so forth. NSF, as you know, has three
overseas offices, one in Tokyo, one in Beijing, and one in
Paris. We also have operations in Antarctica where we use
Christchurch, New Zealand as a focal point if not an official
office for our Antarctic program.
As we discussed earlier here, the U.S. has been the
unquestioned destination for decades, for nearly a century for
scientists and engineers to come from all over the world. And I
am a living example of that population.
We have also been the generators of ideas, innovative
ideas. We have been a very open society not just in science but
as a society. And as a result, it has benefitted what we do
enormously and it has benefitted the scientific enterprise
Now, as other countries grow, other countries invest a lot
of money and it is very important that agencies like NSF not
only find out what our competition is, not only try to
understand how we ensure that we remain at the very cutting
edge of it, but equally important, we make sure that we give
our scientists and engineers and our students an opportunity to
any technologies that may evolve over there.
So one of the purposes of the Beijing office would be to,
A, find out what goes on in China in science and engineering
education and research----
Mr. Wolf. And do they give you a weekly or a daily or
monthly report?
Mr. Suresh. There is a monthly report that comes to our
international office.
Mr. Wolf. How many people are in Beijing?
Mr. Suresh. I think it is an office with just one or two
and they interface with the State Department.
Mr. Wolf. Are they located in the embassy?
Mr. Suresh. I do not think so. I will be visiting them
later this year. I have not visited them.
Mr. Wolf. Let me ask you this. How many cyber attacks have
there been against NSF?
Mr. Suresh. Recently there was one last fall, but, you
know, we take the cyber attacks very, very seriously. And, in
fact, in the 2012 budget request, we have $155 million for
cybersecurity research which is a 20 percent increase over the
2010 enacted level. And this is something that is a major part
of the emphasis for us.
Mr. Wolf. Last month, your Inspector General testified that
a significant cybersecurity incident recently occurred at NSF
and the computers involved had been wiped clean before
investigators from the IG's office had an opportunity to
examine them.
Have you made changes to your security breach procedures to
ensure these circumstances do not repeat?
Mr. Suresh. Yes. We have increased firewalls. We have
increased cybersecurity software and also made the system much
more secure following that attack.
In addition to that, we have a fairly high-level committee
that has been set up since that time at NSF looking into all of
our practices and interfacing with the different parts of NSF.
Mr. Wolf. Following on that, portable IT devices like
BlackBerries and laptops are common targets of foreign
intelligence services in countries like China where NSF
employees travel frequently on official business. I was
concerned to hear that NSF has no formal policy on protection
of IT devices during official travel.
Mr. Suresh. Actually, we now have. We have a policy.
Mr. Wolf. As of when? Monday, or as of when?
Mr. Suresh. No, no. As of about a month and a half ago.
Mr. Wolf. What is the policy with regard to BlackBerries
and laptops taken to China?
Mr. Suresh. So initially they have to go through a check at
NSF. It goes through our cybersecurity folks first to make sure
that appropriate filters are put in for these devices.
Mr. Wolf. But they tell me that you can never really take a
BlackBerry or a computer to China and have it clean.
Mr. Suresh. I am not familiar with that, but my
understanding is that this is very much on the radar screen of
our IT folks. And we have this committee that is looking into
ensuring that there is no proprietary or sensitive information
from NSF or any information from NSF that is compromised when
people travel overseas anywhere including in China.
Mr. Wolf. Well, say by Monday, maybe you can have somebody
come up to sit down with the staff to tell us specifically what
you are doing about BlackBerries and laptops going to any
single country, and how you clean them. Many of the security
agencies are giving new ones to take over there and then they
turn them back in when they get back.
Mr. Suresh. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. If they compromise your BlackBerry or laptop,
they can come through to your computer. So if somebody can come
up next week and sit down with the staff to let us know what
you are doing and how quickly. Not just for travel to China,
but----
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. To Syria, and to any country so we
have some sense.
Mr. Suresh. I will be very happy to do that, have somebody
meet with your staff and update them on----
NSF SPACE LEASE
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mr. Serrano in a minute. But
the lease for your current headquarters expires in 2013. GSA
has already begun looking at replacement options.
Is remaining in your current facility still a possibility?
What would need to be done to those buildings in order to make
them consistent with GSA requirements and NSF's ongoing space
needs?
And I can recall Senator Robb, Chuck Robb, moved NSF to
Virginia. NSF fought it tooth and nail. They wanted to be
downtown close to the White House. Now they seem to be happy.
At least Mr. Bement said they were happy.
Many employees have moved there now. They live around
there. And I do not want to see you guys pick up and head off
to Timbuktu when people have bought homes and made an impact.
So what needs to be done to these buildings? Where are you
going to go, and what are you doing with regard to office
space?
Mr. Suresh. So, you know, this as a former renter, I know
that there is never a good time for the lease to come up for
renewal. And as you mentioned, our lease is coming up for
renewal in 2013.
The process to address what happens in 2013 started in 2009
and in consultation with GSA. And based on these discussions
over the past two years or so, nearly two years, GSA has
determined that there is sufficient competition for a new site
and also sufficient opportunities for infrastructure and access
to critical infrastructure for NSF in the northern Virginia
area. Of course, this is subject to Congressional approval and
this is a discussion that they have been having.
With respect to your question----
Mr. Wolf. Just for the record, that is not my congressional
district. I just want the record to----
Mr. Suresh. No. I----
Mr. Wolf. It is Congressman Jim Moran's district.
Mr. Suresh. Yes. So that is what GSA has determined over
the last year or so. With respect to the existing building, the
existing building could be one possibility. But NSF moved into
the existing building in 1993. And NSF's operations have grown
significantly since 1993, so there are critical infrastructure
improvements from transformers to elevators to panel rooms to
IT infrastructure to cybersecurity and so forth that need to be
done in the existing building should NSF or should GSA and
Congress decide that we stay in the current location. And that
will require significant improvements to the current location.
That is also one of the possibilities. We do not know how this
will evolve over the next few months or so.
Mr. Wolf. The GSA prospectus for the project establishes
location criteria for any potential future NSF headquarters.
What are the criteria, and how does the application of those
criteria limit the geographic area in which GSA can look?
Mr. Suresh. The criteria, you know, broadly would be a
variety of them that include access to critical infrastructure,
access to places like hotels and things like this because last
year, we engaged something on the order of 290,000 referees in
the communities. Not all of them came. About 19,000 people or
so came into the NSF area. We also hold meetings.
And so the criteria are still evolving. They are not
finalized, but broadly there are criteria. So I can tell you
that the infrastructure that I mentioned, airports, Metrorail,
interstate trains, easy to reach from different airports, that
is one criterion.
Last year, as I mentioned, we had 20,000 merit review
panelists who visited the NSF site or nearby hotels. So access
to that is very important.
Specific criterion would be that hotel accommodations
deliver a minimum of 1,500 room nights per week. And so----
Mr. Suresh. [continuing]. Hotel infrastructure has to be--
Mr. Wolf. Well, I would ask you to stay in touch with the
committee and also Congressman Moran, Senator Mark Warner and
Senator Webb on this issues.
You know, it is interesting. We had to offer an amendment
to beat NSF back. They fought to stay on Constitution Avenue.
There is no rail on Constitution Avenue. There are no
restaurants on Constitution Avenue. There are no hotels or
motels on Constitution Avenue. And you all fought to stay
So I want you to be faithful to the criteria and I would
ask that you keep Mr. Moran informed. Because what I am afraid
of is there is going to be somebody in the middle of the night
try to move this agency somewhere, and your employees are going
to be left high and dry. They have got mortgages on their
house. They have investments that they have made. They have
moved their families. Their kids are invested.
And, again, the record must show NSF is not in my
congressional district and never will be in my congressional
But you start doing this, and you hurt people. So I am
going to ask you to keep the committee informed and keep Mr.
Moran and Mr. Warner and Mr. Webb also informed.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Wolf. Excuse me.
Mr. Fattah. It is definitely not in my congressional
district. But let me just say that on behalf of this side of
the team, I am fully in support of what the chairman is saying.
I believe that the stability of the employee base is critically
And, Mr. Chairman, I think that NSF and GSA should figure
out what the requirements are that they need. But I am not
opposed to using the appropriations bill to help them focus in
a way that will not have them wasting their energy looking for
places to go other than in the general vicinity in which they
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate Mr. Fattah's comment. That is what
we went through the last time. Actually, Dr. Bement used to
live in Maryland and moved over, if some may recall. I have
talked to some of the employees. They said they have made these
investments, and now they are hearing word that there may be
this effort to move.
I have never tried to take any federal agency and put it in
my congressional district. And this is not in my district.
Mr. Fattah. I am willing to support language, prohibitions
or other language that could be instructive in this matter.
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate that.
Mr. Suresh. If I could just add to your comments. One of
the things I have done since joining NSF about nearly five
months ago was to meet with each and every office and
directorate at NSF in my first two months. And that has been
extremely beneficial to me not only for the scientific work
that NSF does or the education work that NSF does, it also gave
me an opportunity to feel the pulse of the staff.
And I am very much committed to making sure that the staff
are very happy. And we would not want to do anything that
significantly disrupts their lives and is a blow to their
morale.
Mr. Wolf. Where do you live?
Mr. Suresh. I live in Washington. I recently moved here
and--
Mr. Wolf. Buy or rent?
Mr. Suresh. Mine is a six-year appointment, so it was too
long a time to rent. Even though it was too short a time
probably to buy, I decided to buy it.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
One of my subjects of interest, Doctor, is the Arecibo
Observatory in Puerto Rico. Now, it serves the purpose that it
does scientifically and otherwise. It is also very symbolic for
the Federal Government and NSF and NASA to have chosen one of
the territories for such an important project so long ago.
And so you can see that by my comments that we both pay
attention to the significance of it in terms of what it
accomplishes and what it has accomplished and why it is needed
and also the importance of having it in a territory and how the
people feel about that.
So for a while, it looked like it was going to close down.
Now it seems like that is not the case. New reports came out
about the near earth objects. I am always amazed by that
comment. That is kind of a scary comment, you know. I think we
have some near earth people in here, but objects are something
of great interest to me.
So what is the status? I mean, is it going to close down?
Is it going to stay open? Have you rediscovered an importance
for the Arecibo Observatory?
Mr. Suresh. So the facility in Puerto Rico----
Mr. Serrano. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, NSF is not
in my district. But as a disclaimer, Puerto Rico is the
territory where I was born, although I represent the Bronx,
just for the record.
Mr. Suresh. Mr. Serrano----
Mr. Fattah. Is there a record of your birth?
Mr. Serrano. Well, I know for sure I cannot be President.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Serrano, for the question.
I will be happy to answer that just for the record and for
full disclosure, I have to say until five months ago, I held a
job for an institution whose official mascot is a beaver. And I
had a beaver ring on my finger until recently.
The facility in Puerto Rico has multiple benefits. And, in
fact, I am not an astronomer or astrophysicist, but the
facility is the largest single antenna facility in the world.
It not only serves in scientific discoveries in the
astrophysics arena, it has also been beneficial for educational
The decision that was made in 2006 was based on the senior
review that was done where it was felt that cost sharing should
be done from sources outside of NSF because it is also of
interest to NASA and it is also of interest to not only the
Astronomy Division of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Directorate but also the Atmospheric and Geospace Division of
the Geosciences Directorate at NSF.
And based on that, attempts were made and now we have an
ongoing management competition underway with a new five-year
cooperative agreement to be awarded in fiscal year 2012. That
is the current status. And there are still attempts being made
to ensure in response to the senior review that we will get
matching support from other sources. The fiscal year 2012
budget request for the facility will be $8.7 million.
Mr. Serrano. So based on that statement, one would say that
an immediate plan to close it is not in the works and that, in
fact, if things go well, we know the observatory will be around
at least until 2017?
Mr. Suresh. Well, that is correct. I think it depends on
the outcome of this management competition, but we are going
through the process and a decision will be made in fiscal year
Mr. Serrano. I also appreciate and thank you for being
probably one of the first folks to come before this committee,
I have been on this committee for many years and took a hiatus,
forced by circumstances, and glad to be back, the first one to
mention the educational value of the observatory. So since
there are no secrets in politics or in public hearings, I am
sure there are a lot of folks who will be happy at your
comments. And I thank you for that.
Mr. Suresh. If I could just add one comment to that just to
put some numbers to that, the Angel Ramos Foundation Visitors
Center attracts roughly 100,000 visitors per year at the
facility. And so there is also not only a research component
and an education component, there is also a public outreach
component to excite people about it.
Mr. Serrano. It is also featured in a James Bond movie. Did
they get paid for that? I mean, what happens? I have always
wondered when they use a facility like that, do we get paid for
Mr. Suresh. I have to look into that. I am not----
Mr. Serrano. Yeah. And do they get like a piece of the
action every time it is shown on the James Bond marathon, you
know?
BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN THE STEM WORKFORCE
Mr. Suresh. Maybe that will convince a lot of young people
to go into science.
Mr. Serrano. It does. It does.
And staying on the issue that Chairman Wolf had brought up,
I had always heard also that fourth grade is the key. In fact,
prior to my State Assembly days where I was chairman of the
Education Committee, I worked for the local school district and
there were many people who sadly stated that if a child was not
into school in terms of feeling good about going to school
every day by the fourth grade that it was a serious problem.
And it seems like it is so early. But by the fourth grade, if
that child was not feeling good about going to school and
learning and being excited by teachers and parents and the
community that that child could be lost as early as the fourth
There has been a lot of talk throughout the years and a lot
of efforts by your folks to invite more African Americans and
Latinos into the math and science fields. And I know you have
done a lot of work with that.
What is the ongoing issue there, and is there an interest
first by government to invite those folks into the field and,
secondly, is there a response from the communities?
Mr. Suresh. So there are a number of programs that NSF has
under the broad category of broadening participation. And one
of the critical things that we are going to face as a country
will be the workforce issue for the future. We address one
aspect of it.
And as I see it, there are three critical components to
that workforce issue. The first component is going to be the
representation of women in the future science and engineering
workforce of this country. So that is about 50 percent of the
population. They represent 40 percent in terms of early career
scientists and engineers, but then from that point until a few
years later, their representation in the workforce drops to
about 26 percent. 2006 is the most recent year for which we
have the data. Until we fix that, I think that component of the
workforce is going to remain a problem.
I want to come back to the Hispanics and underrepresented
minority issue, but I want to contrast that with the data that
we have for women scientists and engineers.
In 2009, 72 percent of high school valedictorians in
American high schools were girls, 72 percent, and that fraction
is increasing.
In 2009, 20 percent more women graduated from college than
men did and that difference is increasing.
In the last ten years in the U.S., we have seen a 10
percent increase in the number of Ph.D.s given in science and
engineering across all fields. That entire 10 percent increase
was due to women getting Ph.D.s in science and engineering.
They represent about 40 percent now.
So all of this is very good news. So the good news is that
women are increasingly coming into the science and engineering
workforce. The problem is that they are leaving before their
training and their expertise and wisdom could be tapped into
for the country's benefit and for their careers because of a
number of issues, complicating issues. One of the key issues is
family issues.
So with respect to that segment of the population, we have
excellent news with respect to entry into the science and
engineering workforce, but not so good news with respect to
retention.
MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
When we go to African Americans or underrepresented
minority populations in the country, Hispanics and Native
Americans and so forth, we significantly lag both in the entry
with respect to the representation in the population and also
in the retention issue.
So I can give you some data from the last eleven years. It
is not just one-year data. In the last eleven years, NSF
support for minority-serving institutions has grown at double
the rate of NSF support for all the institutions in the
The second data point that I can give is that in the same
time period of eleven years, in dollar value, NSF support for
minority-serving institutions has increased by 200 percent. So
we are starting to do the right thing, but there is still a
very long way to go. There are a number of activities that we
can engage to do this.
HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
Just last week, I met with the president of Florida
International University, which is the largest Hispanic-serving
institution in the country. Two days later I met with the
president of Texas A&M University, which is the second largest
Hispanic-serving institution in the country. And they have a 90
percent Hispanic population in their community.
So we talked about ways in which those large institutions,
which are Hispanic-serving institutions which receive NSF
support, can engage the local community, the community colleges
and what are the effective ways in which to do this. In fact,
they are organizing a major event that will involve 80,000
people at Texas A&M University in September of this year which
I will participate in.
So we are looking at different ways in which we can do
this. We have $100 million allocated in fiscal year 2012 for
community colleges and we can tap segments of those resources
to minority-serving institutions and Hispanic-serving
institutions.
We have a new program in the fiscal year 2012 budget for
$20 million called Transforming Broadening Participation
through STEM Education. And there are opportunities there also
to target underrepresented minority groups and Hispanic-serving
Mr. Serrano. Do I have time for one more?
Let me preface my comment by saying that, and I know Mr.
Fattah shares this feeling with me, we have the utmost respect
for our chairman. Our chairman is a fiscal conservative, but he
is a fiscal conservative with a conscience and heart.
EFFECTS OF REDUCED STEM INVESTMENTS
There is a movement afoot this year, however, and I suspect
for a couple of years to cut, cut, cut, cut. Having said that,
I have been to 21 State of the Union addresses. And as a person
from the south Bronx representing a poor district, born in
Puerto Rico, I look for certain things. What is the President
going to say about housing, social services.
This time, what stuck with me was not in any of those
areas, but it is in your area. When President Obama said, yes,
we have to balance the budget, we have to do this, but we have
to invest in inventing things and creating scientists. And he
said we Americans are good at inventing things.
And so without getting you on one of those cable channels
tonight being, you know, insulted because you asked for more
money or something, are we in danger here of taking many steps
back if in the process of cutting, we do not give agencies like
you the opportunity to create the next set of scientists or to
create the next set of inventions or, you know, not just you
but NASA and all those places that create? Where is the danger?
And, again, you are in front of a chairman who is not--you
know, this man, he knows I mean this, has a great heart and he
is truly a great American. But there are a couple of guys
around here including some on my side who would cut everything
to nothing, zero. If we keep going with these CRs, the last one
we will have is zero as our number, you know.
What are we in danger of because, like I said, I always
look for all these social issues? This time, the thing that
stuck with me is he said we have got to invent. We can go back
to being the leaders in inventing things and creating things.
Mr. Suresh. Well, thank you. Thank you for asking that
question and for the opportunity to address it.
But before I start with that, I also want to express not
only my personal appreciation but also the appreciation of the
National Science Foundation for Chairman Wolf's strong support
of science over the years and your commitment to science and
STEM education.
In response to your question, I think one of the things
that NSF has done right from the beginning, starting with Dr.
Vannevar Bush's ``Science, the Endless Frontier'' report that
led to the creation of the National Science Foundation, is to
keep a focus on basic science as the engine of innovation for
the country with a long-term focus.
And one of the things that we are particularly in danger of
losing sight of in this economic climate is we have severe
budget constraints, financial constraints, a nine percent
unemployment rate, just below nine percent unemployment rate.
But NSF investments are long-term.
If we take a short-term view and cut, I think five years
from now, ten years from now when we address all the current
problems, we will not be in a position to address what is
needed for the country with respect to scientific leadership,
with respect to economic leadership, with respect to military
I mentioned in my opening remarks that even in the short
term, the National Nanotechnology Initiative started in 1999.
NSF played a leading role in not only creating the National
Nanotechnology Initiative but supporting it.
In just ten years, NSF funded nanotechnology centers have
led to 175 startups involving 1,200 companies in the country.
As recently as the mid to late 1990s, NSF supported two young
students at Stanford whose work, purely mathematical work, led
to the creation of Google.
So it is not just very long term. Sometimes it is very
short term. In terms of long-term things, we supported GPS in
the 1960s and the GPS research that NSF funded in the 1960s is
now used in everybody's mobile phone for a variety of purposes.
So I think if we lose sight of the long-term focus as we
react to the short-term needs of the country, I think it will
come back to hurt us. So that is very much in resonance with
what you said in your comments.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you Mr. Serrano.
DEFICIT REDUCTION
I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, then I have a whole lot of
questions. But I do want to comment. I appreciate the
gentlemen's comments and your comments, and I agree. I think
there is another thing that I feel strongly about that I want
to put on the record, because silence indicates just total
acquiescence in everything.
There is another group that will be hurt, and it will be
the poor. The poor will be hurt. It says in Proverbs 19, ``when
you give to the poor, you give to God.'' But there is another
end to the story, and this is for those of you who are writing
in the press out there. Until we deal with the issue of
entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, this
will continue. I think the President and this administration
have been AWOL, they have been absent.
I agree with Mr. Serrano on the sciences, and I think I had
one question which we will submit for the record about China.
The Chinese government has been increasing scientific R&D
investing as a fraction of GDP at an annual rate of more than 5
percent, which verifies what Mr. Serrano said. While they are
starting from a smaller base, this level of commitment is
enormous and we are cutting. We are really going to have to
come together in a bipartisan way, and there is just no other
In fact, Mark Warner and Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin have
put together a group in the Senate that is moving ahead. Some
on the left are criticizing them for going after entitlements,
and some on the right are going after them for raising taxes,
but they are moving ahead. So I really think unless we deal
with the fundamental issue of getting control of the
entitlements, what Mr. Serrano said will be true. So I think I
would rather see us get control. I made a speech on the floor
of the House saying if the Simpson-Bowles package comes up,
while there are some things I would attempt to change in the
process as we go forward, I would vote for it. If Tom Coburn
and Dick Durbin--both good people--can come together, then I
would hope we can, too.
So we are waiting for the administration, we are waiting
for the President. Until the President provides that
leadership, I think both sides up here are going to continue to
kind of clash.
You know, we have 50 million people that are on food stamps
now. Our food banks are fundamentally empty, and as you go
after these programs you are really taking food away from poor
people. There is just no other way about it. Other people can
adjust their budgets, but you have got to go where the money
is. Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that is where
the money was, and entitlements are where the money is. So I
want to see us plus up math and science and physics and
chemistry and biology, and also the food banks and things, but
I think we are going to have to come to agreement. We are
reaching a tipping point, and Moody's said we will lose our
triple A bond rating in perhaps 2012.
Following along on that, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' stated that improving the nation's K through 12
educational system was the highest priority step we could take
to improve scientific and technical competitiveness.
But I said I was going to go to Mr. Fattah. Let me go to
Mr. Fattah first, and then I will go to this subject.
Mr. Fattah. Now let us see, in the 1890s, in the midst of
the conclusion thereabouts of the Civil War, we invested in
land grant colleges in this country, Penn State and all of the
other great land grant colleges. The Morrill Act, it kind of
set a benchmark about the kind of nation we were going to be.
Even in the midst of challenges we kind of knew that education
and investment in education was critically important.
So yeah, I think that there is a consensus that with
innovation in scientific research we are going to have to do
more than we are doing. I agree with the chairman totally that
we need a comprehensive resolution on the fiscal front, I am
for voting for one. In fact there are five different ones,
including the present debt commission and at different
variations of revenue raising and spending cuts. I would vote
for all of them. I think we need to get this to the side, get
this resolved, because I actually believe it is a distraction.
First of all, I do not believe that we are not in a
position as a country to pay our bills or that we have to be
the largest debtor nation in the world. You know, there is a
report today about billionaires holding trillions of dollars.
There was a story last week about how a quarter of a million
dollars was too little money to secure people to serve on
boards of directors as a part-time job in our country.
I mean the notion that we as the world's wealthiest country
cannot pay our bills, it really is defied by the facts. It is
just that we for, whatever reason, have bought in as a
generation that somehow we can have this on the cheap, that we
can be in two wars, we can do all this other stuff and we do
not have to pay for it.
And one of the largest hedge funds decided to remove from
its portfolio all the U.S. debt, and that was reported this
morning, and I think as we approach a crisis we will obviously
react to it. The question is what damage are we doing in the
meantime? And especially as we see our competitors. And they
are not just economic competitors. Some of these other
countries are not just economic competitors. We have to think
about our national security and this is--you know, we cannot
afford to be short sighted in these matters.
But I want to go back to the point that the chairman was
talking about, about what age young people--at what point is
the concrete not yet hardened in which we can still have an
impact on them? Because this whole area of neuroscience is
something that the Foundation has spent some time on. It is the
area that I have the greatest interest in, and I think that we
have arrived at a tipping point in this whole area of
understanding on the cognitive side. I mean you have the
majority of a child's brain being developed in the third
trimester, you have billions of neurons. We know that the brain
is not being fully utilized, and I think that the Foundation
has worked in this area.
First of all it has been extraordinary, but I know that we
are going to do more working together in this area, because I
think that this is an area on which we can have a very
significant impact, looking at cognitive ability, and it ties
into some of the other things that the chairman has said. We
know that when we have people who are nutrition challenged and
who are going to at some point deliver babies, that the size of
the brain will be impacted. And you know, the size of the brain
has a impact on ability long term.
So I also know that you have done some work looking at
soldiers on the brain injury side. These are two separate
subjects, but obviously they tie together. I think this work,
if I am not mistaken, is really the largest amount of research
looking at brain injury. And obviously we had our own colleague
who was shot through the brain and we are watching her and
praying for her full recovery.
So if you could talk a little about where we are in
neuroscience, and this is my softball question. I am going to
come back with a much more challenging one, but I know that you
will be able to handle it.
Mr. Suresh. First of all I am delighted to answer that
because as you know when we met last time this is a topic of a
lot of interest to me. The interesting thing about neuroscience
is we are at a point where we have the opportunity to
understand the functioning of the human brain from so many
different perspectives. From the biology perspective, the
tissue level, at the cell level, at the molecular level. And
NSF-funded work is about to look at all of those levels in new
and interesting ways.
You know, we can take a single molecule and we can model
it, pull it, push it, stretch it, twist it to forces of much,
much smaller, a thousand times smaller than a nano level force,
and those tools and technologies have come into existence very
recently. This is why the National Academy of Engineering at
the beginning of this century, when they released fourteen
grand challenges for the 21st Century, one of the grand
challenges for the community is reverse engineering the human
brain. And the unique thing about NSF work is that we not only
look at the biology of the human brain, we also study the
psychology and the cognitive aspects of the human mind. And the
combination of the two is absolutely necessary to address this
So you mentioned traumatic brain injury. More than a
quarter of the soldiers returning from the first Iraq war, the
second Iraq war, and Afghanistan have some symptom of traumatic
brain injury, plus we have sports injuries, automobile crashes,
and that is an area that is a perfect example of a scientific
field that brings together separated communities. For example,
you take the war and improvised explosive devices. When there
is an improvised explosive device, say some distance from a
tank, and the device explodes and the stress wave created from
the device hits a human head, that is an engineering problem.
This is what our Engineering Directorate has funded since the
1960s and 1970s, engineers know how to do this. Once the stress
wave hits the human brain what happens to the tissue and cell,
that is the biology, and how being in that situation in the war
zone being exposed to this and experiencing trauma is in the
realm of cognition. And NSF is uniquely positioned to do this
because we have done this for a long time.
And the U.S. Army Research Office, until recently I was
part of a research grant that was funded by the U.S. Army
Research Office, looked specifically at returning soldiers from
our recent wars to see how we can put together medical doctors
from Walter Reed with engineers and with clinicians in various
hospitals in the Boston area and with psychologists and
psychiatrists so that we can come together with the latest
tools and technologies.
So on multiple fronts there is a challenge. In a completely
different field there is even exciting opportunity. Computer
science has progressed to such a point. As you know Watson from
IBM won the Jeopardy championship not too long ago, and how do
you take information storage and try to mimic that with respect
to human cognition and human intelligence? And this is an area
of great interest as well.
So I think these are all areas from multiple angles that we
address at NSF with the exception of the medical part of it
which NIH does.
Mr. Fattah. Well, if you could--let me make this request
formally. I am very interested, and I know the chairman is, in
how we can make a non-incremental leap forward, and so if you
have thoughts and if the Foundation can help us think through
where there may be significant opportunities to penetrate in
this area, that would be welcomed.
To make significant, transformative advances in our fundamental
understanding of the brain we need to explore its many facets,
including how the brain develops and adapts during the lifespan, how
neuroanatomy relates to brain function, and how different brain areas
and systems interact. However, progress toward realizing these advances
requires 1) enhanced infrastructure and tools to better understand the
working of the brain and 2) greater interdisciplinarity and large-scale
efforts in order to gain a meaningful understanding of the brain within
the broader physical and social contexts that would have real
implications for learning, development, and health and recovery.
Enhancing these will be necessary for accelerating the advancement of
cognitive and developmental neuroscience.
Current technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and genomics, have led to
transformational discoveries, but remain limited. For example, fMRI
provides relatively high spatial resolution of brain structures but is
inherently limited in its temporal resolution, which is needed to
understand how the various brain structures communicate with each
other. EEG provides high temporal resolution but does not provide
detailed information about the location of cortical generators of
neural activity. However, EEG has the advantage of allowing the subject
to move relatively freely and thus can be used to explore brain-
behavior relations in young infants. For instance, using EEG, NSF-
funded researchers have identified patterns of activity in the infant
motor cortex that are produced when an infant watches a video of
someone performing a particular behavior. These results suggest that
infants use some of the same brain regions both to perceive actions of
others and to perform these actions themselves, a possible neurological
link for learning new behaviors. The current technologies in
neuroscience have already led to important scientific discoveries about
the brain; however, there is much more to explore.
The limitations in current technologies and approaches are
especially relevant to brain development studies. This is because some
technologies, such as fMRI, require the subject to be still; thus it is
very difficult to study children and infants. NSF has also invested in
the development and use of noninvasive pediatric magnetoencephalography
(MEG). This new technology has the potential to provide information
about brain function and development with both the high spatial and
temporal resolution that are needed, even with very young children and
infants. Scientists at the Learning in Informal and Formal Environments
(LIFE) Center at the University of Washington, Seattle are using MEG
technology to monitor brain changes as pre-verbal babies are exposed to
language. Intriguingly, it seems that more learning and organized brain
activity takes place when human teachers are in the same room, versus
video displays of the same instructors: MEG provides a promising new
avenue, but currently there are less than a handful of such facilities
in the United States. Neuroscientists must look further into the future
at what remains unexplored, unknown, and undiscovered, and identify the
tools that will lead to advancements. New analytical and computational
methods for visualizing how brain activation data interact with
behavioral and environmental data will also be necessary in this area.
Research is also needed to evaluate the neural dynamics and connections
within normally and abnormally developing brains; to follow patterns of
plasticity and development; to map out strategies for developmental and
educational interventions; and to monitor and assess brain activity
remotely, while a person actively moves and interacts with the
surrounding environment.
In addition to improved measurement technologies, scientists need
access to better data and data infrastructure--including longitudinal
data--to better understand brain development, learning, and plasticity.
While many aspects of brain development are complete by the end of the
first few years of life, we have learned that important physical
aspects of brain development--especially frontal lobe development--
continue through adolescence and into adulthood. The frontal lobes have
long been associated with ``impulse control,'' something that
adolescents exhibit less of than older adults. Understanding how the
brain continues to develop and adapt beyond adolescence is particularly
important for dealing with traumatic brain injury (TBI), especially as
it affects U.S. war fighters who are in young adulthood. In order to
understand the brain in more detail, much finer grained analyses are
needed, on how particular regions of the brain develop, as well as how
the connections and interactions between these areas emerge over the
lifespan. Vast data archives such as collections of brain images are
needed to fully understand brain functioning and links to cognition and
behavior. Innovations in data infrastructure for shared access,
interoperability, and data mining techniques will greatly contribute to
developmental and brain science.
Neuroimaging technology, no matter how advanced, will not be
sufficient to understand how the brain functions within the context of
our complex, demanding, social world. Brain science must be
fundamentally interdisciplinary, integrating knowledge, methods and
technologies from behavioral and cognitive science, neuroscience,
engineering, computer science, mathematics, and physics. The next big
steps in understanding the brain will require teams of scientists who
explore the human mind from many different perspectives. Understanding
how the brain develops and adapts over the course of a life is
particularly complicated because of inherent interactions between
physical, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional changes. Thus,
fundamental research on human cognition, perception, social
interaction, development, learning, decision-making, and language is
needed to support the goal of understanding the brain. Mechanisms such
as NSF's Research Coordination Networks have great potential to bring
disparate groups of scientists together as a coherent team to tackle
important issues.
With advanced knowledge and technologies, enhanced data and data
infrastructure, and the collective expertise of newly-formed
interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers, the U.S. can take
advantage of fast-emerging, ground-breaking work in areas such as brain
plasticity and brain-computer interface, to make significant advances
in our understanding of neuroscience and development.
SCIENTIFIC DATA DISSEMINATION
And finally let me get to my last question for the day.
Holding two opposing views at once is what I think the
president of Morehouse says is what a first-rate mind is all
about, so let me pose two very different viewpoints to you.
One is we have this intellectual curiosity and we also have
this kind of notion in which we have this openness in which not
only are we doing research, but through NSF this information is
then made public after eighteen months in most of your grants,
is made public and is available for the entire world to see. I
am a little more parochial, at least as it relates to
information that is important for our economic prosperity or
our national security or cyber security. The idea is that as
taxpayers we make an investment of significant sums, and I
believe hopefully many more significant sums as we go forward.
But how do we reconcile this need to get this information, our
own national interest in manipulating and utilizing the
information, with this notion of scientists who want to share
it freely with the world.
So I am trying to figure how you reconcile that, and it
would be helpful for me to hear you respond to that.
Mr. Suresh. I think you raise a very important issue, in
fact aspects of this were very much on my mind, all very much
on my mind now in my current job, but also a big part of the
things I had to do in my previous job.
You mentioned earlier, when you had the testimony from the
Patent Office, the critical need to change patent policies and
IP rights and so forth. I think that is a very critical step.
Increasingly many universities are filing for intellectual
property and having an efficient process that enables
innovation to go to the marketplace through filing for patents.
Efficient processing of these patent applications and
protections that they provide is very critical.
But at the same time science on a global scale has always
been an open entity. And the reason it is open is because we
have people come up with ideas, it is peer reviewed in the
community, and if it is accepted for publication it is not
immediately accepted until somebody else can duplicate it.
Increasingly that somebody else may not be within the U.S.
boundary, it could be a scientist from a different part of the
world as more and more other countries increasingly invest in
science and engineering.
So given broadening of participation on a global scale into
the science and engineering research enterprise, I think your
question puts the finger on how do you keep science as open as
possible as we have done, which is very good for knowledge
creation on a global scale, but how do you keep the boundaries
tight?
So I think there are a number of things we can do. One
could be addressing the issues of intellectual property
processes and making them as efficient as possible so that we
give scientists the opportunity to protect their intellectual
property without being secretive about it, so that the
scientific process can move on. That could be one part of it.
The other part of it, equally important part, could be that
as other countries, especially developing countries, start to
invest more and more in science and engineering, we have been
the beacon for science and engineering for so long it is very
important that we do everything possible to convince our
international partners to come up with the minimum level of
scientific integrity, ethics, and openness that is necessary
for science and engineering. There are things that NSF can and
should do to do that. We have done the merit review process for
the last 60 years and the people around the world, my
counterparts in Europe and Asia, they feel that the NSF system
is sort of the gold standard. It is important for us to insure
that other countries, especially rapidly developing countries,
develop a level of merit review and set of standards for
selecting scientific proposals, funding scientific proposals,
insuring the integrity of the process--they come up to speed. I
think it is very important.
So we have started some very preliminary conversations with
counterparts in other countries. So there are many things we
can do. There is no one particular solution.
How we deal with issues of cybersecurity is very critical.
At the same time in the spirit of an open government when we
spend taxpayer money, how do we make our research output
accessible definitely to all Americans, and most probably to
the broader scientific community.
So I think these are all issues that we need to address in
tandem to make sure that we address the conflicting issues that
you raise in your question.
Mr. Fattah. Well, it is going to be a challenge as we go
forward, and I will not belabor the point. We have another
agency under the jurisdiction of the committee, which is the
International Trade Commission, and they spend a lot of time
litigating issues around IP violations for products coming into
the country. The notion before was if you built a mousetrap, I
think it was said, you could make your home in the woods and
the world would make a path to your door. The problem now is if
you make a better mousetrap and put it up online people are
going to make it before you can make it, and make money off of
And so we are in an economic battle. We have national
security issues. Basis scientific research is at one level of
our ammunition in this kind of a battle that we are in and we
have to think about-- and I do not know how we reconcile it. I
think it is just a very important issue obviously because again
science by its nature is not science unless you can replicate
it, and you have to publish it. And so it gets to some very
important issues, but we do want to protect the public's
investment, and American taxpayers are investing to make sure
that America wins and we have to figure how, under these
circumstances, we go forward.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. I have a number of
questions, but I do want to follow up.
USE OF HYPERBARIC TECHNOLOGIES
I would appreciate it if you could have your staff put
together within a week any information you have on hyperbaric
treatments. I went to a conference a while back with regard to
hyperbaric treatments for returning vets. Some doctors I have
talked to about hyperbaric treatments for a brain injury are
not even sure what I am talking about. I think it is kind of a
voodoo, others say it has been so successful. So if you could
give us the information. I am not asking you to go out and do
new research, but perhaps everything you have with regard to
hyperbaric applications on brain injuries, on multiple
sclerosis, on all the different treatments. Just so we can
process it.
NSF reviewed its awards made over the past 25 years and identified
only one that merits attention to the Chairman's direct question. This
three-year award totaling $418,000 was made in 1999 to the University
of Southern California to ``increase understanding of the basic
mechanisms involved in communication between nerve cells in the
brain.'' A link to the award data and abstract follows: http://nsf.gov/
awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber-9818422
PROTECTING SCIENTIFIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Secondly, if you would work with the committee to do what
Mr. Fattah asked. You really cannot be Pollyannish about the
whole thing. You could not trust Hitler, you could not trust
Stalin, you could not trust Mao, and you cannot trust Hu
Jintao. It is just a fact. The Chinese are going to take this
So if you have some ideas within two weeks, send up
information that sort of follows along the lines of your
exchange with Mr. Fattah. Then we can begin to look at the PTO
and changes. Maybe it will be Mr. Fattah and I fighting off the
Republicans on the floor, but on this issue I think we are
together. I want to create jobs and protect the national
I had a person come to my office the other day showing me
once Permanent Normal Trade Relations passed to China, the
trade imbalance just collapsed, the job loss collapsed. There
is a picture of me with Bill Clinton speaking at a joint
session opposing giving Most Favored Nation Status to China. I
got up and applauded, and my Republican colleagues are looking
at me like I am crazy. Then the President flipped, and now
China is stealing from us.
So if you can give us some ideas before we mark up the bill
along the lines of what Mr. Fattah said, I would appreciate it,
because I completely agree with him.
SUPPORT FOR K-12 STEM EDUCATION
I am going to go about maybe ten minutes, and then we will
go to Mr. Culberson. We have a series we have to cover here.
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' stated that improving the
nation's K through 12 educational systems was the highest
priority step we could take to improve our scientific and
technical competitiveness. Your budget request, however, de-
emphasizes the development of K through 12 capabilities. In
fact, the budget proposes to decrease K through 12 programs by
15 percent from 2010. Do you believe that a request at this
level reflects a significant focus on K through 12 STEM
education as envisioned by ``Gathering Storm''? Why are you
making cuts in virtually every one of the K through 12
programs?
Mr. Suresh. Well, let me offer a couple of points related
to that. Increasingly NSF's participation in education
activities, especially STEM activities, are not just confined
to EHR. They are part and parcel of every part of every
directorate, every office across NSF, including K through 12.
For example, the Directorate for Engineering funds a
program called UTeachEngineering in Texas, and that program has
been very successful for K through 12 students in exciting them
about the opportunities in engineering at a very early stage.
There is the GEO Teach program that does similar things in our
Directorate for Geosciences. So there are various activities
that we can engage in. A number of directorates participate in
activities beyond it.
So the budget numbers just for one or two directorates do
not necessarily mean that our commitment to K through 12----
Mr. Wolf. But the budget is the budget, and it proposes to
decrease K through 12 programs by 15 percent from the 2010
Mr. Suresh. So one of the things we are looking at is the
following: There are three new programs that are going to be
put in place for this year. We have a new program, Teacher
Learning for the Future, and what it tries to do is to take the
best practices for some of the programs like GK-12, programs
like Math and Science Partnership program and also the Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program and so forth, bring them together
in a much more cohesive way so that we can look at what new
opportunities we can provide in concert with other offices and
directorates across NSF.
So the numbers just in those program buckets may not fully
reflect----
Mr. Wolf. They do not look good. They do not look good.
Mr. Suresh. No, but this does not indicate any wavering
commitment on our part for K through 12.
Mr. Wolf. Someone once said ``if you really want to find
what a person is committed to, look at their checkbook.'' Words
can be one thing, but who they write their check to and what
they are spending money on are something else.
I want you to develop it a little bit more. The President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology released a report
last year on K through 12 STEM education. One of its finding
was that the NSF K through 12 portfolio is not optimally
balanced between programs that support basic education research
and those that support the development and implementation of
scalable practical education solutions. How do you respond to
that criticism?
NSF AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COLLABORATION
Mr. Suresh. So as you know the PCAST report also referred
to ways in which NSF and the Department of Education can work
together better.
Mr. Wolf. That was the next question.
Mr. Suresh. Yeah. And also with other agencies.
So the first thing I have done is I am co-chairing an NSTC
committee on STEM education along with the OSTP deputy
director. And this committee met last week and we are looking
into ways in which NSF can play a critical role in STEM
education. In fact we will be looking at ways in which we can
respond to the PCAST report and also to the America COMPETES
Authorization Act language.
Mr. Wolf. Well, they recommend the creation of an advanced
education research agency to be headed either by NSF or the
Department of Education. Is that something that you are looking
at? Do you support that recommendation?
Mr. Suresh. We will work very closely with them when it is
approved and comes into existence. There are a number of
activities that we are already engaged in with the Department
of Education that will position us very well for this new
activity.
For example, I mentioned the NSTC subcommittee that was
just set up.
Mr. Wolf. But do you support that recommendation?
Mr. Suresh. I think anything we can do to work with other
agencies----
Mr. Wolf. Pretty good, you can duck these issues sometimes.
The question is, do you support it? It's ok if you want to
think about it, but we would like to know if you support that
Mr. Suresh. I think the spirit of this is very good and I
would want to make sure that it is supported with the right
resources so that it can be successful.
GAO STUDY ON TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Wolf. Well, of course. How did you fall out in the GAO
study on teacher training that came out last week about
duplications between NSF and others? What are your comments
about that? Have you read that?
Mr. Suresh. Yes, and in fact Mr. Bonner asked that
Mr. Wolf. Well, if he did for the record, then we won't.
Mr. Suresh. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. And your comments about it?
Mr. Suresh. So I have looked at it. In fact there are
various programs. NSF has been engaged in this as you know very
well for the last several decades and we are continually
looking at programs that could be duplicative and try to see
what we can do to improve that. In fact there are a number of
realignments of programs within EHR currently, specifically
with the objective of looking at what is new and what may be
done by somebody else so we do not duplicate those things.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we have to do that. I just lost a little
confidence in the fact that NSF could not do a basic study on
best practices on education. Then I hear about studies and
meetings, just meeting and meeting and meeting. And what
happens? Zero. Two years go by.
You are a good witness, and you explain what you are doing,
but we want to see more action because this nation is slipping.
What are we in math now? Where do we fall in math? What number
are we in math for the world?
Mr. Suresh. I think it depends on fourth grade level or
eighth grade level, and by some studies we are number twenty
and some studies among developed countries----
Mr. Wolf. So what do we do to deal with that issue? And
what best practice was working in Philadelphia, was working in
Richmond, or working in some other place? The teachers are over
worked and they cannot gather all that information. That is
your job. So the fact that it took two years and we are still
in the process of finding the answer is troubling. You are new,
so I do not think you should feel too defensive about it
because you have only been on there for four months. But we
want to see, not just the verbiage and the rhetoric, but the
actual reality of what is going to be done.
Mr. Suresh. So I very much not only appreciate your
question, but also your commitment to this topic. So as I
mentioned earlier----
Mr. Wolf. Well, we are getting ready to go into decline.
The nation is ready.
Mr. Suresh. Absolutely, if you are not careful.
Mr. Wolf. The 20th Century was the American century, and we
want the 21st Century to be the American century, not the
Chinese century. That is what we are dealing with, and time is
critical.
AWARD OVERSIGHT
NSF is increasing the number of grants it makes each year
without making corresponding increases in the programs
responsible for monitoring grantee compliance. This has caused
reductions in basic oversight activities like site visits and
increases the likelihood that grantee waste, fraud, or abuse
will go undetected.
This year's budget request again proposed an increase of
more than 2,000 research grants, but with no apparent increase
for award oversight. How will you ensure that each of these new
grants receives the appropriate level of monitoring and
scrutiny with a static grants management budget?
Mr. Suresh. So one of the reasons for the decrease in last
year with respect to site visits was when NSF received $3
billion in the stimulus package funding without any increase in
staff, it really strained the system, and now that we are
moving away from the impact of the stimulus funding it is our
intention in every way to make sure that this oversight is
The second thing that I have already launched a pilot
program for this coming year, where we will look at employing
new technology so that site visits can be done using a variety
of ways while insuring confidentiality of the process.
For example, we do not necessarily have to fly across the
country for a site visit, and there are ways of engaging
technology that we could do much more than we have done on the
Mr. Wolf. Teleconferencing.
Mr. Suresh. Videoconferencing, but engaging multiple
communities. And so we are launching several pilot projects
this year for different types of reviews, and our hope is that
it will not only lead to better efficiency internally for NSF,
it will also lead to engaging the best referees from the
Mr. Wolf. Are there some grants that you have looked at
afterward and you say, ``wow, that was a waste of money. Boy,
we really got taken.''
Mr. Suresh. Well, actually without spending a lot of money
we can do a lot more. For example, we have a Cisco system on
loan that we are going to try and see how it works before we
spend any tax dollars to buy it or acquire it. There are other
things we can do, and hopefully in the future NSF will have the
latest technology.
Mr. Wolf. Are there some grants that your staff has come in
and said, ``Doctor, look at this. We put all this money out and
we got garbage back,'' and you say, ``oh my goodness
gracious.'' Are there many like that?
Mr. Suresh. Fortunately because of the merit process we do
not have that, but if by human error or some other factor if we
have one of these we have mechanisms in place for periodic
review. So even a five-year grant is not given without any
conditions attached to it.
Mr. Wolf. How many have you pulled back?
Mr. Suresh. I do not have the exact number, but I can get
MECHANISMS OF AWARD OVERSIGHT
Mr. Wolf. If you would. What kind of evaluations do you
conduct on the work of your grantees to ensure that they are
not just executing the grants in compliance with financial
terms and conditions but also achieving probably the most
important thing--significant program outcomes?
Mr. Suresh. So we have annual grantee conferences in most
of the areas where they not only report to the program officer
or program director, they report to the peer community. In fact
these grantee conferences are tracked, hundreds, in some cases
many hundreds of scientists, so a scientist has to stand up and
defend their NSF funded work in front of other scientists, and
if the quality of the science is not good enough they will get
shot down in public. So that is one mechanism. The other
mechanism is peer reviews. The other mechanism is site visits,
reverse site visits.
So we have a number of mechanisms in place. An annual
reporting requirement and so forth.
Mr. Wolf. Do you think they have all been successful? Are
you about where you think you should be?
Mr. Suresh. Well, if they are not successful, if they are
not meeting a particular goal, they will be terminated.
Mr. Wolf. So you are going to give a list of who has been
terminated and under what conditions?
Mr. Suresh. I will get that data for you.
ICEBREAKING SERVICES
Mr. Wolf. Okay. The 2012 budget discontinues the annual
transfer of funds from the NSF to the Coast Guard for the
operation of Coast Guard icebreakers. While this does relieve
pressure on the NSF budget, the DHS Inspector General has
suggested that the Coast Guard may be less willing to task its
ships for NSF use if NSF is not holding the purse strings. Are
you concerned about this?
Mr. Suresh. So obviously the Polar program is a very
important part of NSF's activities, so we have three Coast
Guard ships, icebreakers that we have had access to. Healy in
the Arctic Ocean, and then we had Polar Sea and Polar Star in
the Antarctic sites. Now as you may know one of the two has
been retired, decommissioned, and the other one needs
refurbishment before too long.
So what we have done is we have engaged the Swedish
icebreaker Oden to make up for any gaps that may arise. We are
continuously working with the Coast Guard on this, and also if
necessary we will renegotiate a continuing agreement with our
Swedish counterparts for the Oden while we are looking into the
long-term implications of this.
Fortunately the lack of availability of either Polar Sea or
Polar Star has not had any detrimental effect on our Antarctic
Mr. Wolf. But if you are not paying for it----
Mr. Suresh. No, we will reimburse the Coast Guard for costs
involved, and we have been in continuous conversation with the
Coast Guard on our needs and their requirements as well. So far
it has not been an issue. The director of our Office of Polar
Programs, Karl Erb has been in constant touch with them. In
fact just last month he was in Sweden to discuss this, he has
been in touch with the Coast Guard, and this is something we
will continuously monitor.
Mr. Wolf. So basically the U.S. domestic icebreaking
capabilities are in decline. If we cannot break ice with our
ships, that is decline. Now we have to rent a ship or lease it.
We love Sweden, for the record. They are wonderful people. But
we have to rent from Sweden? We are a maritime nation, look at
the map. Yet we have to rent it out from Sweden? Just for the
record, we are not blaming you. Is that what we do? Are we
renting this out from Sweden?
Mr. Suresh. So this is only a temporary measure, this is
not the long-term solution to this issue. So we are looking at
what needs to be done to refurbish----
Mr. Wolf. How long will that take?
Mr. Suresh. They are continuing to look at our needs.
Probably within a year we will have an idea.
Mr. Wolf. An idea. So we will be using the Swedes for how
long, honestly? You are not under oath.
Mr. Suresh. My estimation is that for the coming year we
will be relying on the Swedish.
Mr. Wolf. So next year you will not need Sweden?
Mr. Suresh. We do not know that yet, but this is what is
being accessed right with respect to the refurbishment of one
of the Polar icebreakers.
Mr. Wolf. I think that goes into what we were talking
about. I mean, I think it is a----
Mr. Suresh. So we also commissioned another vessel for
which the keel laying ceremony will be held in April, but that
is a shallow depth icebreaker, so it can go only up to three
feet or so, not the twenty feet or so that we need, so that is
more of a research vessel than the icebreaker capability for
the Antarctica.
NSF TRAVEL FUNDS
Mr. Wolf. Okay, we have a number of questions on the
icebreaker that we are going to ask you for the record. I have
a few more on contracting, then we will go to Mr. Culberson.
NSF funds travel, meetings and incidental expenses for
thousands of technical experts each year. Can you tell us your
travel budget for the last three or four years, and then based
on the new technology that you were talking about,
teleconferencing and videoconferencing, what you think it will
be in 2012? If you can show us trends in 2009 this was it, 2010
this was it, 2011. Now in 2012 we are doing these dramatic
things, teleconferencing, video conferencing. What do you think
the budget will be so we can actually see that there is an
honest savings.
And with that, can you provide how many trips were taken
both by NSF people and contract people in 2009-2012 so we can
see again if there has been an honest drop or there has not.
Mr. Suresh. We will get that information to you, Mr.
NSF CONTRACTING
Mr. Wolf. GAO has questioned whether NSF is overly reliant
on cost reimbursement contracts, which are risky and costly to
administer, and suggested that NSF could transition some of its
current contracts to firmer pricing terms. Do you agree that
NSF could conduct more contract work under fixed price
vehicles?
Mr. Suresh. Obviously the fixed price gives us upfront
knowledge of what the commitments are. As you know NSF
instituted a no cost overrun policy three years ago for all of
our major research equipment and facilities contracts, but the
nature of the work for different projects is so very different.
Sometimes design changes need to be made during the process for
scientific and technical reasons and that has led to some
adjustments that are being made.
I am aware of this issue and in fact we have started an
internal conversation on how we can address this, keeping in
mind that we want the best technology and the best capability
to emerge within the confines of our constraints and our
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I am going to Mr. Fattah to see if he has
any last questions.
Mr. Fattah. I am good.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, fine.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson.
K-12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT, CONTINUED
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies
for running so far behind, I have got everything happening all
at the same time here this morning.
We are all, as the chairman and I know Mr. Fattah has told
you, committed to support the NSF and your role is so critical
in preserving our leadership as a nation in years to come, you
are as an important strategic investment as we have, and
Chairman Wolf is exactly right about the importance
particularly of science and engineering education.
You really do not have to go very far Mr. Chairman or Mr.
Fattah, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Math
is about eight miles away from your headquarters. You all are
in downtown Arlington, right? Everyone, every study, every
analysis that I have seen done of public high schools in
America uniformly ranks the Thomas Jefferson School for Science
and Math number one in the nation. There is your best practice
And I have to tell you I am really disappointed and
profoundly disturbed that you were floundering around trying to
answer the chairman's very simple question of where is best
practice and how do you find it. It is eight miles away. I do
not understand, I mean there it is.
Mr. Suresh. Well, we will include all the right models in
the report that we will give you and the community, including
best practices from anywhere.
Mr. Wolf. Have you been out there?
Mr. Suresh. I met with the principal of Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Culberson. Well, meeting with them is one thing. You
know, we are devoted to you guys. I have to tell you that your
testimony and the report of the Inspector General kind of
alarms me. We're concerned about making sure that the NSF--that
you almost have to be like Caesar's wife--and the
responsibilities that you have to insure that, as Mr. Fattah
and the chairman quite correctly point out, that you are
protecting the vitally important national security information
for economic reasons and for the nation's security. I am
confident the chairman asked you before I came in about Chinese
Mr. Culberson. I hope you are going to respond promptly and
thoroughly to his request, because that is really, really
disturbing.
The report I have you, Mr. Chairman, that General Mattis
prepared, pointed out that there are more People's Liberation
Army graduate students in U.S. graduate schools than I think
from any other nation. That is a real concern, and to the
extent that we want to make sure NSF is protecting vital
information from the Chinese, but obviously, in your response
to the chairman's questions, you are not focused on STEM
education, you are creating all kinds of new programs and
initiatives in your testimony, but dropping a couple. You are
on page seven recommending terminating or reducing the graduate
STEM fellows and the national STEM distributing learning
I recall a couple years ago that there was a bill that
President Bush pushed that I think actually passed in some form
that I remember it. When it came through, Mr. Chairman, several
years ago, I see some heads nodding. The bill transferred
responsibility for STEM education from NSF to the Department of
Education. Does anybody remember that? Wasn't there some
statutory change that shifted this responsibility?
Well, who has primary responsibility for developing,
establishing, and identifying a best practice, which is clearly
Thomas Jefferson High School, you do not need to go but eight
miles down the road. I cannot get my Wi-Fi to work or I would
have given you an exact number and map. Who has primary
responsibility? Is it NSF or the Department of Education for
identifying best practices for science, technology, and
engineering programs in our public schools? Is it you or the
Department of Education? It should be you I would think.
Mr. Suresh. We do research into models and we develop
models and test them and validate them, but the implementation,
especially a large scale implementation of this, the Department
of Education does of course, we interact with them.
Mr. Culberson. Well, they are the ones that can roll it
out, but I have to tell you it really shakes me up that you
could not answer the chairman's question about what is the best
practices or model and it is eight miles down the road at
Thomas Jefferson High School.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for one second. I
agree with your passion on the point, but the earlier time when
it was answered in full was that what they had done with the
chairman's request is to take it very serious and they have
done an empirical scientific based study with control groups
and others looking at all the practices and so on so that a
full report, and we are going to have a roll out. We are going
to have a roll out. They have already submitted to the chairman
the interim report.
Mr. Fattah. We are going to have a roll out in
Philadelphia. I am going to get you a cheesesteak. At the
Constitution Center we are going to have educators come in and
hear this. Because what the chairman has gotten them to do is
going to be historically important to teaching STEM.
So you know, Thomas Jefferson is a great school, but
aberrations or anecdotal circumstances are not enough to make a
scientific judgment on.
So we are going to have a great report.
Mr. Culberson. In the report that Mr. Fattah is talking
about you have looked at schools all over the United States and
you have identified what appear to be the best practices and
model programs, and you are going to roll this out as he says
at the Constitution Center?
Mr. Fattah. In Philadelphia, I'll get you a cheesesteak.
Mr. Suresh. So, Mr. Culberson, I thank you for the
question. Let me repeat some of the aspects.
Mr. Culberson. Forgive me for running late if I missed you
earlier.
Mr. Suresh. No, no, no, no problem at all.
Mr. Culberson. But I was just so disturbed when you could
not answer Mr. Wolf's very simple question.
Mr. Suresh. No, no, I answered it earlier, so I did not
want to repeat myself.
Mr. Culberson. I understand. Okay.
Mr. Suresh. So let me reiterate some of the points I made.
We have set up a National Research Council committee
involving the best teachers in the country and educators in the
country to provide us input on various best practices. That is
step number one. On May 10th and May 11th there will be a
symposium, which we have invited the chairman to kick off this
The second thing we have done is to engage the Urban
Institute, one of the centers of the Urban Institute, to pick
two states, and it may well be Virginia and Thomas Jefferson,
but we did not want to do it, we wanted an independent
organization to do this professionally with all the details,
and they will provide input on best practices from two states
based on input they have received from a larger sampling from
Mr. Culberson. Who is the Urban Institute?
Mr. Suresh. There is the name of a center call----
Mr. Culberson. Why wouldn't you do this?
Mr. Suresh. Because they have been engaged in a number of
studies related to this in the past and we wanted an
independent study.
Mr. Culberson. Educrats do not give me a lot of confidence,
that just is the reason I ask. I do not want to dwell on this,
since you answered earlier, and you were very gracious. You
know we are devoted to you, and I do not want to dwell on it,
but you are going to give a detailed report to the chairman and
the Committee?
Mr. Suresh. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. You are going to roll out what you believe
are the best practices and identify the schools that are really
doing it right.
Mr. Suresh. That is correct. And one other point that we
discussed was not just a report to this committee, but also on
ways in which we can roll it out to the community at large so
that the best practices that are identified are disseminated to
the school districts and others in the most efficient way.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, and the Department of Education will
be responsible for that?
Mr. Suresh. But we could make it available to them through
the media that we have.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Well, that is something I really want
to help the chairman and Mr. Fattah follow up on. We are in an
environment where we are facing--it is an age of austerity
unlike anything the nation has ever faced and all of us are
going to be working hard to protect NSF and firewalling off
core functions. We are, I think, going to be entering an era
where we are going to have to retrench as a nation and focus on
core missions, and this is clearly one of your core missions,
to identify and then help disseminate best practices in science
and technology and engineering education, because it is just
vital. I know the Chairman pointed out the Chinese are
graduating ten times more engineers than we are.
I also noticed that the Inspector General's report pointed
out that you have had real problems with confirming whether or
not grant recipients are actually performing and completing the
work that ensures effective oversight throughout the life cycle
of an award. You mentioned to the Chairman that you were doing
site visits and inspections, but the Inspector General says you
have actually performed 20 percent fewer site visits than you
had originally planned, so you are doing fewer site visits. All
of us want to be sure that you are following the Inspector
General's recommendations. Are you aggressively doing
everything you can?
Mr. Suresh. Absolutely. In fact we are looking at every
means possible to increase the site visit methods, and one
example of that is what I mentioned with respect to engaging
the latest technology to do the site visits. There are other
things that we can do with respect to frequency of grantee
conferences and so forth.
Mr. Culberson. The IG mentioned Second Life which is the--
MERIT REVIEW PANEL PILOT PROJECT
Mr. Suresh. Second Life is a virtual site visit process and
there are a number of ways in which we can do that. We already
have a pilot project under way to look at what the best
practices are.
Mr. Culberson. Does that allow you to see virtually
somebody pick up this glass of water and look at it and examine
Mr. Suresh. Absolutely. The technology----
Mr. Culberson. Is it secure?
Mr. Suresh. That is why we are doing a pilot program.
Mr. Culberson. To keep anybody else in the cloud from
diving in from Peking to Beijing, I guess they call it, and
looking at what you are doing.
Mr. Suresh. That is exactly why we are doing the pilot
project to make sure. It is absolutely critical that we insure
the confidentiality of the review process, so we want to make
sure that whatever systems we use--just to go a little bit
further, just three days ago I met with the senior research
officers of the AAU, American Association of Universities, to
talk about ways in which universities can help us with regional
hubs so that we can engage reviewers without having them fly
into Arlington, Virginia.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Just make sure it is secure, please.
Mr. Culberson. Year before last, I had been using iGoogle's
map service. I just temporarily played around with the thing
that allowed my staff to see where I was. Then I woke up one
morning, Mr. Chairman, and my location was in downtown Beijing.
It was because they had hacked the Google site, and then hacked
all of the Google accounts. I immediately terminated it.
I mean the Chairman is right, there is a very aggressive
and hostile cyber warfare going on from the Chinese.
Let me also just wrap up and mention, I am also concerned,
Mr. Chairman, that you are not spreading yourselves too thin.
You received a lot of money from the Stimulus Package, and
looks to me that you are spreading that pretty thin.
I mean, you are cancelling a lot of important work that you
have been doing on education. It looks like you started
building a telescope, an Alaska region research vessel, an
ocean observation initiative, and an advanced technology solar
telescope. All noble efforts, but we are in an area where you
are going to have to really focus on your core mission. I
suspect those are tremendously expensive projects, and you just
made a down payment on all of them and they are going to go
over their life cycle cost by a lot.
And by the way, Mr. Chairman, and I will just wrap up on
this, the icebreakers are going to cost upwards of a billion
dollars to completely rebuild them, won't they?
Mr. Suresh. I do not know the exact price of this, but----
FOCUSING ON NSF'S MISSION
Mr. Culberson. I have looked at it, it is about a billion
dollars if you were to rebuild those Coast Guard ships, Mr.
Chairman, and you do not have the money. When Mr. Wolf was
Chairman last time, this was something I worked on with Frank
LoBiondo, to get the Coast Guard to transfer responsibility for
the icebreakers. President Bush has shifted them over to you,
and you did not have the money. You do not have the money to
refurbish those ships, it was about a billion dollars. They are
finally back in the hands of the Coast Guard. They are ancient
ships, are in very back shape. It may actually be more cost
effective at this point to rent, as aggravating as it would be,
from the Swedish. You are doing all these other new things.
I just worry, do not get yourself spread too thin. The IG
says you do not have good safeguards in place to monitor these
major investments while you are doing in these big capital
construction projects.
There is a lot or worry here, Mr. Chairman, that this is
going to require a lot of oversight from us. You do not
necessarily need to get into all this right now, but I think
everything I have said is essentially accurate, right?
Mr. Suresh. Well, let me----
Mr. Culberson. I have not misstated anything have I or
misstated anything?
Mr. Suresh. Let me add a couple of points to that.
So along with new commitments that have been made, there
are also things that have been terminated.
For example, one of the projects that has been terminated
is DUSEL. The potential cost of DUSEL would have been over a
billion dollars over many years.
Mr. Suresh. They were for underground science research.
This is in high energy and particle physics underground.
Mr. Culberson. Oh, okay. So you cancelled that. I am just
concerned, I know the Committee is. I do not want to dwell on
it, because I have got to get to my Texas lunch as well, and
the Chairman is very gracious to let me come in so late and ask
questions, but please do not get spread too thin.
Mr. Suresh. I appreciate that.
Mr. Culberson. It is a real source of concern.
Mr. Suresh. Right. If I could just add one point to your
question on the telescopes. The reason for supporting these
telescopes, every ten years there is a survey that involves the
top scientists in the country on what needs to be done, and the
telescope work is very carefully done so that the planning
process and the implementation process takes about ten years
with a lot of community input. So this is not an NSF decision
to do something, but----
Mr. Culberson. Sure, I understand.
Mr. Suresh. And this is to keep the U.S. at the forefront
of the astrophysics research that no single institution in the
country is capable of funding.
So what you say is absolutely true, we cannot spread
ourselves too thin, especially at tight financial times, but I
want to assure you that we will do everything possible to make
sure that dollars are spent wisely and for the right purposes.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
ROLL OUT OF K-12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT
Before I end, I want to second what Mr. Culberson said
about the STEM report conference. Mr. Fattah, I hope we can do
it. Maybe we can look at the schedule for July and maybe pick a
Friday to do it.
Mr. Fattah. I am going to work it in a way in which we can
get you in there for the July 4th holiday. So we are going to
do it right. You can be there for the fireworks and the whole
bit and cheesesteaks. And we want to bring our colleague from
Texas along with us.
Mr. Wolf. Now does Geno's or Pat's, have the best
cheesesteak anyway?
Mr. Fattah. There is no doubt, this is a scientific fact,
all right, quantified, qualified, empirical: Pat's is the best
in Philadelphia.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. That is who I have gone to. I used to play
football at that field directly across the street from Pat's.
So I want to pick a time that we can do that, hopefully a
Friday, and we can tie it in.
I think what Mr. Culberson has said was accurate. The Urban
Institute, they are good, but I'm kind of worried that the
Department of Education now is going to be involved. And I am
worried that you are going to have two states, being looked at.
Maybe the best school is in North Dakota. So rather than
looking at two states, maybe you should look at the top 50
schools. ``U.S. News and World Report'' publishes the top 50
schools. One may be in Pennsylvania, one may be in New York,
one might be here.
So I think he makes a legitimate point. Here we are going
to get the Urban Institute to have a grant and then they are
going to look at two states. Maybe they are going to be the
wrong two states. I think Thomas Jefferson does an incredible
job, but maybe they should be looking at schools rather than
And lastly, once we bring the Department of Education in,
and I guess they are going to have to be brought in, but then
you got a new agency involved.
I think we should do the rollout in Philadelphia, certainly
by the end of July so it can at least be processed. Although
that will be late for the next school year. I think curriculum
is set pretty much. But it ought to be just whatever is
working, wherever it is working. That knowledge ought not to be
hoarded, it ought to be shared. Ben Franklin's house is two
blocks from that center--you could call it the Ben Franklin
whatever. But I want to do it. And I do not want you to do it
because we asked you to do it. I do not want to speak to your
conference, because I do not want to look like I am lobbying or
you gave me something. I just want you to do it because it is
good for the country.
My wife and I have 5 kids, 15 grandkids. I am worried that
this Nation is getting ready to go into decline. If you find
one idea that impacts one student at Overbrook and one student
at Vienna High School and one student in Houston, Texas, it
electrifies. So that is what we want to do is do. You have got
to be working with--what is the association of school
administrators? They ought to be part of it. I think Ed Hatrick
is the head of that. When you come out with, whatever you are
going to come out with, it should be so profound that it really
makes the difference. When we look back, this could be the one
thing that literally gave us the opportunity to make America
So we are going to really make an effort to work it out,
but I do agree with what Mr. Culberson said. I would feel more
comfortable if you were doing it without other groups involved,
but you should do it however you think it is best.
I worry, too, that is has taken NSF so long that it is
almost scary.
And frankly, if it could not be in July--and I want to do
it with Mr. Fattah--I would rather do it in September or do it
so that it really has a maximum impact for the following year.
I do not know when curriculum is established. I have a daughter
that is a teacher, but when do they begin in the City of
Philadelphia, when do they begin looking at the next year? So
maybe you should do it in September or October. Do not feel
rushed. We are going to do it in Philadelphia. Do it right. Do
not feel like ``we have got to get this thing done in July,''
because maybe that would rush it and make it not so great. One
of the greatest Presidents we have ever had, Ronald Reagan,
said the words in the Constitution adopted in Philadelphia in
1787 were a covenant with the rest of the world. Maybe this
could be another covenant. Mr. Fattah is going to be one of the
leading deciders, but think about when you can really do it and
do it well. Take into consideration Mr. Culberson's comments.
Mr. Culberson. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, they have been
working on this since I was placed on this Committee in 2003. I
asked for this subcommittee so I could work with Chairman Wolf
on protecting the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Mr. Fattah. I thought you wanted to work with me?
Mr. Culberson. Well, of course, you too my friend.
But I mean, this is where I wanted to be, to help with the
sciences and NASA, and you all have been talking about this and
NSF has been working on this literally, Mr. Chairman, since
2003. This should not be that complicated. You should be ready
to go.
Mr. Suresh. Well, we will get you the best outcome of
Mr. Wolf. And we are not going to hold you to the July
Mr. Suresh. I appreciate that. You know the spirit of
setting up this process to begin with was to do the right
Mr. Wolf. I understand, I understand, we do not have to go
back and do that.
Mr. Fattah do you have any other questions?
Mr. Fattah. No, I want to thank you for your testimony, and
you said you were out at Texas A&M, you met with doctor--is it
Garcia? It is a great university and I participated in that
program last year and I am glad that you are working in Texas.
My colleague did not hear that, but you are working in Texas.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Dr. Suresh, thank you very much.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR
Mr. Wolf. Good morning. We want to welcome you this morning
to the hearing on the fiscal year 2012 budget of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Our witness is Dr. John Holdren, the director of OSTP.
We appreciate you being here.
Opening Statement of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah
The Administration and the Congress are in broad agreement
about the need for significant investments in science and
technology programs next year.
I think where there are some differences is that many do
not agree on how the President's budget distributes the science
and technology money used for fiscal year 2012.
I am not sure that the Administration is doing enough to
ensure that all of the various elements of the science and
technology budget are well-coordinated and are formed into a
coherent over-arching program.
And I question sometimes whether the Administration takes
seriously the threat posed to us by China and our other
economic competitors.
Dr. Holdren, you are here today not only to defend your own
budget request but also to discuss these larger issues with the
Government's research and development agenda because you have
one of the most important positions within the Government on
these science and technology issues.
But before we get to your testimony and questions, I would
like to turn it over to Mr. Fattah, the ranking member.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Let me welcome you also, and let me thank the chairman for
conducting this very important hearing.
Needless to say, there is a very, very significant
challenge for our country in this space. Many years ago we had
absolute advantages that are now relative advantages over our
economic competitors in a variety of these areas. Innovation
and technology is critically important and our investments in
science are important. Larger countries like China are making
very significant investments and smaller countries like
Singapore and others are making, relative to their size, very
significant investments in these areas.
This Administration has done more than any administration
or actually more than a number of administrations combined in
terms of investment in science, technology, and innovation.
The chairman's efforts and this committee's efforts in
terms of the report around the Gathering Storm I think have
helped generate more interest here on The Hill around our
critical needs.
And I think that there is a combination of issues that
create some synergy related to energy independence that also
have spurred some interest.
So I am very interested in your testimony and look forward
to an opportunity to interact.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
You may proceed. Your full statement will appear in the
Testimony of OSTP Director Holdren
Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Wolf,
Ranking Member Fattah.
It is certainly a privilege for me to be here today to talk
with you about the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
for science and technology. And I will try to address the
broader concerns. I am certainly not here just to talk about
the OSTP budget request. The premise behind this budget is one
that, as both of you have already stated, is something we
really all share and that that is that creating the American
jobs and industries of the future, creating the quality of life
that we all want for our children and their children does
require investing in the creativity and the capacity to
innovate of the American people.
We think that the 2012 budget proposal that the President
has put forward does that with responsible and targeted
investments in the foundations of discovery and innovation,
that is in research and development, in science, technology,
engineering, and math education and in 21st century
infrastructure.
And it does that with increases in the highest priority
focuses being offset by reductions in lower priority ones. It
is a budget that is aimed at helping us win the future by out-
innovating, out-educating, and out-building the competition,
but doing it in a way consistent with the need to reduce the
deficit, to trim budgets overall.
Now, clearly we need the continued support of the Congress
in order to get this done. And I stress continued support
because the strengthening of the national effort in science,
technology, and innovation has for a very long time been very
much a joint venture of the Congress and the Administration. It
has been that way over the past two years and we certainly hope
it will continue to be a joint venture.
As you know, the President's budget proposes a record $66.8
billion for civilian research and development, but we are
committed, as I have already suggested, to reducing the deficit
even as we prime the pump of discovery and innovation.
We have made in developing the President's budget strategic
decisions to try to focus the resources on those areas where
the payoff for the American public, for the American taxpayer
is likely to be highest.
Mr. Chairman, I know the committee is already familiar with
the details of the President's budget proposal. I just want to
very briefly highlight a couple of key points for the agencies
that are under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
First of all, consistent with the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act, which was passed by Congress, as you know,
in December, signed by the President in January, the budget
calls for continuing on the doubling trajectory for the
National Science Foundation, the DoE Office of Science, and the
NIST, that is National Institute of Standards and Technology,
laboratories that the President originally committed to in his
speech at the National Academies in April of 2009.
Two of those three agencies that are especially important
to the future economic leadership of this country are under the
jurisdiction of your subcommittee, as you know.
In the case of NASA, the President's budget holds that
agency to the 2010 appropriated level of $18.7 billion while
still funding every initiative that was called for in the 2010
NASA Authorization Act.
The President's budget also helps NOAA improve critical
weather and climate services, invest more heavily in restoring
our oceans and coasts, and in ensuring continuity in crucial
earth observation satellite coverage.
The 2012 budget also emphasizes STEM education to prepare
our children to be the skilled workforce of the future. It does
that in part by providing $100 million as a down payment on a
ten-year effort to prepare 100,000 new highly effective STEM
teachers. That is part of a broader Administration commitment
to look carefully at the effectiveness of all of our STEM
programs and find ways to improve them.
And to further that goal, I have established a committee on
STEM education under the National Science and Technology
Council which, as you know, deals with interagency efforts
relating to science and technology. STEM education is certainly
very much an interagency effort.
And that committee, which is being co-chaired by OSTP's
associate director for Science, the Nobel Laureate in physics,
Carl Wieman, has already begun its work. It began its work in
March and involves all the federal agencies that are involved
in different ways in STEM education.
The budget also includes investments for a wireless
innovation and infrastructure initiative that will help extend
the next generation of wireless, we hope, to 98 percent of the
U.S. population.
Of course, it does, getting to my own office's budget,
request under this subcommittee $6.65 million for OSTP
operations. That is five percent below the 2010 funding level
and slightly below the 2011 funding level. And that is in
recognition of the need to share the sacrifice and to freeze
non-security discretionary spending.
So let me reiterate in closing the guiding principle that
underlies this budget and that is that America's strength, our
prosperity, our global leadership all depend directly on the
investments that we are willing to make in R&D and STEM
education and in infrastructure.
Only by sustaining these investments are we going to be
able to assure future generations of Americans a society and a
place in the world that is worthy of the history of this great
Nation which has been building its prosperity and its global
leadership on a foundation of science, technology, and
innovation since the days of Jefferson and Franklin.
Now, I know that staying the course in the current fiscal
environment is not going to be easy, but I believe that the
President's 2012 budget for science and technology provides a
blueprint for doing that that is both visionary and
The support of this committee, which has been the source
itself of so much visionary and at the same time responsible
legislation in this domain in the past, is obviously going to
be essential if we are going to stay on course.
And I very much look forward to working with all of you,
Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Members of the committee,
in working toward that end.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you.
I have a number of questions and we will go through the
panel. But before I do, one, I am committed to doing everything
we can with regard to funding the sciences.
Secondly, if you look at the CR, the sciences did very,
very well. We protected them.
Thirdly, I am very concerned about the fact that our
country is beginning to fall behind. I am particularly
concerned about China.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. I reviewed your
international travel itineraries for last year and found that
you were overseas for nearly two full months over a sixteen
month period.
Why is it necessary to be out of the country so often? Can
you effectively manage the office if you are out of the country
that much?
Dr. Holdren. First of all----
Mr. Wolf. I have your itinerary, your travel schedule.
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, I know. I am going to have to----
Mr. Wolf. Fifty-three days, 35 business days. China,
Norway, Japan, South Korea, China, Denmark, Russia, England,
Dr. Holdren. Let me explain, first of all, that most of
those trips were in my capacity as the high level
representative of the U.S. Government in joint commission
meetings on science and technology cooperation under agreements
that we have with all of those countries.
We have those high level joint commission agreements with
India, Russia, China, Brazil, South Korea, and Japan. And it is
my----
Mr. Wolf. You were never in Brazil, and you were in China.
Dr. Holdren. I have not done Brazil yet. We do have such an
agreement with China.
I was also in China for the strategic and economic dialogue
at the request, the specific request of secretaries Clinton and
Geithner because of the importance of dialogue with China on
innovation to get them to roll back their discriminatory and
unfair policies with respect to procurement, with respect to
intellectual property rights, and with respect to a number of
other issues disadvantageous to American business and to our
exports.
So I was on all of these trips basically acting as the
President's agent, pursuing the priorities of this country as
reflected in important aspects of international cooperation in
science, technology, and innovation that we believe are in the
U.S. interest.
Mr. Wolf. During that year, your most frequent destination
by far was China. You took three separate trips covering a
total of three weeks.
Can you go into detail of what you were doing there during
those three weeks? Maybe you just covered some of that. Then if
you could elaborate in a written statement by the end of this
week, I would appreciate it--who you met with, what your
purpose was, where you went, when you left, when you came back?
Dr. Holdren. No, I would be very happy to do that, sir.
The meetings were, as I mentioned, some in connection with
the strategic and economic dialogue, some in connection with
the U.S./China dialogue on innovation policy, which is the
forum in which we have been pursuing with the Chinese and
making some considerable progress, I should say, in getting the
Chinese to step back from the most discriminatory practices
that they have put in place under the label of indigenous
Some of those conversations as well were at the request of
the State Department in the company of Todd Stern, the U.S.
ambassador to the climate change talks, to try to work on the
Chinese, particularly Minister Xie Zhenhua, to get them to take
more reasonable positions in climate negotiations.
Mr. Wolf. Well, let us look at this. Fifty-three days, 35
business days, three trips to China for 21 days. I think this
is a little too much to be gone from the office, but I will
take a look at it when you send it.
Dr. Holdren. Be happy to provide it.
Mr. Wolf. Did you take your BlackBerry with you?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, I did, with the permission of the
security authorities. I did. The BlackBerry, of course, was
scrubbed before and after, but I did take it with me and I
did----
Mr. Wolf. Are you sure you can really scrub it?
Dr. Holdren. I am not an expert in information technology,
but I am assured by the people who are in the White House that
that is----
Mr. Wolf. Well, why don't we have a joint meeting with you
and me and the FBI.
Dr. Holdren. That would be fine.
Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Wolf. We will schedule it. I will ask the staff to set
up a time.
Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to.
Mr. Wolf. Have you ever been out to the FBI and had a
briefing with regard to China stealing any of our technology?
Dr. Holdren. Oh, I have had those briefings, but not at the
FBI. I have had them in the situation room. I have had them in
SCIFs.
Mr. Wolf. Have you been out to the cyber center out in
Northern Virginia?
Dr. Holdren. We are going to visit that in a couple of
weeks actually.
Mr. Wolf. To date, you have not been there.
Dr. Holdren. I have not, but I have been briefed by its
director in the situation room.
Mr. Wolf. I think you have to see it.
Dr. Holdren. We are going to do it.
Mr. Wolf. Can you tell us when you are going to go out
there? Maybe I can get a staff person----
Dr. Holdren. Okay.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. To go with you.
Dr. Holdren. Good. Happy to do that.
Response to Chairman Wolf's Request for Dr. Holdren to Visit the Cyber
Center (NCIJTF) in Northern Virginia
OSTP staff is working with the FBI to schedule a visit to the
facility in Chantilly, VA. Once a date has been set, OSTP will notify
Chairman Wolf's staff of the date.
COMPLIANCE WITH CHINA LANGUAGE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011
The recently enacted fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill
contained a legislative prohibition on bilateral activities
between your office and the Chinese Government or Chinese-owned
What steps are you taking to live within the terms of this
prohibition during the fiscal year?
Dr. Holdren. Well, it is our intention to live within the
terms of that prohibition insofar as doing so is consistent
with my responsibilities for executing the President's
constitutional authority----
Mr. Wolf. What does the----
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. In foreign relations.
Mr. Wolf. What does the language in the bill mean to you?
Dr. Holdren. I am instructed after consultation with
counsel and with appropriate--who in turn consulted with
appropriate people in the Department of Justice that that
language should not be read as prohibiting interactions that
are part of the President's constitutional authority to conduct
negotiations and at the same time, and there are obviously a
variety of aspects of that prohibition that very much apply, we
will be looking at that on a case-by-case basis in OSTP to make
sure we are in compliance.
Mr. Wolf. Well, can you keep the Committee informed on a
case-by-case basis of any time you do anything at all with
regard to China where you think that perhaps your activity will
be in confrontation with the language.
Dr. Holdren. Be happy to do that.
Mr. Wolf. Great. Thank you.
COMPETITION FROM CHINA
China's government sponsored R&D investments as a fraction
of GDP have grown by more than five percent annually while the
American rate of growth have actually been negative in recent
How does the 2012 budget address this imbalance?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, as I mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, the President committed the country in his speech in
April 2009 to trying to reach three percent of GDP in the
combined public and private investments in R&D in this country.
And that represents an effort to maintain the U.S. lead over
our competitors including China because as you correctly point
out, China's investments have been growing very rapidly, in
some cases more than ten percent per year.
We are very concerned about that. We want to be sure we
maintain the U.S. lead, which does remain large, I should say,
across the range of critical science and technology domains,
but China is trying to close the gap and we are interested in
maintaining our lead.
And the challenge we all face, and I reassert that we face
it together, is how in this time of budget stringency we can
find ways to increase the U.S. investments in science,
technology, and innovation in ways that allow us to stay ahead.
I would say one important aspect of that since the private
sector comes up with almost 70 percent of the national R&D
expenditures is we have to do more to encourage the private
sector to continue to increase its investments in R&D. And one
of the ways we have proposed to do that is by making the
research and experimentation tax credit both simpler, more
effective, and permanent in order to provide a reliable
incentive for the private sector to lift their game in R&D.
Clearly in a country where 70 percent of the R&D is
financed by the private sector, we have to attend to that as
well as to the government's expenditures.
Mr. Wolf. If the existing trend continues, do we run the
risk of China pulling even with or exceeding us in government
R&D investments? And if that is the case, when could that
happen?
Dr. Holdren. I have got some projections. I mean, none of
us has a clear crystal ball on this issue because we do not
know how fast the Chinese economy will continue to grow.
And there are a lot of people arguing that it will be
slowing down soon for a variety of structural reasons, but we
cannot be sure. We do not know if they can sustain the rates of
increases in R&D expenditures that they have been making. And
so it is very hard to predict with any confidence.
I do not believe that it is likely that the Chinese could
equal U.S. expenditures in this domain any time before 2015,
but it also depends on whether you count those investments at
market exchange rate or at purchasing power parity.
The other point that I would emphasize, though, is it is
not just the sheer amounts, but it is the quality of the work
that is done with those investments. And as I think many
authorities have pointed out, the greatest Chinese universities
remain light years behind U.S. universities in terms of the
quality of their faculty, their facilities, their students.
A large fraction of Chinese engineering graduates would not
qualify for entry-level engineering jobs in the United States
because the level of their engineering training is simply not
up to ours.
So we need to remember that quality as well as quantity is
important and we need to continue to focus both on adequate
resources in terms of our own investments and in the various
elements of the U.S. system which maintain our qualitative
advantages.
Mr. Wolf. They graduated 700,000 engineers last year. We
graduated 70,000. It is not engineer for engineer, but 35
percent, 40 percent, 45 percent of our graduates were foreign
students, many of them Chinese who are going back.
Dr. Holdren. That is true.
Mr. Wolf. You were recently quoted as saying that major
scientific advancements will allow China to ``eat our lunch''
economically. At the same time, however, you continue to
advocate for U.S. assistance to Chinese scientific agencies and
expanding joint research opportunities.
If you acknowledge that Chinese scientific advancements are
a threat to our economy, why would you want to improve their
capabilities and further speed up their advancements?
Dr. Holdren. First of all, Mr. Chairman, with respect, they
will eat our lunch if we do not continue our own investments in
the strength of our science, our technology, our innovation,
and our STEM education. I do not believe they will eat our
lunch if we stay the course.
Mr. Wolf. Well, sure.
Dr. Holdren. I will take the second part of your question.
I am happy to address that as well. I just wanted to be clear--
Mr. Wolf. You go ahead.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. In terms of my quote that I was
not predicting that they will eat our lunch. I was saying
avoiding their eating our lunch is the reason that we need to
Now, the question of why then if we are even worried about
competition with China should we cooperate with them. The
answer to that question is that there are a variety of domains
in which cooperation with China is very much in our national
One of those domains is the prediction and the control of
epidemics which, of course, know no boundaries. A lot of the
scientific and technological cooperation we have done with
China has been in that domain.
Another domain in which it makes great sense for us to
cooperate with China is nuclear safety, the prevention and the
mitigation of nuclear reactor accidents. China is building
nuclear reactors very rapidly. The consequences of nuclear
accidents also know no boundaries. And it is in our interest to
work with them to reduce the likelihood of accidents at their
reactors as well as, of course, our own.
China's oil imports are one of the reasons that gasoline
prices are so high in the United States today. It is the rising
demand from China and other developing countries and it is
pressure on the world oil market which has pushed gasoline
prices as high as they are.
It is in our interest to cooperate with China in activities
in alternative energy which will help them reduce their
pressure on the global market because it is a global market.
And we have an interest in China reducing its oil imports just
as we have an interest in reducing our own.
In the area of environmental problems that cross national
boundaries, again it is in our interest to work with China to
accelerate the pace at which they reduce the emissions that are
affecting our environment as well as theirs.
Mr. Wolf. In terms of specific joint scientific ventures,
the President has advocated for cooperation between NASA and
China's space program.
Does the PLO run the Chinese space program? Am I correct
there, the PLO?
Dr. Holdren. The PLA?
Dr. Holdren. They certainly have a lot to do with it. I do
not think we fully----
Mr. Wolf. The dominant one?
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Understand. My guess would be
yes, but, again, I do not understand and I am not sure anybody
understands exactly the way the tentacles of the PLA interact
with other activities. But they do certainly have a major
influence. There is no question about that.
Mr. Wolf. Since our space capabilities exceed theirs by
virtually all measures, how does this cooperation benefit
anyone but China? What is the technical or scientific benefit
to NASA of cooperating with the Chinese Space Administration?
Dr. Holdren. I will give you a couple of examples. One is
the question of space debris where we are all threatened by
junk in space that our satellites and the International Space
Station might run into.
And collaborating in the area of minimizing space debris
and making sure that we all know where all the debris is is
very much in our interest, in the interest of the safety of our
astronauts. That is one domain.
A second domain which is much more long term, much more
speculative, there is certainly nothing in place now, but the
President has deemed it worth discussing with the Chinese and
others is that when the time comes for humans to visit Mars, it
is going to be an extremely expensive proposition. And the
question is whether it will really make sense at the time that
we are ready to do that to do it as one nation rather than to
do it in concert.
And nobody knows the answer to that question at this point.
It will depend, since nobody is going to be ready to go to Mars
before 2030, whether it makes sense to do that jointly or not
very much depends on the state of political relations, economic
relations, and so on at the time.
But many of us including the President, including myself,
including Administrator Bolden believe that it is not too soon
to have preliminary conversations about what involving China in
that sort of cooperation might entail.
If China is going to be by 2030 the biggest economy in the
world as some think it may be or even if it only is still the
second biggest economy in the world, it could certainly be to
our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture
with them and with others.
Mr. Wolf. An IMF report which I am sure you saw came out
last month showing that, when measured in purchasing power
parity, the Chinese economy will overtake the American economy
in 2016, which is much earlier than any previous estimates.
What is your reaction to that finding of the IMF?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I looked at that finding with interest.
I have actually long been one of those arguing that we should
be paying more attention to purchasing power parity in many
contexts as the appropriate metric. There are obviously
respects in which market exchange rates are more meaningful,
other respects in which purchasing power parity is more
meaningful.
But I think if China passes us by 2016 in purchasing power
parity GDP, that will be a big deal. It will still be true at
that time that their per capita GDP will be a quarter of ours
or less, but I am not denying the significance of the
possibility of the United States becoming the second largest
economy in the world by any measure.
And, again, I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that what the
President's 2012 budget is advocating is investments in
science, technology, innovation, STEM education, and
infrastructure which will postpone the day when China passes us
and perhaps postpone it indefinitely.
Again, I would say none of us has a clear crystal ball.
China has many problems. You yourself have been in the
forefront of pointing out some of the problems that China has
created for itself in the domain of human rights and the domain
of a government in which the citizens do not have anything
resembling real participation. And that could come to bite
We do not know what China is really going to be like and
what problems they are going to be struggling with in 2015. But
in the meantime, we should be doing what we can do to
strengthen the United States' economy, to build jobs, to build
sustainable industries, to develop new products, to innovate.
We should be doing all we can in that domain and that is what
this budget is about.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree. And I would say that this
committee, and I would say in a bipartisan way, is really doing
that. I am not going to put you in a spot by asking you this
question, but I am going to state it as a fact.
It concerns me very deeply that this Administration is tone
deaf to the human rights violations taking place in China. I
think Ambassador Huntsman has done a good job. Short of that, I
think this Administration has been relatively weak.
The Chinese people are wonderful people; it is the evil
government that is doing these things. When the dissidents come
to the U.S., they tell me that based on what this
Administration is doing, many of the people are being
demoralized there.
We have a situation. The Catholic Cardinal from Hong Kong
was in to see me three weeks ago. The Catholic church is being
persecuted, and there are a number of Catholic Bishops that are
under house arrest.
I attended a house church on Easter Sunday as some of the
people were taken away and arrested. There are hundreds of
house church leaders in jail.
And when you talk about doing things ``in concert'', does
it sort of bother you? It bothers me, that that would be the
Rebiya Kadeer, who is head of the Uighurs, has two children
that are in prison and a daughter under house arrest. The
Chinese have even spied against her here in this country. The
Uighurs are going through a very difficult time. I think that
should really bother the Administration.
The 2009 Nobel Prize winner put on a dinner for Hu Jintao
when the 2010 Nobel Prize winner was in jail and could not even
get out to go to Oslo to get his award, and his wife was under
house arrest and would not be allowed to go.
That, I think, troubles me. I would hope it would trouble
the Administration and produce more than just a press release
or a spokesman at the State Department saying something. Your
actions make all the difference.
President Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire.
President Reagan went to Moscow with Gorbachev and he spoke out
for human rights and religious freedom with Gorbachev there at
The reason I ask you with regard to the People's Liberation
Army is that they also run a major organ donor program. They go
into prisons and take the blood type, and then they also bring
people over who want to buy kidneys for fifty or fifty-five
thousand dollars. For fifty or fifty-five thousand dollars, you
can buy a kidney of somebody who is executed by the People's
Liberation Army that you would have this kumbaya relationship
Now, that ought to bother anyone. That ought to bother the
President. It ought to bother you. I have been there. I have
been to Tibet. I snuck into Tibet with a young Buddhist monk
and I have seen what they have done, torturing the Buddhist
monks. We went by Drapchi Prison.
The Administration initially would not even meet with the
Dalai Lama. That should bother you. The Dalai Lama is a
peaceful person. And what is taking place with regard to the
Tibetans, they literally turned Lhasa into a no longer Tibetan
city. The Chinese run it and are trying to undertake ethnic
cleansing.
And, lastly, should it not bother you about this
cooperation with the number one supporter of genocide? I was
the first member of the House to go Darfur. There is genocide
in Darfur. The genocide in Darfur continues to this day.
The AK-47s and the weapons, much of that has come because
of the Chinese helping the Bashir Government, which is under
indictment by the International Criminal Court. Here is a man
who is under indictment by the International Criminal Court and
his number one support is the Chinese Government. They have the
So as you say ``in concert with'', doesn't that bother you?
Or is it the Simon and Garfunkel theory--man hears what he
wants to hear and disregards the rest?
We cannot disregard the Catholic Bishops that are in jail
or under house arrest, the Protestant Pastors that are under
house arrest, the organ donor program where they are killing
people to sell kidneys, the persecution of the Muslims and the
Uighurs in that portion of the country. We cannot deny what
they are doing with regard to the genocide.
I was with two young women who told me as they were raped
by the Janjaweed that circle the camps in Darfur, many of them
carry weapons coming from China. You cannot separate this out.
I cannot separate it out. And this Administration should not
separate it out.
When you look at the human rights report that just came
out, this Administration does not have a very good record. When
you say you want to work ``in concert'', it is almost like you
are talking about Norway or England or something like that.
And, lastly, and you should know and you should have been
out to the cyber center before, China is spying against us and
stealing economic information that is stripping this country
and taking jobs away. So I am not going to ask you if it
bothers you. It bothers me.
I believe in doing what Ronald Reagan did with regard to
the Soviet Union--standing up, speaking out. When I asked
Secretary Locke the other day whether he would agree to
attend--not worship, but attend--a house church, he would not
even tell me that he would attend the church, go with a
Buddhist and stand with him, go, meet, and ask to meet with
Rebiya Kadeer's kids who are in prison, go and ask to talk to
the Catholic Bishops that are under house arrest, talk to the
Protestant Pastors who have taken away, advocate on behalf of
the people that are being ethnicly cleansed in Darfur.
So I am not going to ask you if it bothers you, but it
bothers me. And as long as I have breath in me, we will talk
about this. We will deal with this issue whether it be a
Republican administration or a Democratic administration. It is
fundamentally immoral.
I saw those two young girls that I interviewed. And if you
want to see the tape, come by my office. They said as they were
raped by Janjaweed, the Janjaweed said it was to create lighter
skinned babies.
The Chinese Government is the number one supporter of the
genocidal government of Sudan, and these are all facts. And if
you want to get briefed on the facts, we can give you the
briefing of the facts.
So you say ``in concert with'' like you're talking about
working in concert with Mr. Culberson, or with Mr. Yoder, not
in concert with somebody that is fundamentally evil. You can do
it. This Administration can do it in an appropriate way.
President Reagan, to his credit, called the USSR the evil
empire in 1983. He said ``tear down this wall''.
And then, if you recall his speech at the Danilov
Monastery, he advocated for human rights and religious freedom.
Yet, he did it in such a way that at the funeral for Ronald
Reagan, Gorbachev came. This Administration is failing on this
issue. And I think people are expecting you to advocate, to
stand up, to speak out. And, quite frankly, we are not seeing
When I hear you say you will work in concert with China, I
am not going to ask you if it bothers you, but it bothers me.
Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Wolf. You can comment.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. May I comment, please?
Dr. Holdren. I want to say first of all, it does trouble
me. It does bother me. And I need to say as well, Chairman
Wolf, that I admire you for the leadership that you have shown
in calling attention to human rights abuses in China. I admire
you for that. And I agree with you that these abuses are
reprehensible.
I would only remind you that when Ronald Reagan called the
Soviet Union the evil empire, he also continued cooperation
with the Soviet Union in science and technology domains that we
judged were in the U.S. national interest to cooperate with
them on. And we continued to do that not because we were doing
a favor to the Soviet Union, which President Reagan had called
the evil empire. We did it because it was in our interest.
And I would similarly say that the efforts that we are
undertaking to do things together with China in science and
technology are very carefully crafted to be efforts that are in
our own national interest. We have been, I think, very
strategic about that, very careful about that.
I mentioned the kinds of areas in which we are engaged.
That does not mean that we admire the Chinese Government. It
does not mean that we are blind to the human rights abuses
which you have shown so much leadership in calling attention
But it is, I have to say, it is not my position, I am the
science and technology advisor, I am not advising the President
on what his stance should be in balancing the various national
interests that the United States has at stake in the way we
deal with China.
You understand very clearly, I know, probably more clearly
than I do, that those interests are complicated. And the
President obviously is not making that balance in the same way
that you would make it. But I think this is a matter that is
very worthy of continuing discussion.
I would be happy to come to your office and look at that
tape, but I am not the person who is going to be whispering in
the President's ear on what our stance toward China should be
government to government except in the domain where I have the
responsibility for helping the President judge whether
particular activities in science and technology are in our
national interest or not.
MAKING SUFFICIENT INCREASES IN SCIENCE SPENDING
And I join with you in your admiration for the chairman and
his efforts in relationship to human rights.
Let me get to some of the issues at hand relative to
Portugal is involved in a financial bailout due to some of
the challenges that they are facing, but they also took a
decision to provide laptops to every child in schools in
Portugal.
And Singapore has invested over $5 billion in their
National Science Foundation.
China made a decision a few years back to build 100 science
only universities and some 200 math and science laboratories.
And five years later, they were constructed and built.
I want to just go back a minute. Decades ago during the
Cold War, we built national laboratories like Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore and Sandia and on and on and on, made very
significant investments. The country went into debt even to
make commitments so that our country could be number one in the
world in terms of our technological capabilities.
This Administration has called on the Nation again to make
these investments even in difficult financial times. You do
that in the context of a freeze on discretionary spending, but
increases in the various accounts of agencies that were focused
on in the report on the Gathering Storm, focused on in the
America COMPETES Act.
So I just want you to kind of walk through this. You were
chair of the PCAST during the Clinton administration, and there
has been this proposal to create 1,000 STEM schools, 800
elementary, I believe, 200 high schools, and a number of other
steps, and if you could just kind of walk through for the
committee what you see as the critical investments that we need
to make now.
If you get on a plane now and fly out to Sandia, you see an
institution in which we have invested for 50 plus years, right?
I mean, what are the investments we need to make now so that
long after we are no longer in these roles America is number
one, because we seem to be acting as if we are going to lead
this world on the cheap? We have this notion that we are going
to kind of cut our way to the front of the line.
And I want to be certain, since you are the lead science
advisor to the President and you see what is going on across
the globe in which countries smaller than us--I asked some of
our officials how a country so much smaller than us could make
such a significant investment in particular technologies. And I
was told that their leadership had decided that even if they
had to eat dirt, they were going to lead the world in that
particular area.
I do not know that we remember the sacrifices that other
generations have made to position our country in the lead. We
benefitted by that. But I want to know what steps we need to
take in responsibility to our stewardship of this country so
that our children and grandchildren will be in a circumstance
in which we are number one.
Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Fattah. Let me
answer as best I can a couple of parts of your question.
First of all, you referred to our national laboratories. We
have by far the strongest national laboratory system in the
world. Nobody else has capabilities close to the capabilities
of our national labs and that is because we have continued to
invest in those laboratories since the initial investments we
made to set them up.
Second point, we have the strongest research universities
in the world, again by far. Nobody is even close. There are a
few universities in the UK, maybe one in Japan, maybe one in
China that are even in the top 25. That list is completely
dominated by U.S. universities.
Our task in both of those domains, the strength of our
national laboratories and the strength of our research
universities, is to maintain that strength, nourish it, and
expand it. And that is the basis for the President's proposal
to double the budgets of the basic research institutions in
this country that provide so much of the support for those
universities and for those national laboratories, the DoE
Office of Science, the National Science Foundation in
particular.
The other major component, there are two other major
components which I have alluded to of our strength in science,
technology, and innovation that we need to pay attention to.
One is the private sector.
And what has happened in the private sector is some of the
great research laboratories that the private sector used to
maintain have been downsized, they have been fragmented and
outsourced for a variety of reasons having to do with the
structure of the economy and the incentives for the private
sector. We have to increase the incentives, as I have already
mentioned, for the private sector to invest more in research
and development and innovation.
And we have to invest more in the mechanisms by which
discovery is transferred out of the national laboratories and
the great research universities into marketable and successful
products in the economic marketplace.
One of the ways that is happening in the Obama
administration is the energy hubs that the Department of Energy
has stood up. Three of them have been stood up. We propose to
stand up three more. And those hubs involve the interaction of
national laboratories, research universities, and corporations
to bring to bear their diverse comparative advantages on this
challenge of translating discovery into jobs, into products,
into new businesses in the marketplace.
As we get better at that, that will prove to be one of the
crucial dimensions of maintaining our economic standing in the
world, maintaining the jobs we need, and maintaining our
competitive position against competitors like China.
The last element that we need to pay attention to is STEM
education--science, technology, engineering, and math
education. The President has said on a number of occasions that
he believes the single most important thing we could do for the
future of our country is to lift the level of our game in STEM
education, particularly K through 12 STEM education.
You mentioned PCAST, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology. We provided the President with a report
on what needs to be done to improve K through 12 STEM education
some months ago. And one of the things we argued in that report
is we need equal measures of emphasis on inspiration and on
preparation. We need to inspire more kids to go into science
and engineering and math and innovation and we need to do a
better job of preparing them and keeping them there and keeping
them successful in those pursuits once they get there.
That is a large part of what the President's educate to
innovate initiative is about which he announced originally in
November of 2009 with at that time over half a billion dollars
in private sector and philanthropic support for efforts in
which national laboratories, corporations, and universities
would provide real life scientists and engineers and
mathematicians to go into classrooms and work with teachers to
improve the curriculum, to develop more hands-on activities and
experiments so kids could learn about science and engineering
by doing it rather than just by being lectured about it.
And so they would have more role models of both genders of
every ethnicity to establish in real human terms what exciting
and interesting careers are available to kids who pursue
science and engineering and math.
We have got to get better at that. That is probably, of the
four pillars of continuing strength, the research universities
and national laboratories, the private sector, the capacity to
translate between discovery and applied innovation in the
marketplace and STEM education, STEM education is I think the
one and the President thinks is the one that requires the most
additional effort to bring us up to speed. You see it in the
international test scores. You see it in other measures and,
yet, we also have fantastic examples of creativity and
accomplishment in our young people.
If you go to the Intel science talent search finalists
dinner and look at their displays as I have every year since
coming into this position, if you meet with the middle school
mathletes who have won national mathematics competitions, we
have got some incredibly bright kids out there. We just have to
do a better job of nurturing more of them, inspiring more of
them, and preparing them when they get into these fields.
STEM EDUCATION AT THE TERMINAL DEGREE LEVEL
And you are absolutely right that we need help at every
level. And I just commented in the congressional record and it
is a very significant effort by ExxonMobil in terms of the
national math and science initiative and a hundred plus million
dollar commitment.
But let me talk to you not about K to 12 STEM education,
but at the terminal degree level. We have a dearth of American
citizens of any stripe pursuing terminal degrees in the hard
sciences.
What can you tell us about why this is a continuing
challenge and what are your recommendations as it relates to
the President and his budget to address this issue? We have a
number of entities under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee
that are involved in efforts in this regard, so I would be very
interested in your thoughts.
When we look at people pursuing terminal degrees in nuclear
physics or computer information science or any of the hard
sciences, we are challenging ourselves in terms of the critical
skills that are going to be necessary.
And just, for instance, in our federal agencies, there is
going to be a major critical skills shortage just over the
horizon unless we prepare more young people for these roles
just in terms of, for instance, the nuclear stockpile, our non-
proliferation work, I mean, just across a whole range of
So I would be interested in your comments.
Dr. Holdren. Well, again, thank you for the very good
question. I would say a couple of things about it.
Number one, the number of people who pursue and complete
terminal degrees in science and engineering and math is
deficient for a couple of reasons. One is too few people
entering these programs. And the second reason is losing too
many along the way.
And the reasons we have too few entering the programs are
largely the reasons I just talked about, deficiencies in our
inspiration and preparation and the combination of those at the
K through 12 level. So too many kids who have the talent and
potentially the curiosity and the excitement to excel in these
fields decided to excel in something else.
But a further problem and a very important problem is too
many people who enter college with the idea of majoring in math
or engineering or science transfer into other fields along the
way because they become bored, they become disenchanted. The
way they are taught science and engineering and math at the
university level is not what it needs to be to keep them
inspired and engaged.
And on that particular topic, I have a couple of assurances
to offer you. One is that my associate director for Science,
the Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, has focused most of his
attention since getting the Nobel Prize not on doing more Nobel
Prize-level physics but on understanding better what works and
what does not work in college-level education in science and
engineering and math.
And Wieman and his colleagues in that pursuit have
developed some very important research findings that establish
that it is quite practical to improve by a factor of two or
more the success of college science, math, and engineering
teaching both in terms of how much the students actually learn
and in terms of how excited they stay about what they are
And we are currently conducting a new PCAST study looking
at the first two years of college education which is where you
lose most of these folks to figure out how to apply these new
research findings and specific programs which will cause them
to spread.
And I have already spoken and Carl Wieman has spoken with
the presidents of many of our research universities who are
equally excited about the possibility of doing much better at
this part of the effort, of keeping kids, young people engaged
in science and engineering and math in college pursuing those
goals in those fields, doing it more successfully, staying more
excited, and addressing that particular problem.
Mr. Fattah. Well, I am going to wrap up with just two more
questions on this point. But one of the ways that we solved
this problem in the past, because this problem has been with us
for a while, is that we had foreign-born students to actually
dominate many of these programs in the hard sciences at our
great universities here in America and many of them would end
up staying. And they would become citizens and they would have
the terminal degrees. And our industry would have the
intellectual genius necessary to go forward.
But now you have students who end up getting the degree who
are going back to their native countries and being part of what
is essentially the economic competition to our country long
So we have a number of challenges and we have to get more
American-born students to pursue hard science degrees and we
also need to keep talent that is coming to America for an
education. We need to try to hold on to more of that talent to
the degree that that is possible.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES
So I am interested, and I will end here, as you look at the
broad spectrum of work, and your testimony touches on a number
of issues, and we have obviously a range of challenges, but as
the lead science and technology advisor to the President, if
you could just comment in more general terms about what you see
as the Nation's most pressing scientific and technological
related challenges over the near-term horizon of the next 10
and 20 years that you believe we should be focusing on here in
the Congress and in terms of our priorities relative to
appropriations.
Dr. Holdren. Well, again, another good and rather sweeping
question. Let me say a couple of things about it.
First of all, in terms of students from other countries who
graduate in science and math and engineering from our
universities, as you say correctly, some of them do go back to
their home countries. That is not in itself entirely bad for
the United States to have highly educated people going back who
have experienced the advantages of the economic and political
system of the United States.
It is one of the ways over the long run that we work to
change the economic and political cultures in those countries
because a lot of these students become leaders in their
countries and their views about the United States and how we do
things become very important.
But it is also important that we not make it too difficult
for those who would like to stay to do so. And in some respects
in our visa policies I am afraid we have done that. We are
looking at our visa policies to see if there are modifications
that would make it easier for those foreign born students who
do want to stay in the United States and who have been educated
in science and engineering and math in our universities, make
it easier for them to pursue that choice to stay and apply
their talents in this country because we have gotten great
benefits from the talents of foreign-born students who have
decided to stay.
You also asked me what the great challenges are. I mean,
clearly a structural challenge is that part of the problem of
inspiration and keeping students in these fields is having them
confident that there will be exciting and interesting jobs
available for them to take up after they graduate.
And that again is a matter of ensuring that the private
sector makes the investments that they should be making, that
we make the investments and the private sector makes the
investments in science and technology infrastructure. That
includes information technology, high-speed computing. It
includes infrastructure in space which we use for
communications, for geopositioning, and for many other
purposes. We have to continue making the investments if the
jobs are going to be available for those students to engage in.
In terms of substantive challenges, what are the things
that we really need to be getting right in science and
technology going forward? I mean, clearly a huge substantive
challenge is in the domain of how do we strengthen
manufacturing again in this country? What can we do with nano-
tech, with info-tech, with bio-tech, with the intersection of
those to develop a much stronger manufacturing sector again in
this country?
And that is something that we are spending a lot of time
looking at jointly with the National Economic Council and in
concert with many of the high-tech CEOs and leaders in this
country and in the research universities and the national
laboratories. How do we apply these rapidly advancing
scientific developments in the domains I have mentioned to
translate them into new industries, into new jobs?
In terms of another substantive focus that is going to be
immensely important, it is what I would describe as the energy-
economy-environment intersection. We need affordable and
reliable energy to fuel our economy, but we need to get it in
ways that do not imperil our national security in the way our
very heavy dependence on imported oil from unstable regions
does today. We need to get it in ways that do not imperil our
There are tremendous technological challenges and
opportunities at this intersection of energy, economy, and
environment in which we need to be the leaders. We need to be
the leaders in new battery technology. We need to be the
leaders in fuel cell technology. We need to be the leaders in
smart grid technology.
And, again, these are challenges, but they are also
enormous opportunities that can constructively occupy a lot
more graduates of science and engineering and mathematics from
our great universities than we are generating now.
COMPLIANCE WITH CHINA LANGUAGE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011, CONTINUED
Dr. Holdren, I noted in your response to Chairman Wolf's
questions that the Administration has decided that any
negotiations that the President conducts are an exemption to
the policy adopted by Congress.
Dr. Holdren. I have to say first of all Congressman
Culberson, I am not a lawyer.
Dr. Holdren. But I have been advised by our counsel and
consultation with the Department of Justice that we must take
care not to infringe the President's constitutional authorities
in relation to the conduct of foreign relations, and diplomacy
in particular.
Mr. Culberson. I am always astonished in the time that I
have been here that the number of administration officials who
forget that the President's responsibilities under the
Constitution are actually very narrow, and in fact are limited
to: the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, shall
have the power to make treaties, and shall have power to fill
up vacancies. That is it.
It will be the chief executive officer of the United
States, and chief executive officer means to execute the laws
enacted by Congress, and the Congress just enacted and the
President just signed into statutory law an absolute, ironclad,
unambiguous requirement that none of the funds made available
by the Congress to the Administration may be used for NASA or
your office to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or
execute a bilateral policy program, order, or contract of any
kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in
any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless that
activity is specifically authorized by statute and enacted
after the date of enactment of this law.
It is not ambiguous, it is not confusing, but you just
stated to the chairman of this committee that you and the
Administration have already embarked on a policy to evade and
avoid this very specific and unambiguous requirement of law if,
in your opinion, it is in furtherance of the negotiation of a
treaty, right?
Dr. Holdren. Well, Congressman, I say again.
Mr. Culberson. It is exactly what you just said. I don't
want to hear about you not being a lawyer. If you are----
Dr. Holdren. Okay, as long as that is----
Mr. Fattah. Can we let the witness answer the question,
Dr. Holdren. What I have been informed is that a variety of
opinions, previous signing statements and other legal documents
have found that the President has exclusive constitutional
authority to determine the time, the scope, and the objectives
of international negotiations and discussions as well as the
authority to determine the preferred agents who will represent
the United States in those diplomatic exchanging.
Dr. Holdren. And I have been informed similarly----
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. And I am not qualified to
dispute----
Mr. Culberson. You are just following orders.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Or argue with you about what I
have been advised that as a result of those exclusive
constitutional authorities that have been asserted to me by
people who are lawyers and who work in this domain that the
provision of the legislation, which you just read, should not
be read to restrict activities that support those
constitutional authorities.
Now you can argue that with me till the cows come home, but
I will lose, I am not a lawyer, I don't know how to argue that
point.
Mr. Culberson. Oh, no, I am not arguing about it legally,
this is just common sense and it is plain English. And all of
your money flows through this committee.
Dr. Holdren. I understand. I understand that.
Mr. Culberson. I just laid out for you they are now evading
the law just enacted by Congress.
Essentially, obviously the White House's position is that
any activity that your office engages in or any division of the
executive branch engages in with China or any Chinese-owned
company is obviously going to be classified as being in
furtherance of negotiations involving treaty responsibilities
of the President in the Constitution.
I mean you just laid out for us very clearly how you intend
to evade the very explicit and unambiguous law enacted by
Congress. It is very distressing and you are not likely to--I
mean you need to remember that the Congress enacts these laws
and it is the chief executive office's job to execute those
laws, and this is unambiguous.
Your office cannot participate, nor can NASA in any way, in
any type of policy, program, order, or contract of any kind
with either China or any Chinese-owned company.
Now if any employee of yours, if you or anyone in your
office or anyone at NASA participates, collaborates, or
coordinates in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company
you are in violation of the statute, and frankly not only are
you endangering your funding, you are endangering--I mean this
is not only--it is a direct violation of law and it is up to
the chairman and this committee to decide how to enforce or
frankly to--what remedies are available for what is obviously
the--your intent to violate this-- the Administration's intent
to violate this law.
Dr. Holdren. Congressman Culberson, I----
Mr. Culberson. You have a huge problem on your hands.
Dr. Holdren. I hear----
Mr. Culberson. Huge.
Dr. Holdren. I hear you very clearly. It is not our
intention to evade this law as you say, we intend to comply
with it insofar as it does not infringe on the constitutional
authorities that I have been advised exist.
Dr. Holdren. I said we would review on a case-by-case basis
activities with China as to whether they are precluded by this
legislation or not, and we will inform the committee, as the
chairman has asked, of those considerations.
But I am very much aware that there are many activities
that we would have carried out with China or might have carried
out with China that will be precluded by this, that do not fall
under the President's constitutional authorities with respect
to diplomatic relations with other countries.
Mr. Culberson. The President's responsibilities for
negotiating treaties with other countries are obviously set
out. I mean he has got that responsibility set out in the
Constitution, but the scope, the extent, the deal, the manner
in which he conducts those negotiations are what officers of
the executive branch are authorized to do.
Now, frankly, the existence of your office--you are a
creature of statute. Every officer in the executive branch was
created by a statute, by Congress, and funded through this
committee, so the scope of the President's responsibilities
again are all designed by statute. You have now got a statute
that preempts every other statute on the books.
Now I am a good enough lawyer and practice enough in court
to know that what you have just given us from the chief
counsel's office is very revealing, Mr. Chairman, because
obviously the White House is now going to engage in a--rather
they have obviously identified a way to evade the intent of
Congress, and are obviously going to try to classify anything
you are doing with China as in pursuit of a treaty, but that is
not going to fly.
It has been signed into law, and the limitation that the
Congress enacted preempts every other statute of the books, it
is a long standing rule, and this one again is just common
sense, that a law that you pass today that is, for example,
very specific in regard to a particular subject, not only does
a law passed today preempt every other law passed before it,
but number two, particularly if the law today that is very
specific, it deals with a particular subject, that absolutely
preempts every other law passed before it, and that is just a
general rule.
In this case it is even more specific, and this is not
legal, it is just common sense, Dr. Holdren, that you can't
participate, collaborate, or coordinate in any way with China
or any Chinese-owned company unless that activity is
specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of
enactment of this division.
So you need to tell the lawyers, the General Counsel's
Office what you just read to us now threatens their funding. I
am a pretty good lawyer, and I can think of lots of ways to
help the chairman of this committee and other subcommittees
enforce the law. I mean it doesn't have to be just lawsuits,
there are a thousand ways to enforce the law, all kinds of
creative ways to enforce the law. I mean the law is essentially
what--you know, the law is meaningless unless it is enforced,
and it doesn't have to be just through a judge.
Trust me, the chairman of this committee and the
Appropriations Committee is charged with enforcing the law.
What you just read to me endangers, frankly, your funding, and
the Office of General Counsel's funding. I intend to go after
all of them in every division of the White House.
You have just opened the door for me, and I think it is
very revealing. You just gave us a peek behind the curtain. You
are obviously not going to pay any attention to this law if the
General Counsel's Office tells you that this activity that you
are engaged in, Dr. Holdren, or your subordinate, is in
furtherance of a treaty. You have just told us you can go right
ahead and do it.
Dr. Holdren. What I have said, Congressman Culberson, it is
not our intention to declare that every activity in which we do
or might engage with China falls under the category that is
within the President's exclusive constitutional authority. That
is not our intention.
And I am sure that this provision, as long as it stays in
force, and I must admit I am very hopeful that when the next
round of appropriations comes there will not be a similar
restriction in it because it will be restricting. It will be
restricting. There is no question about it.
Mr. Culberson. So not every activity.
Dr. Holdren. It will be restricting.
Mr. Culberson. Not every activity is going to be cut off.
And so clearly you are already beginning to identify some.
I just think it is very distressing and disturbing. Not
only does it ignore the intent of Congress, but you are also
blindly ignoring the threat posed by China.
I heard you respond earlier to questions from the chairman
that you took your BlackBerry to China. Do you know that Google
executives, and frankly no executive of any company I know,
will permit their employees to take their cell phones or iPads
or whatever to China. Google actually requires that their
employees--the only thing they can take is a stripped down
notebook that has a web browser on it, and then when they
return the machine is destroyed.
Dr. Holdren. Uh-huh.
Mr. Culberson. Do you know about that? You nodded your
head. You are familiar with that.
Dr. Holdren. No, I do know about that, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Do you know about the National Security
Agency and the policy of the United States military not to
permit any U.S. military officer or any government official,
and I think it is even true, Mr. Chairman, of the State
Department, I think you serve on the committee with Kay
Granger, I don't believe anybody from the State Department
takes a PDA or a wireless computer device of any kind into
China. You sync your BlackBerry at the White House don't you?
Dr. Holdren. Sir, I am not sure what the State Department
does, but the policies of the White House in this regard have
certainly been vetted with our security agencies, and I suspect
the reason for a difference between what Google requires and
what the White House requires is that we have greater
confidence in the technical abilities of the people who are
working for the Administration in the security domain to make
these devices secure. If that judgment is misplaced and we
learn about it clearly we will correct it.
But again, it is my understanding that the experts,
including experts in the NSA and the FBI and the expertise
available to our intelligence community in this domain, is that
we can make these devices safe for us to use in China.
And again, you know, you are outside my domain of specific
expertise. The advice I am getting on this from people who are
experts is that we can safely do this, and so we do.
Mr. Culberson. Your BlackBerry syncs wirelessly or do you
sync it at the White House with a hard plug in?
Dr. Holdren. No, it syncs wirelessly.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you are
going to help educate Dr. Holdren on what obviously everybody
else in the government knows, and that is you don't take
wireless devices into China. The extent of the espionage, the
aggressive attempts by the Chinese to penetrate the U.S.
government and private companies with cyber attacks is
something you, as a science advisor, ought to know better than
anybody else, and I am frankly very disappointed, disturbed to
hear that you already found a way, in your opinion, to evade
the law enacted by Congress, and that you are also obviously
indifferent to or unaware of the aggressive attempts by China
to go after the United States in stealing our technology in
cyber attacks. It is just very disturbing, Mr. Chairman, and
you have been very gracious.
I will save my other questions for the next round.
Thank you, Doctor, for being here. I just want to echo a
couple comments you made earlier in terms of the situation with
graduates of institutions of higher learning who can't stay in
Caltech is in my district, as you know, and it is a cause
of great concern for me that we have these very bright people
come to Caltech from all over the world that get advanced
degrees in math, science, and engineering, they want to stay,
they want to start a business, they want to hire Americans, and
we boot them out of the country. They then go elsewhere and
compete with us.
And while I acknowledge there is certainly a benefit in
having bright people educated in America in other countries,
there is an even greater advantage in keeping them here to help
grow our economy, and I have been working on legislation that
would provide for those that graduate with advanced degrees in
math, science, and engineering who want to start a business and
hire five Americans we should give them a green card and
encourage them to do that.
SUPPORTING LARGE RESEARCH FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
I wanted to ask you a comment on something. Having access
to cutting edge research facilities is increasingly important
to our Nation's ability to make game changing discoveries.
Given the increase in cost to build and operate these
facilities around the globe we often now have to work with
partners to keep costs down. Increasingly the construction of
these large facilities, such as the 30-meter telescope in
Hawaii, not only require non-federal contributions, but also
sophisticated international collaboration. Important
international partners need to understand U.S. plans are going
forward to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck and
that U.S. scientists are participating and having access to
these cutting edge facilities.
In what ways are the White House and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy leveraging international and non-federal
funding commitments for large facilities sponsored by federal
agencies such as NSF, NASA, and the Department of Energy?
Does OSTP actively work with federal research agencies to
spur negotiations to ensure that proper planning, design, and
development can occur?
Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you, Congressman Schiff. The
answer is yes, on all counts. That is OSTP does have the lead
responsibility in the White House for working with all of the
science and technology rich agencies in what they do jointly
with other counties and in international collaborations,
including ITER, the International Thermal Experimental Reactor,
including international high energy physics experiments,
includes the astronomical kinds of facilities you are talking
We have as one of our four divisions, the Division of
National Security and International Affairs, which has within
it the responsibility, and a number of people work in that
domain very specifically to work with the DoE, with the NSF,
with NOAA, with NASA on the development and implementation of
cooperative efforts, which as you point out are enormously
Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you another question related to my
first comment in terms of the visa situation.
INSPIRING INTEREST IN STEM EDUCATION
Over the years I have brought a great many astronauts to my
district to meet with middle school students, and I brought an
astronaut to a middle school in Pasadena, one of the lowest
performing schools in my congressional district. He was
particularly good with the kids. They all are very good, but he
was particularly good.
He had a bunch of NASA patches in his trouser pocket that
he offered to give the kids if they could get certain questions
right. They had to earn the patches. And the first question he
asked kind of bugged me because I got the math wrong. He said
that----
Dr. Holdren. You didn't get a patch?
Mr. Schiff. I did not get a patch. I was lucky I didn't put
my hand up.
The question was when he is on the shuttle he orbits the
earth every hour and a half, how many sunrises and how many
sunsets would he see in a 24-hour day?
I didn't think it was that difficult a math problem, but
the students who are all middle school students, you know,
guessed eight, guessed six, guessed twelve, and then one child
put up his hand, and I think the correct answer was thirty-two,
which was--when at the astronaut reached to take out a patch
and give it to him I realized that the answer I had was wrong,
I was off by four, and I spent I think the rest of the
presentation figuring out----
Dr. Holdren. Trying to figure it out.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Why I got the math wrong. It
really bugged me. I had to get him to explain it to me
afterwards.
But I wondered when he gave this to this young child
whether that middle school student knew he was gifted.
And you know my district is a suburban, largely middle
income, but there are a lot of lower income families,
particularly served by this school, and I wondered, you know,
this kid who put up his hand among 300 other kids was clearly
gifted to get it right, to get it right in front of 300 other
classmates who were all guessing all over the boards, and I
wondered whether he knew he was gifted, whether his teacher
knew he was gifted, whether his parents knew he was gifted, and
what the odds were that that child would make it in his
lifetime the one mile from there to Caltech, and I thought the
odds were probably not very good, and in some respects the odds
of coming to Caltech from half way around the world were better
and easier than coming from a mile away from Caltech.
And I wonder what your thoughts are and what we could do
about that. How do we make sure that we identify talented young
people like that? That we give them every opportunity to make
their way what geographically is a short distance, but in terms
of society and everything else may be an infinite distance.
What can we do about that?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all I would say I would guess
that the odds of that student making it the one mile to Caltech
went up because astronaut came to that classroom, and they went
up both because of the inspiration that that visit provided and
because the nature of the interaction called attention to that
kid's talent in a way that the teacher couldn't help but
notice, and the kid probably noticed that he was able to do
something that the other kids weren't.
Mr. Schiff. And this Congressman wasn't able to.
Dr. Holdren. I didn't want to mention that.
That is one of the ideas that is behind this educate to
innovate initiative in trying to get more real world scientists
and engineers and mathematicians into classrooms working with
kids. It is not just for the inspiration, but it is for the
nature of the interactions that reveal talented kids who might
not have known themselves how talented they were until they
have the opportunity to engage in these kinds of interactions
with somebody who has succeeded in these domains.
And we have found by the way as you did in this instance
that astronauts are enormously effective in this domain. They
are very highly trained, they are very smart, they are very
interesting in terms of the way they think about physical
problems and the physical world and can relate them to kids.
I have got so many examples that are similar to yours of
seeing astronauts interact with kids. We had five astronauts
when we had Astronomy Night for Kids on the White House lawn in
October of 2009. We had Sally Ride, the first American woman in
space. We had Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in
space. We had Buzz Aldrin, the second person to set foot on the
moon. We had of course Charlie Bolden, the NASA administrator.
And we had John Grunsfeld, the Hubble repairman, the guy who
spent 55 hours walking in space, and we had 300 kids from
middle school. Kids who either had done particularly well in
science and math or who had been recently rapidly improving
their performance. That was their reward is being able to come
to this event. And the interactions were just mind boggling.
We had moon rocks and we had a portable planetarium, we had
16 telescopes, but the interactions between those five
astronauts and those 300 kids I would bet changed a lot of
lives. I mean this is one very important way that you get it
done, but we have to do more as your question suggests to be
able to reach into the communities that are less well off, that
are less likely to have parents inspiring their kids and
teaching their kids, and we have to figure out more ways to
make this happen.
Mr. Schiff. Do we have a mechanism, you know, I know many
areas have magnet schools, but do we have a mechanism to
identify students at a very young age like this who have this
talent and pull them into a special program?
Dr. Holdren. We try to do it in part with science fairs,
and as you know the President has given a lot of prominence to
the value of science fairs and robotics competitions and math
competitions and so on, which start at a very early age. I have
a grandson of ten who just competed in a science fair in a
public elementary school in Falmouth, Massachusetts where he
lives, and it was clear to me--I was not there, but my wife
went, my wife is a scientist as well, and she went as one of
the people sort of observing this whole thing--and it is
apparent that these experiences that kids have in science fairs
in developing their own experiments and explaining them to
people are a way in which kids of exceptional talent do get
identified early, and then the trick is--again, your question
goes to this--what to you do once these kids are identified by
their teachers? How can you provide the resources needed to
ensure that that talent get develops, that that inspiration
continues? And we are thinking about that. We are trying to
think about what both the limitations and the opportunities are
associated with these kinds of competitions, which have become
immensely popular.
I don't know if you were able to go to the science and
engineering fair on the mall last year, but the robotics
displays were the ones that were most overwhelmed. The second
most overwhelmed display--and I think 500,000 people came to
this weekend event--but the second most overwhelmed display was
the NASA display where they had real live astronauts meeting
kids and talking with them.
But the first most overwhelmed display was the robotics
where kids were dealing in hands on ways with robots and being
able to modify them and make different kinds and so on and so
forth, and that is just a wonderful mechanism for identifying
particular kinds of talent, and we have to figure out what the
next steps can be.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I would love to stay in touch with you on
that. We have great robotic programs in my district as a result
of Caltech. They work with a lot of our local high schools on
robotics programs.
But it still seems a bit haphazard what you are describing.
It requires a student to kind of self-initiate and gravitate
towards a science fair.
I got the impression, although it may not be correct, that
some of our competitor countries, they will identify these
students through examination and then they are put in a certain
program, track, et cetera, quite methodically to cultivate that
talent.
I don't know that we want to go exactly down that route,
but it seems we may be missing a lot of our native talent.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Have you seen Waiting For
Superman?
Dr. Holdren. I have not seen it.
Mr. Wolf. I will get you a copy. If I do, will you watch
Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely I will. I think Carl Wieman has
already been trying to get me to watch it.
Mr. Wolf. Have you seen it?
Mr. Schiff. No.
Mr. Wolf. I will get you a copy.
I think the answer is there, and it is a very powerful
movie. At the end, some of the young people want to get in a
school, and the decision as to whether they will be able to do
it is based on whether they win the lottery. They follow the
families, and those who win the lottery are cheering. It is
almost like a hockey game or a basketball game where the
parents cheer because their young child gets in. Then the two
or three who never make it go home. One is from California, and
I will get you a copy. I will try to get it for you certainly
by the time to go home for the recess, and you should watch it.
Also, we are losing astronauts. I bumped into an astronaut
the other day, and for the record we can check and make sure
that what I am saying is accurate, but he told me the
astronauts are leaving in droves based on the Administration's
position with regard to NASA and space. We don't want to get to
the point that we don't have any astronauts or where the
astronauts are so rare.
Dr. Holdren. I agree.
Mr. Wolf. I took the NASA Administrator down to an
intercity school in Washington, D.C., and I think every child
deserves that opportunity ,and not just, you know, a handful.
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET LOGISTICS
With regard to the NASA budget, science investments were
supposed to be an area of particular emphasis in the 2012
budget request, but the emphasis seems to have been very
unevenly applied. Agencies like NSF, NIST, and the Department
of Energy Office of Science received significant increases, but
NASA, the fourth largest R&D agency and one that we were all
raving about, was held flat from 2010.
How does a flat NASA budget reflect the Administration's
emphasis on scientific investment?
Dr. Holdren. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, NASA has a
great many functions under its roughly $18.5 billion budget,
and we have been trying in the Obama Administration to
strengthen the science within that.
We think one of the things that happened over the prior
administration when there was a grand vision for expanding our
activities in human exploration, but the budgets for that were
never provided, is that the science budget suffered, and we
have been in the process of trying to build them back up, but
we are living as you know in an extremely difficult budget
I mean if I were a king, NASA would have a bigger budget so
that we would be about both to pursue a vision for advanced
technologies to take us farther and faster in space so that we
would be able to fund all of the earth observation that we
really need NASA to be doing, so that we could fund all the
looking outward that we need NASA to be doing.
Unfortunately at this particular juncture there is not
enough money and some difficult choices have been made.
I said early on that while I agree with you that science
and technology did much better in the 2010 Continuing
Appropriations Act than nearly any other sector of government
activity, that still doesn't mean that we are doing as well as
those of us who are focused on the challenges and the
opportunities in science would have liked.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I would agree with you. The Administration
needs to step forward and deal with the entitlement issue,
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We don't want to get
off into that subject, but the President appointed the Bowles-
Simpson Commission, and then he walked away from their
recommendations two different times. If he had embraced it by
dealing with the entitlement issue, you could plus up many of
these accounts.
But the question was, the others had increases and NASA has
a flat line, and that just doesn't make any sense.
Last year, you attempted to cancel NASA's exploration
program and were soundly repudiated by Congress. It seems like
the Administration didn't learn its lesson, though, because
this year's NASA budget is also unacceptable.
You are once again proposing big increases in earth
science, space technology, and commercial space flight, and
paying for those increases by cutting the exploration program,
which is budgeted at more than $1 billion below the authorized
Why does the Administration insist on using the exploration
program as the bank to pay for the other priorities?
Dr. Holdren. Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't
have phrased it quite that way. I think first of all that the
2010 Authorization Act from NASA contained much of what the
President wanted and it also contained much of what the
Congress wanted. I thought it was a pretty good compromise
between positions that initially seemed to be quite far apart.
So I didn't consider it a resounding repudiation of what the
President wanted to do.
With respect to the amounts of money in space exploration,
the President's budget still funds at a very substantial level,
the key ingredients of that, the heavy lift vehicle, the
multiple purpose crew vehicle, but it was necessary.
And you referred to the astronauts. It is necessary if we
want to maintain access for U.S. astronauts to the $100 billion
International Space Station on U.S. rockets, if we want to
minimize the gap during which we would be dependent entirely on
the Russian Soyuz, we absolutely have to make investments in
commercial crew development, and at the same time we need to
invest in those technologies, the heavy lift and the
multipurpose crew capsules to be ready for the next step, and
there is a balancing act involved in doing that under a budget
cap that is lower than what one would want to pursue all of
those goals.
I think the President's budget made the best choices that
NASA and the President's other advisors thought could be made
under the circumstances, and taking into account that we were
restrained until the recent passage of that 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, we were restrained by the language in the
2010 Appropriation's Act which heavily restrained NASA from
moving any resources around in the Constellation Program, and
by the time we were relieved of that constraint you weren't in
the same position that you would have been in if throughout
fiscal year 2011 one had had more flexibility.
DEVELOPING NASA'S HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
Mr. Wolf. The NASA Administrator has been quoted several
times saying that NASA is not going to build a 130 metric ton
launch vehicle, which is a requirement of the authorization and
now the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill also.
Between statements like that and a budget request that
significantly underfunds the authorized exploration program it
looks like the Administration has no regard for the legal
requirements of the authorization.
Do you view the lift capability requirement as legally
binding?
Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman, first of all I believe----
Mr. Wolf. It has got to be really difficult to pick what
you want to like. This is not a cafeteria government, it is----
Dr. Holdren. Look, I understand that, and I believe that
the administrator has clarified his views on that and has made
clear subsequently. There was a statement he made in response
to a question from a reporter that I think was at best less
than a complete commitment to the 130 tons, but he has
clarified that subsequently.
I was at a meeting with him, a public session with at the
Goddard celebrating the anniversary of Goddard's birth out in
Maryland in which the administrator made very clear that he is
committed to 130 tons, and I think that is a fact.
Mr. Wolf. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you
do view the lift capability requirement as legally binding
then?
Dr. Holdren. I regard it as something that we are legally
obliged to pursue. I don't think we can necessarily legislate
success. Ultimately we will get 130 tons. Whether we will get
it by the date specified in the legislation that is something
we are obliged to try to do and we will try to do it.
But I am concerned, I know the administrator is concerned
that sometimes what is Congress wants, however admirable, is
not necessarily achievable under the available budgets and in
the time available.
So we are going to try, we are going to do everything we
can to get this capability by the date specified, but it is
going to be a challenge.
Mr. Wolf. The Administration advocates for the development
and deployment of a smaller launch vehicle, such as one with 70
to 100 metric tons of lift. A vehicle of this size would be
oversized for servicing the Space Station, but undersized for
deep space exploration.
What would the mission be for a 70 to 100 metric ton launch
vehicle, and why would the development of the smaller vehicle
be a useful achievement?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I would say that is a question that goes
beyond my expertise, and it is one that I would direct to our
colleagues at NASA.
I could speculate as to the value of that intermediate step
in terms of preparing the way for the larger capability that
ultimately we will need, and I would speculate that there are a
variety of kinds of payloads that would fall in that range that
would still be extremely useful to be able to get up there,
including the possibility, should the 130 tons not be available
by the specified date, to launch the components we need in
pieces and put them together in orbit, but that would be
speculation.
I know that NASA is engaged in a detailed study of how best
to meet the goal that the Congress has specified, and my
understanding is that that study will be ready by mid-summer
and will be provided to the Congress, and I think it would not
be terribly productive for me to try to second guess what it is
going say.
Mr. Wolf. Well, maybe you have answered this, but I want to
kind of lock it down so there is no misunderstanding. In
addition to funding issues, NASA's work on the exploration
system is being delayed by foot dragging within the
Administration on the vehicle designs and acquisition
strategies for the crew vehicle and the launch system.
NASA told us that they can have these decisions made and
communicated to the Congress by June 20th, which you are
referencing, but we are hearing reports that others in the
Administration want to delay that.
Any further delay is, I believe, unacceptable and I assume
you would agree. Will you commit to us right now that the
exploration implementation plan will be done and submitted by
June 20 as NASA has planned?
Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman, I cannot guarantee NASA's
performance, but I have heard no reports that anybody is trying
to slow them down, that anybody has suggested that it would be
acceptable to deliver that report later.
It is my understanding that that is their goal, that that
is their intention, and I expect they will meet it, but I can't
guarantee you personally since I am not at NASA and not engaged
directly in this process.
I will certainly convey to the administrator your view as
expressed here that that deadline is firm and it is essential
that it be met.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you are a very important person in this
administration and in the space area, and we have been hearing
that there has been some effort to urge NASA to go slowly,
particularly since this appropriations process will then pass.
But if you could check with the Administrator----
Dr. Holdren. I will do that.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. And then get back to the Committee
to let us know that that June 20th date will be met. I would
Dr. Holdren. I will do that, sir.
Summary of Dr. Holdren's Discussion With NASA Administrator Bolden
At the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee on May 4, 2011,
Chairman Wolf requested that Dr. Holdren call Administrator Bolden
about the June 20 deadline for NASA to submit its exploration
implementation plan to Congress.
Response: On May 12, I talked to NASA Administrator Bolden about
the exploration implementation plan. I stressed the importance of
completing the exploration plan by the June 20 target date.
Administrator Bolden confirmed that NASA is making every effort to meet
that date.
Mr. Wolf. With the funding levels proposed in the
President's budget, NASA will be unable to meet the 2016 target
date for initial operation of the Space Launch System and the
Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle, which will further prolong the gap
in our national human exploration capability.
Aren't you concerned about the possibility of additional
years without a NASA-owned system for getting Americans into
space? And what do you see as the impact on our national
prestige and security of a major delay in NASA's exploration
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all I am concerned about it,
Mr. Chairman, and I am doing everything I can within the
constraints that we are all working under to see that NASA does
meet that target and that we minimize, as I have said before,
that we minimize the period in which we are dependent on the
Russian Soyuzy for transport of our astronauts to the
International Space Station.
I am concerned as you are by the possibility that the
number of people interested in becoming astronauts and
remaining astronauts will go down if we do not have assured
means of providing access to the space station.
We think the space station, by the way which under the
President's proposals, would continue to operate until at least
2020 is an enormous resource for science and for technology
development and for the continuing inspiration of American
young people seeing American astronauts going back and forth to
and from the space station and operating and working and living
there, and we want that to be a viable resource with U.S.
astronauts getting there on U.S. rockets. That is our aim, that
is my aim.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We are going to go into STEM education. I
don't want to keep others waiting, but I want to go into STEM,
which I am a big supporter of.
A year or two ago, and I guess we can check the figures, 50
percent of the money that was available for STEM grants was
left on the table, and it was not accessed by students. You
might want to check and see if that is accurate and then get
back to the Committee. I would appreciate that.
Response to Chairman Wolf's Concern That 50% of STEM Grants Go Unspent
At the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on May 4,
Chairman Wolf expressed concern that 50% of STEM grants go unspent.
Response: Nearly all STEM programs are spending all their money,
with these notable exceptions: The Higher Education Reconciliation Act
of 2005 created two new need-based grant programs that complement funds
awarded to Pell Grant recipients: Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG)
and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART)
Grants. The former are awarded to Pell Grant recipients in their first
and second years that completed a rigorous high school curriculum,
while SMART Grants are given to Pell recipients in their third and
fourth years that major in technical fields or languages vital to
national security. Unfortunately, the number of students receiving the
grants has been lower than estimated, resulting in the amount of funds
available exceeding the value of grants awarded. Due to this
unexpectedly low usage, the Department has rescinded $1.085 billion in
total funds for the program since the 2008 fiscal year. This figure
includes a recession of $560 million in fiscal year 2011. Both ACG and
SMART Grants are scheduled to sunset after the end of the 2010-11
academic year and are not scheduled to receive any additional
Secondly, you mentioned something that triggered the idea.
We have asked the National Science Foundation to do an in-depth
study, which they hope to have some time this summer, as to why
young people make a decision to go into math, science, physics,
chemistry, biology, the sciences. There seems to be some sort
of fifth or sixth grade deciding point there, and so the
director of the NSF is working with a number of other people to
look at that.
If you have any ideas for that I urge you to talk to him
and cooperate. They hope to do a report, which we would then
hope to get into the hands of all of the school systems.
Because there may be somebody in some place that is doing
something amazing, and if we could just let people know about
it that may be kind of the silver bullet, if you will, for that
issue. But if you could check on those two things, I would
Dr. Holdren. I will talk with him. Dr. Subra Suresh is a
good friend and we spend a lot of time talking about these
matters, and I too have seen the research that indicates that
kids actually decide very early on their trajectory, and they
either get excited about science and math and engineering early
or they may not get excited at all, and you are absolutely
right, we have to work harder to understand that and to make
sure that for the kids with that inclination and those kinds of
abilities that they get the inspiration to make those choices.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. With that I will just go to Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Dr. Holdren.
I want to follow up with chairman, just with the heavy
lift, of course with the understanding, my understanding that
the cost of developing a rocket with a lift of 70 tons, which
was not fully integrated into a robust plan for completing a
130-ton rocket, would still be about 80 percent of the cost of
a fully integrated plan.
The language in the CR bill for the heavy lift rocket
indicates that it will be simultaneous development of the upper
stage of that rocket.
The question would be how will your office help ensure that
NASA manages contract modification and other options to ensure
that the law is followed for simultaneous development?
Dr. Holdren. Congressman Aderholt, we will certainly be
paying attention to that and working with Administrator Bolden
and his staff to do everything we can to promote the successful
achievement of the goals that the Congress has specified.
I think any interest in a 70-ton rocket would be in the
context of a fully integrated plan to get to 130 tons, and
again, I think the administrator has clarified his views on
that subsequent to some initial expressions which were less
clear, and OSTP is also committed to that goal and we will work
with NASA to try to ensure its achievement.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Let me change into just another topic.
TORNADO DEVELOPMENT AND PREDICTION RESEARCH
Of course as you know the southeastern part of the United
States was hit by the series of tornados, I guess it was a week
ago today, and I think over the course of the southeastern
states there were approximately, and I think we are hovering
around 350 deaths right now, actually a third of those are in
the district that I represent, and a lot of those is just north
of Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, that area that I represent.
The question I have in relation to the tornados that hit.
Do you believe that the tornado genesis, the process by which a
tornado develops, is it the same in the humid southeastern
United States as it is in the central plain areas of the United
States? Go ahead.
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all the amount of energy
available to tornado formation is certainly affected by the
amount of water in the atmosphere and by the temperature of the
atmosphere, and both have been increasing. The temperature has
been increasing, the amount of water has been increasing. There
are a lot of other factors that govern the formation of
tornados, including the interaction of weather fronts as you
know, and so it is not a simple matter of saying simply if it
is more humid and if it is hotter we are going to have more
tornados, but all else being equal, that is given the other
conditions that it takes to form tornados, if there is more
moisture in the air or more heat in the air the potential for
powerful tornados is larger.
Mr. Aderholt. I see. How does the budget request for your
office or for NASA or NOAA reflect the need for research on
these southeastern tornados, which you have indicated, you
know, cause with more humidity and the more rain would cause?
Does your request reflect research regarding that?
Dr. Holdren. There is certainly considerable research in
NOAA on that question, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and it is continuing.
The other relevant factor that I think is very important in
this case is the capacity to forecast tornados and provide
early warning, and NOAA's budget is very important in that
domain as well. In fact we have a particular challenge in this
domain because the Joint Polar Satellite System, which was not
fully funded in the 2011 is budget is essential to maintaining
continuity of the capacity to forecast tornados.
For all the tragedy that these tornados caused it would
have been even larger. The loss of life could have been
significantly larger had it not been for the amount of early
warning that we had in large part due to the continuing
availability and functionality of our polar-orbiting weather
and climate satellites, and we could lose that. In fact we are
now projecting a gap in that capability some time in the
vicinity of 2015 because we have not made adequate investments
to put the next polar-orbiting satellite up there.
So this is a very important matter where the safety of our
citizens and the budget for NOAA come together.
Mr. Aderholt. No doubt, I mean the series of tornados that
went through I know Alabama last Wednesday can only be compared
to 1925, and when there were over 700 deaths, and of course I
think a lot of that is due to the fact that the early warning
was not there in 1925, and so, you know, the tornados that
occurred last Wednesday could have been much worse than 700 had
there not been that early detection, so I do understand and I
do appreciate that.
So okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In this discussion about the tonnage for NASA, I am not
sure that in the past the Congress has been so specific about
the level of tonnage, and it is obviously challenging to think
that as members we would be able to kind of project forward the
science. But I think that the point is, is that where this
requirement is in statute and if the science does not get us to
the capacity to be able to do it then we run against a
circumstances that would be challenging. So it will be
interesting as we go forward.
But I think that the focus and the direction is in the
right--the compass is correct. That is, that we want to produce
a heavier lift as we go forward in terms of tonnage. I don't
know that we have the wisdom, even though we obviously put it
in statute, to say that somehow we are going to be able to do a
certain tonnage. But notwithstanding that it has been done and
we will see where we go.
NOAA SEVERE WEATHER PREDICTIONS AND WARNINGS
I want to shift gears a little bit to NOAA, and I note that
you just commented on this, but in terms of the very severe
weather that parts of our country have faced and it is very
unfortunate about the deaths and injuries and the loss of
property, but that whether or not given the NOAA budget
submission in the 2012 budget whether there are issues inside
of that budget that will be important for us to consider.
First is the severe weather issue. So we have the tsunami
warnings, we have the severe weather warnings, we have--a large
part of this request has to do with satellites, and if you
could talk a little bit about this issue it would be helpful.
Dr. Holdren. Well, I would be happy to talk about that
issue, although it is a vexing one.
When this administration came into office, we were faced
with a situation in NPOESS, the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System, in which the
replacements for our polar-orbiting satellite suite, which
satellites are of great importance to our military as well as
to civilian weather forecasting and to climate monitoring, was
over budget----
Mr. Fattah. If you would yield for a second.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Behind schedule, and under
Mr. Fattah. If you will yield for a second, that is why the
bin Laden raid was delayed for one day because of weather,
Dr. Holdren. It does illustrate that forecasting the
weather is extremely important to military operations, but of
course it is extremely important as well as we understand from
this horrible experience in the southeast, it is extremely
important for civilian purposes as well.
And in hurricane season our hurricane tracking capability
is extremely important to the safety and welfare of our
citizens, and we are very heavily dependent on this suite of
polar-orbiting satellite for these purposes.
I understand from the NOAA administration, Dr. Lubchenco,
that over 90 percent of the data that we use for forecasts
beyond 48 hours comes from these polar-orbiting satellites, and
if we lose that capability, if it is interrupted, and
particularly if it was interrupted for long, for that period
the quality of our forecasts beyond 48 hours will be seriously
degraded.
We are going to lose that capability now it appears for a
period of time no matter what we do because the budgets for the
last couple years have not been adequate to keep even the
replacement program which we worked out with fewer instruments,
fewer satellites, but still enough to do the basic job on
track, and we need to get that back on track in 2012.
The President's 2012 budget makes a request that would get
it back on track. I very much hope that we will have the
support of the committee and the Congress as a whole in getting
that done.
NATIONAL CAPABILITY GAPS IN HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND WEATHER DATA
Mr. Fattah. Well, let me delve into this a little bit,
because there have been a lot of comments about the fact that
we have to depend on the Russians to take astronauts because we
have a gap in a space vehicle and now we have a gap in
satellite coverage for our severe weather forecasting that is
going to appear. And I want to go back to the decision package
that led to these gaps.
Now the ending of the shuttle flights was a planned
activity well back more than a decade or so ago, and in 2004
the final timeline was put together for the end of these
flights. There are people in our country who believe that the
Obama Administration decided that we are going to stop flying
shuttle flights.
I want you to comment on these gaps and how we got to this
moment where we have hundreds of tornados, we have a tsunami
that hit Japan, created a nuclear problem, but yet we are going
to be without satellite coverage for some period of time in
terms of checking the weather. So if you could help us
understand how we got to this moment that would be important.
Dr. Holdren. Well, Ranking Member Fattah, it is a
complicated story. I could send you a timeline and would be
happy to do that.
Mr. Fattah. I would like for you to do that.
Dr. Holdren. The essence of the matter is in part you are
right that we have known since early in the previous
administration that the shuttle program needed to come to an
end. It needed to come to an end for a number of reasons, one
of them being that this is basically 1970's technology which in
some sense is so complicated and so fragile you see the results
in the fraction of the time that we end up having to postpone
launches for the safety of the astronauts, which obviously has
to remain paramount. But it was also the case that the shuttle
is so expensive to operate that while you are operating it you
can't find the money in any plausible NASA budget to develop
its replacement, and so it was recognized again already in the
Bush Administration they made that decision that the shuttle
would be phased out.
And the problem was that the successor program to the
shuttle, the Constellation Program, was going to provide both
access to lower earth orbit and the heavier capabilities for
deeper space missions. It never got the budgets it needed to
stay on track, and the result was by the time we came into
office the Constellation Program was in danger of being three
to four times over budget, that is over the originally
anticipated cost for those vehicles.
And in addition, it was so far behind schedule that no
amount of money poured into it at this point could erase the
gap in the capacity to put American astronauts on the space
station on U.S. rockets.
At the same time the attempt within NASA to find enough
money to keep Constellation on track had sapped the resources
available for many of NASA's other programs, but we had a
further problem. We had a problem that the NPOESS program, the
successor program for these polar-orbiting satellites was a
joint venture of the Department of Defense, NASA, and NOAA, and
for a whole variety of reasons those folks were proving not to
be playing very well together, and that contributed to delays
and cost overruns in the NPOESS program itself, which we were
charged when we came into office with fixing.
I say we, I was charged in my confirmation hearing for
fixing it and then I was charged by the President with fixing
it because it is an interagency science and technology program
that falls under the jurisdiction of OSTP, and we worked very
hard with those three agencies to fix it and we figured out a
way, we thought the best possible way to fix it in terms of
dividing certain responsibilities more clearly between the
Department of Defense on the one hand and NOAA and NASA on the
other, but carrying out those responsibilities required an
increase in NOAA's budget which they have not received.
That is the essence of the story. I will give you a longer
time line following this hearing, sort of the step by step of
who did what and to whom that led us to this predicament.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank you, that is very illuminating
and unfortunate, but I want the time line.
CONTROL OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS
Dr. Holdren, I know you have published repeatedly in the
journal Science and other science publications so I know you
are familiar with them and read the journal Science on a
regular basis. I am confident.
Dr. Holdren. I am sometimes a little bit behind on my
reading of Science because of my other responsibilities, but I
do read it on a regular basis.
Mr. Culberson. I can certainly sympathize. You said you
were not aware that the People's Liberation Army had any role
in the--or you weren't sure of the role or how far their
tentacles extended into NASA.
To what extent are you familiar with the role of either the
People's Liberation Army or the Communist Party in Chinese
universities in the way they are operated or governed?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all I am aware that the PLA has
a substantial role in the Chinese space program. I don't want
to be misunderstood about that.
Dr. Holdren. I said I am not clear on the details of the
extent of that role and how it works.
Mr. Culberson. Fair enough.
Dr. Holdren. But there is no question that the PLA has a
role in the Chinese space program, and similarly I would be
very surprised if the PLA didn't have some interactions with
the Chinese university system. I am not again familiar with the
details of how that works.
Mr. Culberson. Or the Communist Party's involvement in
either the space program or in their research at their
universities.
Dr. Holdren. Well, the Communist Party governs that
country, and so the involvement is obviously extensive.
Mr. Culberson. You mentioned earlier in your testimony that
you are engaged in efforts to promote scientific and
technological cooperation that you feel is in our best
And I just want to make absolutely certain you were aware--
and I was unaware until I had seen this in the April 8th
edition of Science--that all mainland universities in China,
Mr. Chairman, have two leaders, the president of the university
and the Communist Party secretary. So it is not just the space
program. It is pervasive.
And the reason the chairman and I keep circling back to
this is that the Chinese have made it their national policy, it
is their goal to make the 21st century the Chinese century, and
they see their primary obstacle to be the United States.
And the chairman quoted an article I think that the--was it
the IMF, Mr. Chairman, said that about 2016 the Chinese economy
would surpass ours?
It is, I think, self-evident that by the--and this has, I
think been out in the open that by 2015 the Chinese will be in
a position militarily to announce, as I expect they would,
their own Monroe doctrine of sorts, and that is my own personal
supposition, Mr. Chairman, but I have run that past a number of
folks and I think we can safely predict that some time within
the next four to five years we will see China announce a Monroe
doctrine for the eastern hemisphere that they have a zone of
influence within which the United States can't and shall not
have any influence or interference. The Malacca Straits are the
carotid artery to the Chinese in terms of their reliance on
foreign oil.
The chairman also took testimony of the subcommittee from
the Director of the National Science Foundation that in fact
the Chinese--and I just saw an article more recently on this,
Mr. Chairman--that the Chinese now control 97 percent of all
rare earth elements on the planet.
And you were quoted in this same article, Dr. Holdren, this
is from the journal Science, March 26, 2010, that the--or
excuse me, I'm sorry--a group of scientists had sent you a
letter: ``last month magnet industry leaders in the United
States sent a letter to John Holdren [. . .] calling on the
Obama Administration to take prompt action to restore rare
earth mining and processing in the United States and other
western countries. The recommendations including establishing
short-term stockpiles of rare earths critical for defense needs
and having the U.S. Department of Energy set up a $2 billion
loan guarantee program to help western mining companies build
new mining and processing facilities.''
What have you done in response to that letter and what have
you done to protect the United States and help ensure that we
have access to these strategically vital rare earth elements?
Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you for those good questions,
Congressman Culberson.
Let me start by saying that we do understand that China
wants to be number one. That is not surprising. We want to stay
number one. And the things that we are recommending in the 2012
budget are intended to keep us number one, and we have talked
already a bit about the ingredients that will be required for
us to stay number one.
I have also already said I don't think any of us has a
clear crystal ball as to when China might pass us and in what
respects. I think China has some big internal problems, most of
them of their own making, many of them resulting from the kinds
of policies and practices that Chairman Wolf has been a leader
in denouncing, and my hope is that we stay number one and that
China does not pass us in important aspects of capability.
I also hope that China is not in a position militarily at
any foreseeable time to make a unilateral declaration of the
sort that you described that would impair United States'
interest and the United States' freedom of action.
But with that said and turning to the rare earth element
question, we have been aware of that issue for a long time. We
have had in place under the leadership of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy jointly with the National Security staff
and the National Economic Council an interagency working group
on the rare earth minerals that has provided briefing papers
for the President, that has developed short-term and long-term
strategy proposals for how to minimize this vulnerability.
Mr. Culberson. Which are?
Dr. Holdren. China has come to this position because they
were able to undercut the price.
We have considerable rare earth mineral resources in the
United States, in Alaska, and in other parts of the United
States, but it is a matter of not just having the resources but
of developing the whole supply chain of not just mining, but
processing those materials into usable forms, and we are doing
a number of things to make that happen.
Mr. Culberson. Such as?
Dr. Holdren. We have developed a review of domestic and
global policies that effect that and are looking to strengthen
the ones that will accelerate U.S. production.
We have been in conversation with companies and with the
governors of the states that possess these resources on what
they can do to accelerate the process of reviving rare earth
mineral industries in their states.
Mr. Culberson. Reviews and conversations.
Dr. Holdren. Reviews and conversations. We have----
Mr. Culberson. Something specific.
Dr. Holdren. Well, we have the----
Mr. Culberson. Tangible.
Dr. Holdren. The DoE has ramped up its R&D, including
developing a new hub on critical minerals, which as the other
hubs have done will aim to reduce the time lag between
discovery and innovation in universities and national
laboratories----
Mr. Culberson. But that is utilization of the rare earth
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. And getting things into the
Mr. Culberson. That is utilization of rare earth elements.
Dr. Holdren. No, it is not just utilization. I'm sorry,
sir, but it is also how we can mine them more cheaply, process
them more efficiently, convert them into the forms that we need
in our products more efficiently so that the Chinese will not
be able to undercut us economically and maintain that very
large market share that they now enjoy. It is not just a
process focused on using them.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. What specific tangible things have you
done--because this is in your shop, this is your
responsibility--to protect the United States against what is
obviously now a monopoly of the Chinese on rare earth elements,
which they have used already to their strategic advantage when
one of the Chinese captains of a Chinese ship t-boned a
Japanese ship some time last year I think, and the Japanese
arrested the Chinese captain, who deliberately hit them, you
remember that, and then all of a sudden the Japanese had to
release the captain.
Well, it turns out the Chinese had, you know, these reports
out there that you can read them and find them, and the open
source is that the Chinese used their monopoly on rare earth
elements to strangle the Japanese and force them to release
this captain.
I mean this is a strategic threat to the United States, and
we are really looking for what--you got this letter from the
industry leaders last March and you have known about this for a
long time, what specific tangible steps have you taken to
ensure that the United States has access to rare earth elements
from sources other than China? I am looking for some other
Dr. Holdren. Well, we are always talking to the
Australians, have been talking to the Australians who have
considerable resources of these.
The problem, Congressman, as I mentioned, is not the
existence of resources of these minerals in many countries
other than China, the problem is that it is a matter of two or
three years to develop the supply chain, and we are working
with companies and governments to develop those supply chains
and to do it with technologies that will enable us to compete
with or undercut the Chinese.
Now that is not something you can do overnight and it
requires initially understanding the character of the problem.
We have gotten started. We got started. We got started a year
ago March on that effort.
I would be happy to provide you following the hearing with
a more detailed report on that.
[The information follows:)
Mr. Culberson. Okay, please do, I know the chairman would
be very interested.
By the way, in your office does anyone in your office,
anyone working with your office have any Chinese nationals
working directly or indirectly for them or with them?
Dr. Holdren. We of course don't have any Chinese nationals
working in our office. To work in the Office of Science and
Technology Policy you have to be an American citizen and you
have to be eligible for a top secret clearance.
Mr. Culberson. Directly or indirectly----
Dr. Holdren. No.
Mr. Culberson [continuing].Would anyone working with or
that has access to your office have any Chinese nationals
working with them directly or indirectly?
Dr. Holdren. I am not sure, Congressman, what you mean by
indirectly, but as the chairman has mentioned, I myself have
traveled to China numerous times over the last several years
and have had Chinese visitors here in connection with my
responsibilities for conducting the Joint Commission on Science
and Technology Cooperation with China, but we have nobody in
our office who is a Chinese national or who is consulting for
our office who is a Chinese national.
Mr. Culberson. Super.
ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES THROUGH SCIENCE
I also wanted to ask about, if I could, I notice that when
you were president of the AAAS that you asked that scientists
tithe 10 percent of their time to working on your number one
priority as AAAS president: fighting world poverty. Do you
recall all that?
Dr. Holdren. I recall my presidential speech in which I
listed a number of important priorities, including fighting
world poverty and disease, mastering the energy-economy-
environment challenge and more.
Mr. Culberson. Right. Did your number one priority you laid
out for AAAS was to--and I am looking at your speech here on
the Science website that how can science and technology help,
what is your obligation to scientists? Number one, meeting the
basic needs of the poor, right?
Dr. Holdren. I believe, Congressman, I would have to
revisit that text myself, but I listed five or six items, and I
think I said they were not in order of importance.
Dr. Holdren. They were all important and they included
avoiding the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Culberson. Sure, and that----
Dr. Holdren. They included maintaining the productivity of
the oceans and so on.
Mr. Culberson. Right, right.
Dr. Holdren. And I suggested that not all scientists tithe
10 percent of their time to reducing world poverty, but that
they tithe 10 percent of their time to these large public
interest questions across the board.
Mr. Culberson. Noble worthwhile effort, but what I am
driving at is another issue. You have said, and it is clear
that your office since NASA doesn't report to the--the NASA
administrator is not a cabinet-level official and doesn't
report directly to the President, the NASA administrator
reports to you, so essentially your responsibilities are very
broad for the President to encompass essentially a supervisory
role or as sort of the administration official responsible for
Dr. Holdren. It would be I think more accurate to say,
Congressman, that the NASA administrator reports to me on
matters of science and technology, to OMB on matters of budget,
and to Cabinet Affairs on matters of interaction with the rest
of the administration.
Mr. Culberson. So to what extent since you have a long
history of publications of, you know, guiding the AAAS and
focus on that number one--maybe not in priority order--but one
of the top five goals of scientists, you know, tithing 10
percent of their time and focusing on the fighting of global
poverty, to what extent were you involved in and how and what
way did you help guide Lori Garver and her remarks to Goddard
last year in which she said NASA's number one goal was fighting
world poverty?
Dr. Holdren. I had no influence on those remarks at all and
was not aware of them until after they came out, and I don't
really understand the context. I had no interaction with Lori
Garver.
Mr. Culberson. That makes no sense, I agree.
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
A couple of other quick areas, Mr. Chairman, that I just
find particularly fascinating and revealing.
Back in 2001, you published a paper in Science in which you
argued we have a--essentially an environmental Hippocratic Oath
to do no harm to the environment, that the--you had argued that
the atmosphere is essentially a commons that we all have an
equal right to, and when you had published a paper with Paul
Baer, John Harte, Barbara Haya, Antonia V. Herzog, Nathan E.
Hultman, Daniel M. Kammen, Richard B. Norgaard, and Leigh
Raymond, which I know you are familiar with, and I will be as
brief as I can, Mr. Chairman, but this is particularly
interesting and I know will be of interest to the chairman as
well, that you were attacked in a letter of February 2nd, which
I am confident you remember.
A gentleman by the name of Arthur Westing wrote and said
hey, this idea proposed by John Holdren and others that
recommends apportioning the use of the atmospheric commons as a
gaseous and aerosol waste dump sounds superficially attractive
and that you suggested that emissions were allocated based on
equal rights to the atmospheric commons for every individual.
And he says the idea of an equal per capita allocation of
greenhouse gases is flawed, because he said, it implicitly
condones global overpopulation and rewards countries in
proportion to their level of transgression of human carrying
capacity of their portion of the global biosphere.
And you wrote a response to him saying that, you know, we
see no evidence that an equal per capita allocation would
provide an incentive to significantly alter national population
growth. Climate demographic interaction would help reduce
population growth rates through increased investments, and in
any case we suggest in our policy form possible solutions to
any appearance of incentives for governments to adversely alter
their population policies in response to per capita permit
allocations.
This can be achieved, for example, by choosing a fixed
base-year population by determining for each country a
population baseline, incorporating reasonable declines in
population growth, or by allocating permits to population based
on some previous time point.
Would you explain this? I am just not sure I understand the
concept of an atmospheric commons, and I don't notice the
Chinese respecting that. I mean they dump more pollution into
in atmosphere along with the Indians than any other country on
the face of the earth. And what right would any international
body have to impose population limits on any country?
I mean that essentially is what you are advocating here. It
is just sort of bizarre. I am not sure I understand what you
are----
Dr. Holdren. You are not correctly understanding it. We are
not proposing there to impose population limits on anybody. The
idea of a population baseline was simply a reference point
against which entitlements to add pollutants to the atmosphere
would be based. Precisely the problem that you mention with
China making very large emissions into the atmosphere under
which we all live.
Mr. Culberson. And India.
Dr. Holdren. And India as well. Is one of the reasons that
in selected domains we think it is in our interest to continue
to cooperate with them, to move them more rapidly toward
reducing those emissions, which is in our interest because we
all live under one atmosphere.
The only significant point about the concept of an
atmospheric commons is the atmosphere is common to everybody.
We live under one atmosphere. Things added to it in one place
that stay there influence the conditions and the quality of
life for others elsewhere.
Mr. Culberson. Uh-huh.
Dr. Holdren. And therefore ultimately society has to figure
out, and that can only be done by negotiations and agreement
ultimately, has to figure out how to limit what every country
adds to that commons to the detriment of all the others.
Dr. Holdren. There is nothing more sinister or
sophisticated than that behind this interaction.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. One final question.
Why, then, should the United States continue to
unilaterally, under your guidance and the Administration's
guidance, continue to impose aggressive and stringent
restrictions on access to domestic sources, oil and gas,
restrictions on atmospheric emissions, carbon dioxide,
unilaterally, when the Chinese and Indians are ignoring it?
That is a cannon ball around the ankle.
Dr. Holdren. Again, with all respect, Congressman
Culberson, you phrased that a little differently than I would
phrase it.
We are not imposing stringent restrictions on carbon
dioxide emissions in this country at this point. And the
Congress has not agreed to do that and it is not happening.
Mr. Culberson. But you were trying to do it by rule through
the EPA. Aren't you helping in that effort?
Dr. Holdren. The EPA has some authority in this domain,
and----
Mr. Culberson. And you are advising them on it and helping
them on it.
Dr. Holdren. I am not advising the EPA, I advise the
President, let me be clear about that.
But in my view it is important and valuable and necessary
that the United States reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases
because, we along with China and India, are major contributors
to the additions of greenhouse gases that are implicated in
global climate change that is not good for any of us.
And it is also I think highly likely that if we are to
succeed in persuading China and India to take more stringent
steps to reduce their emissions--and by the way, China has
already done quite a lot to reduce their emissions below what
they would otherwise be, they are still enormous, but they have
made large investments in energy efficiency and particularly in
automotive efficiency, they have imposed stringent standards on
automotive efficiency, they are building more advanced coal
plants to try to reduce the emissions from that sector, they
are studying carbon capture and sequestration.
I think we should continue to urge the Chinese to make
progress in that direction and we should continue to make
progress in that direction ourselves.
Mr. Culberson. On our own.
Dr. Holdren. On our own and in negotiation and cooperation
with others. It is in our interest to persuade China to reduce
their emissions, and it is in our interest to reduce our own.
Mr. Culberson. The chairman has been very gracious, thank
you, sir, for the extra time.
Well, I didn't know Mr. Culberson's line of questioning,
and let me just say I am not going to ask you a question. But I
do want to, based on what he said, put this in the record.
In anticipation of the hearing, I got your book out of the
Library of Congress. Your book, ``Ecoscience: Population,
Resources, Environment,'' coauthored with population control
advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich. There is no question to ask,
and many views that people had in 1977 they have discontinued.
I want to put that out there, but it was troubling when I went
through it.
On page 837 it said, ``indeed it has been concluded that
compulsory population control laws, even including requiring
compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing
Constitution if the population crisis becomes sufficiently
severe to engage the society.'' Page 837.
You also went on to say on page 838, ``neither the
Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a
right to reproduce.''
It says in the Declaration that all men are created equal
and are endowed by their creator with the rights to life and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those words were drafted
by Thomas Jefferson in Independence Hall in the City of
Philadelphia, which I used to walk through and see the Liberty
Bell almost every day.
Lastly, you went on to say on page 787, ``the development
of a long-term sterilization capsule that could be implanted
under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens
additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The
capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable
with official permission for a number of births. No capsule
that would last that long, 30 years or more has yet been
developed. But is technically within the realm of
probability.''
Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Dr. Holdren. You didn't ask a question.
Mr. Wolf. No, I didn't.
Dr. Holdren. But the chapter--I want to comment.
Dr. Holdren. The chapter from which you read was a
compilation of ideas and concepts that had been discussed in
the literature, it was identified as such, and the author
statement at the end says we do not advocate these measures.
I think it is not fair to assert that I held the view that
compulsory measures to limit population were appropriate,
justified, warranted, or moral. That was a summary of views
that appeared in the literature in a large comprehensive book
in which I was mainly responsible for the chapters on
geochemical cycles, on energy, on materials, and so on.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate that.
COORDINATION OF STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS
On STEM education in a report on duplication in government
programs that came out a few weeks ago, GAO identified five
different agencies--NSF, NASA, Department of Energy, Defense,
and Education--who fund programs to improve STEM education.
We know this is not a complete list because other agencies
fund it. NOAA also has STEM education programs.
Do you believe that the benefits of having so many
different agencies involved outweigh the costs of inefficiency
and program fragmentation?
The other question that we can kind of marry to that is,
the GAO review concluded we need better cross agency
coordination to reduce duplication and ensure a balanced
portfolio of STEM education programs.
This is not a new finding. In fact, it seems that this
finding is made pretty much every year by both internal and
external reviewers.
Since we have known that STEM education coordination is a
problem, why haven't we fixed it and what can we do working
with you to fix it?
Now again, I am talking about trying to have more, not
talking about cutting back. We are talking about encouraging
more. So those two questions together.
Dr. Holdren. Chairman Wolf, I agree with you, and that is
why we have stood up this National Science and Technology
Council committee chaired by Carl Wieman, Carl Wieman agrees
with you as well, we want to look at all those programs across
all the agencies that are engaged in STEM education, we want to
figure out which ones are duplicative, which ones are
effective, and which ones are ineffective. We want to eliminate
the duplicative and ineffective ones and we want to end up with
a package that is more potent that spends the resources we have
available in a more effective way to lift our game in STEM
education in this country. I think you are exactly right, that
has been begging for review and we have gotten it under way.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I want to help you on that. If we can do
something in this committee in the mark up, I hope you will
come to it.
So the question sort of continues. Last year's America
COMPETES Act, which I voted for and I commend Bart Gordon very,
very much for the work that he did, assigned responsibility for
the coordination of federal STEM education programs to a
committee, which we have been discussing, under the auspices of
your office.
What is the status of the committee? Can you tell us who is
on it? How many meetings they have had? When can we expect to
see concrete steps taken?
And then to connect that, the COMPETES Act also required
you to submit a report with each year's budget request
outlining what is in the budget for STEM education, discussing
potential duplication and providing progress and implementation
updates on ongoing activities.
Will there be a report for 2012?
Again, this is nothing you should be fearful of. We are not
looking to throw this out. It is so we can have a more
effective effect.
So, who is on the panel, the committee that you referenced?
Dr. Holdren. I can't tell you off the top of my head who is
on the panel. I can tell you who chairs it, and that is my
associate director for science, Dr. Carl Wieman.
Mr. Wolf. And that is very impressive, but can you tell
us----
Dr. Holdren. I will happily provide that. I don't have the
list of the panel members with me, but all the agencies that
have these programs are represented on the panel.
Request for Details on the NSTC STEM Ed Committee
Chairman Wolf requested details about the newly-formed STEM Ed
Committee under the NSTC: who sits on the committee; action plan, etc.
Response: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Committee on STEM held its first meeting on March 4, 2011. The
Committee is co-chaired by Dr. Carl Wieman, Associate Director for
Science at OSTP, and Dr. Subra Suresh, Director of the National Science
Foundation. Agencies represented on the committee include: Departments
of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health & Human
Services, Interior, Transportation, as well as NASA and the EPA. There
are two working groups under the committee: Federal Inventory of STEM
Education Fast Track Action Committee and Federal Coordination in STEM
Education Task Force. The Committee's charter is also included.
Dr. Holdren. And I have to tell you that Dr. Wieman is not
only a very smart guy, but he is a very determined guy, and
he----
Mr. Wolf. Oh, I'm sure, I----
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Wants to get to the bottom of
Mr. Wolf. I think it is a great appointment.
Now, when were they set up? What day were they set up?
Dr. Holdren. I believe they had their first meeting in
March, last month, that's right.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Do you know when they plan on--and this is
not fair to put you----
Dr. Holdren. I don't know that off the top of my head, but
I would be delighted to provide you the answers to those
questions, who is on the committee, when they are planning on
reporting, and what that report will cover.
Mr. Wolf. Will there be a report for the 2012 budget?
Dr. Holdren. I believe there will.
Mr. Wolf. Good, good.
Dr. Holdren. All right.
Mr. Wolf. Well, let us know if there is something that we
can do here in this bill that helps you with regard to that.
Again, I know it may be viewed in a different way by some that
think we are looking to strip something out, we are looking to
change. But I agree with you that we should give you more
resources and have more young people involved.
Do you know if my figures are accurate with regard to last
year or two years ago, with 50 percent of the----
Dr. Holdren. I must say that took me back, and I have made
a note to look into it. I don't understand where that number
comes from, but I will sure find out.
Mr. Wolf. If you can.
STEM EDUCATION BEST PRACTICES
Do you believe the 2012 budget reflects an appropriate
balance between K through 12 STEM programs and those focused on
higher education? Should we be more aggressively focused on the
youngest kids to ensure that they become engaged in science?
How are you balancing that out?
You mentioned earlier that you don't think it is being
taught appropriately at some colleges, and you are right. I
very seldom have heard of somebody who goes to the University
of Virginia and majors in business administration or political
science and then in their sophomore year transfers into
physics. It is usually they go----
Dr. Holdren. Other way.
Mr. Wolf. It is the other way.
So do we have the right balance here? Is all the necessary
original research out there and it is just a question for your
office to pull this all together? Maybe you can participate in
the conference the National Science Foundation is going to have
showing what works for fifth grade and sixth grade, but also
maybe have a separate session about how do you then tell the
University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and MIT, how they can
make it relevant so that the people who come into physics stay
in physics rather than go into political science?
Dr. Holdren. The answers are all basically yes or maybe.
The maybe is do we have the balance right? I think we have
taken a good cut at the balance in this budget, but we are
constantly looking at it and we are constantly learning about
additional opportunities to do things in different domains,
that is one of the things that Dr. Wieman is looking at, and we
will obviously be proposing to adjust balances over time as we
learn more and discover things that we should be doing and
aren't doing, or as we discover things that we have been doing
that aren't working well.
In terms of the conference you mentioned we will absolutely
be participating in that conference.
Mr. Wolf. You all are smart people, you have a lot of
information. Is there something down there that you know now
about it but you are so busy--and I respect that--but we are
not getting it out to those people who need to know, like the
deans of engineering across the country?
I saw a figure, I think it is in the ``Gathering Storm,''
but don't quote me. It could have been in Norm Augustine's
update, but it said, and I believe I made a comment on it, that
we graduated more Ph.D.s in physics in 1956 than we graduated
last year. Is that a fact?
Dr. Holdren. I don't know whether that is a fact.
Mr. Wolf. Do you think it could be?
Dr. Holdren. It is certainly conceivable, yes.
Mr. Wolf. If you have some information, Mr. Fattah and I
could do a letter to all of the deans of engineering or we
could put together a conference. You could call a conference,
we could use the Capitol Visitor Center here whereby you could
bring your best minds to say, ``we now know this is successful
at the university level, and this has worked whereby all you
deans ought to be looking at this.'' But the point is you may
have something there that we want to sort of get out.
Dr. Holdren. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, this is cutting
edge stuff.
Carl Wieman is one of the leading researchers in the world,
probably the leading researcher in the world and practitioner
who at a number of major universities has put these new
approaches into practice and achieved spectacular results, but
this is such new stuff that it is not yet very propagated very
widely.
We recruited Dr. Wieman to be the associate director for
science at OSTP because--not because he is a Nobel Prize winner
in physics, that it is wonderful to have a Nobel laureate as
your associate director for science--but we recruited him
because of his extraordinary leading edge work on this subject,
and we are trying to use the fact that he is now in OSTP in the
White House and talking with the President about this and
talking with other university leaders. We are trying to use
that to propagate these ideas, and we will continue to do that,
and I think we will see these ideas and these approaches
spread, and I think they will be helpful with the phenomenon
you identify, that we have----
Mr. Wolf. Well, could you have the doctor come up and----
Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. And maybe we should----
Dr. Holdren. He would love to, I assure you.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe we should have a conference this fall where
we bring all the deans together here.
Dr. Holdren. He has been talking to a lot of them, but a
conference could be a good idea.
Mr. Wolf. Well, why don't you have him come on up.
Dr. Holdren. No, I will do that.
Mr. Wolf. And we can just talk.
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely.
TSUNAMIS AND DISASTER PLANNING
Mr. Wolf. We had asked NOAA several weeks ago if they would
hold a conference here, and I appreciate the NOAA Administrator
saying yes. We are going to bring all of the governors up and
down the east coast, the Caribbean and all the FEMA people
together to see if all the economies are ready for a tsunami,
are they ready for an earthquake? We hope to do the same thing
maybe out at Caltech out there.
I don't know if you were going to be participating in that.
You may talk to the head of NOAA to see. We are also bringing
the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Holdren. Good.
Mr. Wolf. That way if something is coming, we know that
they should be prepared and we know that everyone has a plan.
This Committee six years ago plused up the buoy systems around
the world to make sure that we were ready, and so I think you
should see if there is some role that you can play. We are not
looking to fill your time up, but I would like to do something.
Dr. Holdren. This is important stuff and I am engaged in
this domain of planning and preparedness and understanding how
our facilities may be vulnerable to tsunami and earthquakes and
making sure with the other agencies that are involved.
This is another one of these cross-cutting agency issues,
and I am involved in it, and I agree with you about its
Mr. Wolf. Well, the conference will be in June here at the
Congress. The Congress is out that week.
Dr. Holdren. I can't tell you at this moment whether it is
on my calendar, but it might well be, and I am scheduled to
have a conversation with Under Secretary Lubchenco at the end
of the afternoon.
Mr. Wolf. Well, she has been very good. She is really----
Dr. Holdren. She is great.
DUPLICATION OF EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAMS
Mr. Wolf. I have a question on NOAA duplication. We are
just going to get it to you for the record.
There is some concern with regard to the duplication of
NOAA and NASA on certain research topics like atmospheric
composition, climate and other things, so please take a look at
OSTP FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
The only new item in your 2012 budget request is a $350,000
decrease that would be achieved by limiting the activities of
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
What work did you have planned for the PCAST that might be
deferred under the budget request?
Dr. Holdren. I have to say in all honesty, Mr. Chairman,
that I didn't volunteer for that reduction. This comes under
the heading of sharing the sacrifice, and the--what PCAST does
depends in part on what studies the President asks us to
conduct for him, and how we will deal with that decrease going
forward will depend in part on what studies the President
requests from us, and we may find ourselves having more
meetings by teleconference and fewer meetings face to face,
which has both advantages and disadvantages.
We may handle it by saying we are going to have to
prioritize among the different requests the President has made
of us and ask him what he wants the most, because we don't have
enough money to do it all.
Mr. Wolf. Could that decrease impact the schedule for
PCAST's planned report on higher education STEM programs?
Dr. Holdren. I do not think it will because that study is
already well under way and I don't think its completion is
going to be imperiled by that reduction. It would be studies
later in the pipeline that would be impacted.
MEETING GOALS FOR BASIC RESEARCH SPENDING
Mr. Wolf. Between the American Competitiveness Initiative,
two versions of the American COMPETES Act, and the ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm'' report, we have had a variety of
calls for increases in basic research over the last few years.
ACI and the COMPETES Act proposed doubling the budgets of
NSF, NIST, and Energy Office of Science over either seven or
ten years, and ``Gathering Storm'' called for an annual 10
percent increase in basic research funding for physical science
and math and engineering. Including the proposed 2012 budget,
but excluding one time stimulus funding, how close are we to
being on track to these goals?
Dr. Holdren. We are certainly not there in the Continuing
Appropriations Act for 2011, and the only way we could get back
on track on those projectories would be if the President's 2012
budget were approved by the Congress, but that would get us--if
the 2012 budget were approved that would get us back on this
sort of trajectory that you are describing and that American
COMPETES called for.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I don't know what our allocation is going
to be. I certainly will do everything I can, and I think Mr.
Fattah feels the same way. I think you are back to that issue
of hopefully--and I know this is not your responsibility, the
President will deal with this whole entitlement issue--tieing
the entitlement issue onto the debt limit, and then I think it
would free up a lot of additional revenue.
Mr. Wolf. If you looked at the tax package that passed, the
White House said this was an example of Republicans and
Democrats working together. I voted against the tax package.
There was a cut in the payroll tax which will cost $112 billion
for one year. Can you imagine what $112 billion spent wisely
could have done? Instead we give a break to Jimmy Buffett, a
break to Warren Buffett, and we basically hit these programs
really hard. So I don't know what the allocations will be.
The ``Gathering Storm'' report also calls for OSTP to set
up an office to oversee improvements to the Nation's research
infrastructure. Have you established this office? And what kind
of strategy are you pursuing to ensure the aging research
facilities get the upgrades needed to keep them functional and
relevant?
Dr. Holdren. Well, that is both a function of the science
committee and the National Science and Technology Council,
which is also chaired by Dr. Wieman and it is always the focus
of studying PCAST as initiated.
Mr. Wolf. So would the PCAST cut have any impact on this?
Dr. Holdren. I hope not.
Mr. Wolf. So maybe. Maybe?
Dr. Holdren. We have to look at how we are going to
accommodate that cut. But again----
Mr. Wolf. You would really be upset if we put that money
Dr. Holdren. I am not sure I am allowed to answer that
Mr. Wolf. I think there are other questions that we will
just submit for the record. I will go back to Mr. Fattah and
Mr. Culberson at the end.
Mr. Fattah. I am prepared to conclude, Mr. Chairman, unless
we are going to go back around.
Mr. Wolf. No, we won't.
CYBERSECURITY AT OSTP
Two weeks ago we had a conversation with the NSF director
about balancing the desire to promote public access to research
findings with needs to protect scientific intellectual property
and data critical to American economic and national security
Do you believe we are currently striking the right balance?
Or can you take a look at this?
Dr. Holdren. We are taking a look at it, that is another
issue that is in our domain. There is a tension there that will
never be entirely resolved between those two goods. The good of
the need to protect intellectual property and national security
information on the one hand and the need and the value of
openness on the other.
I wouldn't swear to you, sir, that we have the balance
exactly right now, but we are looking at it.
Mr. Wolf. Well, the Chinese are stealing us blind.
Dr. Holdren. I hear you on that.
Mr. Wolf. And if we can chat after you go out to the Cyber
Center, the staff will get in touch with you. I was out there
last Thursday and they are stealing us blind.
And keep in mind, a secretary in the Bush Administration
had his computer stripped. They took the same equipment, I
believe, to Beijing that you may have taken.
So we will also ask the bureau to talk to you about that
too, but I think Mr. Culberson is right. There may be a
Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to talk to the bureau.
Mr. Wolf. The Chinese stripped my computer here. Have you
had any cyber attacks against your computer?
Dr. Holdren. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Mr. Wolf. You may be one of the only agencies in the
government that has not.
Dr. Holdren. I mean I am not saying there have been no
cyber attacks against OSTP, my understanding is that cyber
attacks are directed all the time at virtually every U.S.
agency. I am sure in that sense there have been attacks against
OSTP as well.
I am not aware of any successful ones, and I am not aware
of any cyber attack other than the usual things that come in
every day on my own personal computer.
Mr. Wolf. Well, can you look and see if you believe, since
you are the science advisor, that we have every necessary
policy in place so that agencies such as NASA and NSF and
others are doing everything that they need to do? We would even
work it out here that you look at this in-depth government
wide. Obviously the law enforcement agencies are looking at it,
but almost from a different level than you might look at it. So
if you would look at that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Holdren. I will certainly do it, Mr. Chairman. I do
want to assure you that OSTP is a full participant in the
interagency working group on cyber security at every level from
the working level to the deputy's level to the principals level
in which I participate, and we do participate with the Director
of National Intelligence and the head of the FBI and all the
folks that you were talking about we are with them all the time
talking about the cyber security issue, what we can do to
increase the protection of U.S. assets and the protection of
U.S. intellectual properties. So this is not a new issue for
Mr. Wolf. I understand.
Okay, do you have anything, Mr. Culberson?
Mr. Culberson. I will submit anything else in writing, but
just to say, if I could that just to reiterate, that the
scientific community has no better friends in Congress than
Chairman Wolf and this committee, and all of us work arm in
arm. Mr. Fattah, all of us. Adam Schiff, my dear good friend
who has a daughter about the same age as ours, in support of
the sciences, in support of NASA, in support of planetary
exploration. We have philosophical disagreements in certain
areas, obviously, but we are arm in arm in our commitment to
support, to firewall our investment in the basic sciences and
to preserve and protect America's leadership, and the world
requires a very strong investment by the federal government in
fundamental scientific research, sir, and you can expect strong
support from this committee in that effort.
Dr. Holdren. Well, I thank you very much for that,
Congressman Culberson, I appreciate it, I know it has been true
in the past, and I see that it is going to be true going
forward and it is greatly appreciated by me and by the
Mr. Wolf. In closing to follow up with what Mr. Culberson
said, I had an event a while back that Norm Augustine
attended--you know Norm Augustine. He made a comment that the
16th century was the Spanish century. Spain is a great country,
but it is no longer the dominant power. He said the 17th
century was the French century, and we used the French to help
us at Yorktown. They are no longer the dominant power. He said
the 19th century was the British century. The 20th century, he
said, was the American century. And then he left a question out
there--will the 21st century be the American century or the
Chinese century?
Not a question, but following up on what Norm Augustine
said, I want the 21st century to be the American century, and
we want to work with you to make sure that it is.
And also on the whole issue of China, I am going to take
you at your word. We are not swearing people in under oath
here, but if there is any activity that you are doing with
China where you may think you are okay, I may not. Please call
the Committee and tell us. Do I have your word?
Dr. Holdren. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, good, the stenographer can't pick up a nod
of the head.
Dr. Holdren. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Then the meeting is adjourned.
Dr. Holdren. And thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Thanks.
Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator
Administrator Bolden's accomplishments........................... 23-24
Aeronautics...................................................... 64-66
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer......................................    88
Astronaut corps..................................................    87
cooperation with............................................. 54-56
cyber attacks................................................    55
space program............................................... 26-27
Commercial spaceflight.................................30-31, 39-40, 58
Conflict between prior appropriations bills and the authori28-29, 75-76
Constellation spending under the CR..............................    57
Contract cost for seats on Soyuz.................................    59
Contracting practices............................................ 66-69
Cost and schedule estimates...................................... 50-52
Crew time for research........................................... 61-64
DESDynI Radar Satellite.......................................... 41-42
Duplication among federal agencies............................... 20-22
Duplication in climate change programs........................... 44-46
Educational benefits............................................. 88-89
Europa........................................................... 85-87
Glenn Research Center and Plumb Brook Station.................... 43-44
Human-like robots................................................    71
Implementation of funding cuts proposed by the House............. 31-32
Implementing the authorization under the budget request.......... 24-25
Infrastructure planning.......................................... 49-50
International partnerships....................................... 33-35
Justification for spending money on NASA......................... 46-48
Leveraging private investment.................................... 40-41
Matching NASA's missions with its budget......................... 19-20
Math and science education....................................... 37-38
Modification of current contracts................................ 42-43
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle....................................... 56-57
NASA's:
compensation for loss of Columbia............................    27
funding challenges prior to the authorization................    27
implementation of decadal surveys............................ 76-85
long term goals.............................................. 48-49
long term planning.......................................... 73-75
overall mission and vision.................................. 36-37
Near-Earth objects...............................................    54
New exploration program.......................................... 22-23
Ninety-day progress report.......................................    23
Opening Statement:
Administrator Bolden........................................  4-18
Chairman Wolf................................................   1-3
Ranking Member Fattah........................................   3-4
Orion program....................................................    75
Planetary science................................................ 38-39
Questions for the record:
Mr. Aderholt................................................129-137
Mr. Culberson...............................................138-141
Mr. Fattah..................................................119-128
Mr. Wolf.....................................................90-118
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics................. 53-54
Shuttle display sites............................................ 34-36
Shuttle transition............................................... 52-53
Soyuz contraction extension date.................................    59
Space station.................................................... 69-71
Space station support............................................ 60-61
Space technology.................................................    41
Superiority in space............................................. 71-73
Test flight of Space Launch System............................... 29-30
Dr. Subra Suresh, Director
Arecibo Observatory.............................................172-173
Award oversight........................................191-192, 192-193
Communicating results of new investments........................163-165
Cybersecurity...................................................168-196
Deficit reduction...............................................176-178
GAO study on teacher training programs..........................190-191
Hispanic-serving institutions....................................   175
Icebreaking services............................................194-195
Impact of continuing resolution..................................   157
Increased funding for graduate research fellowship program......157-158
International competitiveness in scientific discovery...........159-162
K-12 STEM education:
communications strategy.....................................166-167
education report...................................165-166, 197-200
education report, roll out of...............................202-204
effects of reducing.........................................175-176
maintaining student interest in.............................167-168
support for..................................................   189
Merit review pilot project......................................200-201
Minority-serving institutions....................................   174
Neurosciene.....................................................178-181
NSF:
contracting..................................................   197
Department of Education, collaboration with..................   190
focusing on NSF's mission...................................201-202
international offices........................................   168
space lease.................................................169-172
travel funds................................................195-196
Director Suresh.............................................145-156
Ranking Member Fattah.......................................144-145
Vice Chairman Bonner........................................143-144
Potential duplication between government programs...............162-163
Program terminations............................................158-159
Protecting scientific intellectual property.....................183-188
Mr. Bonner...................................................   218
Mr. Honda...................................................228-229
Mr. Serrano.................................................230-231
Mr. Wolf....................................................205-215
Scientific data dissemination...................................181-183
STEM workforce, broadening participation in.....................173-174
Use of hyperbaric chambers.......................................   183
Atmospheric emissions and environmental controls................301-303
Competition from China..........................................256-263
Compliance with China language from fiscal year 2011...255-256, 268-273
Cybersecurity at OSTP...........................................313-315
Earth science programs, duplication of...........................   311
International travel............................................250-255
Making sufficient increases in science spending.................263-265
Meeting goals for basic research spending.......................312-313
NASA's fiscal year 2010 budget logistics........................277-278
NASA's heavy lift launch capabilities, developing...............279-282
National capability gap in human space flight and weather data..285-292
NOAA severe weather predictions and warnings....................284-285
Mr. Wolf.....................................................   233
Dr. Holdren.................................................234-249
OSTP fiscal year 2012 budget request............................311-312
Population control..............................................303-304
Mr. Culberson................................................   336
Mr. Graves..................................................337-339
Rare earth elements, control of.................................293-300
Scientific and technical challenges.............................267-268
Social issues, addressing through science.......................300-301
STEM education:
At the terminal degree level................................265-267
Best practices..............................................309-311
Coordination of programs....................................304-309
Inspiring interest in.......................................274-277
Supporting large research facilities and infrastructures........273-274
Tornado development and prediction research.....................282-284
Tsunamis and disaster planning...................................   311