[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2011

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
ADAM SCHIFF, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

John Blazey, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, and Brad Daniels,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 1...... 1
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 2...... 55
Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
Overview.......................................................... 107
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011
Budget Overview................................................... 189
National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview..... 423

________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2011

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Blazey, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, and Brad Daniels,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 1...... 1
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 2...... 55
Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
Overview.......................................................... 107
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011
Budget Overview................................................... 189
National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview..... 423

________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-820 WASHINGTON : 2010

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JERRY LEWIS, California
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut Jersey
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
ED PASTOR, Arizona TOM LATHAM, Iowa
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
CHET EDWARDS, Texas JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KAY GRANGER, Texas
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
SAM FARR, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
ALLEN BOYD, Florida JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
MARION BERRY, Arkansas STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BARBARA LEE, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma
ADAM SCHIFF, California
MICHAEL HONDA, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2011

----------

Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH EDUCATION

WITNESSES

DR. OLIVER HILL, VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DR. ELEANOR MIELE, BROOKLYN COLLEGE
Mr. Mollohan. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011.
Before we begin our initial hearing, a bit of housekeeping.
I would like to reiterate for the benefit of members of the
Subcommittee that it is my intention to recognize in order of
seniority those members present at the start of each hearing
followed by members in order of their attendance. This
continues the policy we had in place last year.
Turning now to today's business, in testimony before this
Subcommittee last year, it was stated that U.S. graduate
education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
STEM, is the model for the world and undergraduate STEM
education is among the best in the world. However, testimony
also revealed that K through 12 STEM education in the United
States is woefully lacking in preparing our students to compete
and innovate in the changing world economy.
We learned last year that it is essential for students
before the age of ten to see themselves as becoming scientists
and engineers or they will not choose these fields for study
when they are older.
Advances in STEM hold the key to the future economic growth
of the United States and the essential resource on which this
program will be built is today's children.
In fiscal year 2010, this Subcommittee added appropriations
for K through 12 STEM education and STEM teacher preparation to
the budgets of NSF, NOAA, and NASA with the expectation that
these funds will be used in part to improve STEM education in
grades K-6 and that they will contribute to efforts to embed
inquiry-based instruction in science education. The fiscal year
2011 budget request continues many of these investments.
Our hearing is particularly timely given Tuesday's New York
Times op-ed by Susan Engel of Williams College entitled Playing
to Learn. In it, she describes an ideal elementary education as
follows, and I quote:
``In our theoretical classroom, children would also spend a
short period of time each day practicing computation, adding,
subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. Once children are
proficient in those basics, they would be free to turn to other
activities that are equally essential for math and science,
devising original experiments, observing the natural world and
counting things, whether they be words, events, or people.
These are all activities children naturally love if given the
chance to do them in a genuine way.''
Achieving this ideal is a key goal of our appropriations
for STEM education. Today and tomorrow we will hear from
witnesses who have examples of improvements in STEM education
that are ongoing. Through their testimony, we will see the
effects of federal investments and learn more about the
challenges of improving STEM education and adopting inquiry-
based learning.
Today we will hear from Dr. Oliver Hill, Virginia State
University, and Dr. Eleanor Miele of Brooklyn College. Dr. Hill
has helped improve math achievement for students in the public
schools of Petersburg, Virginia. His testimony will shed light
on another point in Dr. Engel's op-ed. She states, and I quote,
``In order to design a curriculum that teaches what truly
matters, educators should remember a basic precept of modern
developmental science. Development precursors don't always
resemble the skill to which they are leading,'' end of quote.
Dr. Miele has just written a textbook on inquiry and has
worked with K through 12 teachers to include inquiry in their
science teaching and to make effective use of their
surroundings in New York City.
Thank you both for coming.
Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we
will ask each of you to provide a summary of your written
testimony which we will include in the hearing record and then
we will go to questions from Subcommittee members.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our expert
witnesses today on science, technology, engineering, and math
education starting our hearing schedule for the fiscal year
2011 appropriations cycle.
I look forward to working again with you, Mr. Chairman, and
the rest of the members of the Committee because we have such a
wide-ranging jurisdiction.
This is an important hearing. I know that looking at the
STEM money for higher education grants last year that almost 50
percent of the STEM money that was appropriated laid on the
table and no one accessed it. And so the money, that figure
could be 50, could be 40, again, but a lot of money was
appropriated and was not used.
The Committee had a language in their working with Mr.
Mollohan that we asked the National Science Foundation to look
at what programs are working around the country in math and
science and physics and chemistry and biology with young people
and put together a best practices that can go into every school
or school district in the country.
But I think even if you fund the money, if you do not have
the interest and do not have people pursuing it, you know, and
so when you look at what has taken place.
So I think that is one of the problems. How do you create
the interest? We are graduating fewer physicists, Ph.D.
physicists today than we did in 1956. And the world has changed
and physics is awful important.
And I think it is a big issue and so I appreciate you are
here for your testimony.
And I thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing and I
yield back.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Dr. Hill.

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Dr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank the Committee for this
opportunity to speak to you today. I do think this is an
important topic.
I am the principal investigator on two grants from the
National Science Foundation to Virginia State University that
are studying innovative approaches to improve the mathematic
performance primarily of minority students in the local
Petersburg school district. We know that a mathematics
background and competence are the primary gatekeepers to a STEM
career.
When we started working with the Petersburg district in
2007, it was the lowest performing school district in the
State. None of its schools were accredited. And by 2009, all
but two of the schools were fully accredited and those two
missed it by just a few points. We expect all to be accredited
this year.
On standardized mathematics performance, the two schools we
worked directly with had 127 percent and 74 percent increases
in scores respectively.
Our project was not the only thing at work here. For one
thing, they hired a new dynamic superintendent, which had a big
impact on the district. But our research indicated the dynamic
effect our interventions were having on the students.
The project involved training teachers in the innovative
pedagogy the Algebra Project and organizing the community
around support for the schools.
The Algebra Project curriculum was developed by Dr. Robert
Moses, who was a recipient of MacArthur Genius Award. The
pedagogy helps students connect abstract mathematical
principles to their every-day language and experience.
The Algebra Project approach also relies heavily on
community involvement. With their help, we are in the process
of developing what we are calling a K through 16 model with
Petersburg and the University with the idea that we need to
make contact with students early and often starting at the
kindergarten level and grooming them toward a STEM career.
This relationship involves programs like dual enrollment
courses, providing math and science grad students as teachers,
providing college students tutors, and providing services to
students through involvements of departments like psychology,
sociology, and nursing because many of the problems that these
kids face are not academic issues.

COGNITIVE TRAINING

One of the most innovative aspects of our project is
testing the impact of cognitive training on the mathematics
performance of students. Students coming from low socioeconomic
status backgrounds and even many with middle-class backgrounds
often lack the capacity for abstract thinking required for
success in higher level mathematics and science courses. This
is a major barrier to pursuing STEM related careers.
These deficiencies are usually addressed through content-
based remediation and tutoring programs, but there have been
numerous studies documenting the failure of these types of
content-based interventions to have meaningful impacts on basic
skill development or educational achievement, particularly
among minority students.
The approach of direct cognitive training represents a
unique method of developing the underlying thinking skills
needed for success in STEM. This approach is not the usual
teaching of critical thinking skills which represent fairly
high level cognitive processing, but rather builds the basic
architecture of cognition by training basic cognitive skills
such as processing, speed, attention, and working memory.
At one time, it was thought that these kinds of skills were
set by the time that one reached adolescence, but we now know
that these skills are malleable even into adulthood.
We have been using the procedures developed by an
educational firm called Learning RX which runs cognitive
learning centers around the country. The data collected in
these centers over the last few years has indicated tremendous
gains of three to four grade levels in reading and other
cognitive skills after only 15 weeks of a fairly intense one-
on-one intervention.
We are testing whether meaningful results can be obtained
using an on-line version of this program that can be
administered in groups, which would be much more practical in a
school setting. Our initial data looks very promising.
This approach has the potential to revolutionize education
in general and STEM education in particular. We think it
addresses one of the primary development problems that block
success in mathematics and science classes, that is weak
cognitive skills.

THE ROLE OF HBCUS

I teach at Virginia State University which is a
historically black university and I want to speak for a moment
about the role that HBCUs can play in addressing the under-
representation of minorities in STEM careers.
HBCUs have the students who could fill those majors. VSU
loses literally hundreds of potential STEM majors each year
because of difficulties with math. We need to focus more
research dollars to investigators at HBCUs to develop promising
interventions to attract and hold minority students in STEM
majors.
Initiatives targeted to HBCUs at funding agencies like NSF
and NIH need to receive greater support. And if I could build
on what Mr. Wolf was saying, one of the difficulties at largely
teaching universities like HBCUs is kind of a catch 22. You
have to have the publication record. You have to have the time
to put on research in order to attract the federal dollars. We
need to have more innovative programs that allow particularly
young investigators at the HBCUs to have the time to devote to
both developing a research program and being able to write
competitive grants that would be funded by agencies like NSF
and NIH. But the human capital is there both in terms of the
investigators and in terms of the students that could be
impacted.

EDUCATION CRISIS

Finally, I would like to say the crisis in STEM education
is but one facet of the larger crisis in education that we face
as a nation. We know what quality education looks like. We can
look at the curriculum of the best schools in any city.
And in Richmond, we have a school, Maggie Walker Governor's
School, which is one of the best in the nation. If you look at
the kind of rich programs they provide, this is the kind of
curriculum that all students should be exposed to. Yet, for too
long, we as a nation have said it was okay for millions of our
students in inner cities and poor rural communities to receive
substandard education with watered-down curricula and poor
instruction. This is human capital we cannot afford to
squander. It could represent untold resources for our country.
We need to take the position that quality education is a civil
right for all children in this country and we need to develop
the political will to make that a reality.
So I will be happy to supply more details of any aspects of
the interventions I mentioned during the period of questioning.
And, again, thank you for this opportunity.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Hill.
Dr. Miele. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity
to speak to you all today.
I just want to start out by saying that I concur--am I not
on?
Mr. Mollohan. Is the light on?
Dr. Miele. The light is on.
Mr. Mollohan. Maybe you should pull it a little closer.
Dr. Miele. Closer to me. Let us try that. Let us make sure.
Mr. Mollohan. Maybe it is not going to come closer.
Dr. Hill. I think your cord is stuck.
Dr. Miele. May I? That one gives feedback. Now you can hear
me?
Mr. Mollohan. Yeah, I can. Is this one not working at all?
Dr. Miele. This one is not apparently working.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Dr. Miele. But we can share.
Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Hill, can you pull that cord over a
little bit. Put you to work here this morning. Just pull it
over toward her, I think.
Dr. Miele. There we go.
Mr. Mollohan. Our senior senator in West Virginia, Senator
Byrd, has a common joke almost every time you speak out in
public on the campaign trail, the sound system does not work
and talks about our being able to do lots of things, but not a
good sound system. I think we had a good sound system.
Dr. Miele. Okay. Now we are on.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Dr. Miele. And it is in front of me. So I wanted to start
out by saying thank you. I concur with everything that Dr. Hill
said.

DOING SCIENCE--INQUIRY

Science and math are intimately connected and the skills
really can be developed in very much the same way. They need to
be practiced. And we have known for over a hundred years that
the best way to teach young people science is to allow them to
do science. John Dewey pointed this out to us and it has been
the right of every privileged student in private school to have
constructivist education and to be doing science. It just has
not happened in public schools.

DRIVERS OF CURRICULUM CHOICES

One of the reasons, I believe, is because the culture in
public schools is very divorced from the culture in higher
education. Research is usually not what drives choices. And I
actually did not say that in my original testimony, but it
became very clear to me listening to Dr. Hill that that is
something we need to think about.
The choices that are made of curriculum are done at the
local level and they are decided mostly by teachers and
parents. The teachers that teach elementary school science are
not scientists, and they tend to want to teach the way they
were taught. And they were taught by direct instruction and
memorization and that is what they fall back on.
When elementary school teachers are taught to use inquiry
it is what they want to do, but very often their principals
will not allow it. The principals are concerned that wasting
time figuring out how we know what we know will keep them from
learning enough and will affect standardized test scores and
make the school look like it is not performing well.

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION

It is ironic that some of the classroom where inquiry is
allowed to happen are the special education classrooms. And I
actually heard reports of schools where the special education
students outperformed the general education students on the New
York State Assessment of Science Education.
New York State pioneered using an inquiry-based test. Part
of the test is a practicum. Students have to read instructions
and carry out an investigation, collect data, and analyze the
data as part of their fourth grade and eighth grade
assessments. And very often these children who have been given
the opportunity to do science because no one thought they could
learn it, actually scored higher in it. That was quite an eye-
opener for me.
I also spent some time when I joined the faculty at
Brooklyn College looking at the scores of some schools that had
been pointed out to me as having adopted NSF-funded curricula
and having not just adopted them by buying them but having
adopted them by training every teacher to use them and
insisting that they were used. In those schools, even though
they often had minority student populations of over 95 percent
and significant numbers of Title 1 entitled students, those
students were performing at the highest level in math, science,
and English language arts.
It is not surprising to me. When you get to do science, you
have to write about it and you have to talk about it. Your
language skills are developed. Your logic skills are developed
and you have to use mathematics to do it well. So it is sort of
a fundamental way to integrate all of the basic scholarly
skills.
I speak, of course, as a scientist, but I believe that
scientists also need to write and communicate clearly and, in
fact, some of us do not because when we are not trained in an
inquiry way and we have to answer multiple choice tests, the
way the average undergraduate college science student does, you
can graduate without being able to communicate.
So the FOSS and SCIS curricula which were developed
actually in the 1970s following the initial push to improve
science education in the U.S. during the space race are
excellent curricula for getting results, having children learn
how to do science.
I have had a situation where two of my students taught the
same SCIS lesson to two elementary school classes, one a sixth
grade class, one a second grade class, the second grade class
had used SCIS since kindergarten and they outperformed the
sixth grade class far and away. So the take-home message again
is, as Dr. Hill said, you have to do this early. You have to do
it often.
Jerome Bruner pointed out to us a long time ago that a
spiral curriculum in which children return to key science ideas
repeatedly over the years as developmentally appropriate is the
best way to build a foundation for advanced science learning in
high school and college.
Okay. Unfortunately because these curricula have not been
adopted city-wide, we still have a situation where the average
middle school student is just not prepared to do inquiry. But,
as Dr. Hill said, it is never too late.

STEM CAREER CHOICES

In my own classes for early childhood and childhood
education, these are young people that did not decide to be
scientists, they decided to be educators, they are afraid of
science, they are afraid of math. I can see a transformation in
15 weeks from people who were afraid of science and basically
have remembered nothing from their high school careers to
people who embrace it as something that they can do and that is
worth doing and that they can lead young people in doing.

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NO INQUIRY

I have seen this. I have been doing this for 16 years. It
is not likely to change, but I do know that when these young
people go out to the schools, if everyone else is teaching
using direct instruction and a textbook, that is what they will
do.
So how can we break that cycle? We know what to do. We just
do not know how to get it done. The National Science Standards
have helped. They have established an understanding throughout
the science education community of what best practice looks
like. I would like to see that actually--I would like to see it
happening in higher education as well. I will hopefully have it
when we talk about that later on.

EFFECTS OF NSF FUNDING

But let me say something about what some NSF money has done
to Brooklyn College. Funding to my predecessors there for the
Brooklyn plan paid for the development of a series of inquiry-
based science classes. One of them is called Biology and
Chemistry of Every-Day Life. We have one in geophysics. We have
one in paleobiology. We have one in environmental science. It
gives the students some choice. They take these classes learn
to think like scientists.
They also have to take the core classes in gen-ed which are
direct instruction. Very often when they come into their
inquiry classes, they do not remember much from their direct
instruction classes.
We have begun a systematic evaluation program over the last
five years where students complete course evaluations on-line
and the results for all departments are open to the entire
community.
What I found when I took a look at these results was that
students who have taken an inquiry-based class answer the
question, how much ability to analyze and solve problems have
you gained, at a level of about 51 percent saying they have
gained a lot. This compares rather unfavorably to the answers
of students in geology, physics, chemistry, and biology where
one would expect students to learn the ability to analyze and
solve problems. In those departments, between 16 and 29 percent
as opposed to 51 percent say they gained a lot of the skill. I
think this is rather a good indication that the students
themselves have realized that they are learning to analyze and
solve problems in inquiry-based instruction.
When asked how much ability to find and use information on
your own have you gained, we see similar results. Let me see if
I have my exact numbers here. Fifty-three percent in general
science, and we are talking about 800 to 1,000 students
answering this question each semester, compared to 21 and 26
percent of students in traditional science classes. That
includes incidentally undergraduate and graduate students in
both cases.
So what we see is that what we are trying to do is teach
students to think independently and how to solve problems. And
they say that that is what we are doing.
In addition, students in these classes say that they have
gained a lot of ability to effectively communicate which, of
course, teachers need to do, but so do scientists. If
scientists are going to be able to get their message across to
the American public, they need to be able to communicate
clearly.
So we see that more than twice as many students are saying
that they have gained a substantial amount of these skills.
This happens because their learning is active, not passive. One
student said this course is interactive. You do not fall asleep
listening to a lecture for three hours. Also you learn better
when you are doing science rather than what you call learning
about science.

USING LOCAL RESOURCES

I would like to move on to some of the work that we have
been doing more recently with graduate students. About ten
years ago, I reached out to the American Museum of Natural
History. We had a crisis of materials for learning science in
New York City. And the American Museum of Natural History has
perhaps one of the most amazing collections of real things in
the world. It was right there and none of our students were
getting to use it to learn. And our teachers, many of whom come
from other cities and other countries, were not even aware that
it was there.
So I said any teacher educated in New York City should know
that this resource is here and know how to use it to teach the
young people in our city. And Mertz McDonald, who was then the
Director of Professional Development, agreed with me and opened
her doors. She agreed to let our teachers come in after the
museum was closed and use the halls. And it was quite an
amazing experience.
As a result, we developed a course, Science Beyond the
Classroom. And as a result of that as well, the Wildlife
Conservation Society, also known as the Bronx Zoo, called me
and said we would also like to have your teachers come and
learn with us.
Similar to our other courses, our students respond that
they have gained a lot or a fair amount of ability to solve
problems and gain information. In the case of our most recent
course with the zoo, the total numbers in those two categories
were a hundred percent for both. I think that is sort of
exciting.
But what we found out when we evaluated the programs was
that principals were not allowing teachers to take their
students to the Museum of Natural History or to the zoo. They
thought that was not instructional time. That was for June.
That was for fun. That was a reward.
Luckily we were able to show the City Council that there
was value in this crazy idea of taking kids to the zoo and
taking kids to the Museum of Natural History. And they funded a
project called Urban Advantage.
Urban Advantage invites teachers to come to seven major
institutions in New York for training in how to teach using the
resources of these institutions. They include the zoos, the
botanical gardens, New York Hall of Science, New York Museum of
Natural History, and Staten Island Zoo. We go out to the outer
boroughs too.
And what has happened now is the principals have learned
that this is actually a good teaching tool. They are getting
very good resources. Families have learned that their children
are excited about learning at these places. And the culture is
beginning slowly to change. So that is very exciting.
I believe that the museum has actually reached out to a few
other major cities and some places are talking about doing
similar projects. That is moving along. So systemic change is
slow.

EXIT PROJECTS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Another very important thing for us was the idea of exit
projects. New York City adopted a requirement that every middle
school student must complete an exit project either in social
science or natural science. The exit project has to be an
individual research project. It can use literature research,
secondary research, or individual investigation.
For the first year, I must say the results were somewhat
disappointing. A panel of scientists did not find them to
reflect the processes and procedures and communication methods
of science. But with a little feedback, we developed what is
called a rubric. I do not know if you are familiar with the
idea of a rubric, but it defines what excellent practice looks
like for every aspect of a project from the forming of a
hypothesis to the collection of data to the literature research
to analyzing your results and representing it using graphs and
charts as appropriate.
So what we have done is broken down the various skills and
said what poor practice looks like, what poor performance looks
like, what intermediate level performance and what exemplary
performance looks like. It breaks the secret.
There was a time when a good student was a student who knew
the secret of what the teacher was looking for. By making the
secret open, we make it possible for every student to achieve
excellence and students will. Actually, one student commented
that with a rubric, you have no excuse for not doing well in a
course. So I am excited about that change as well.

NEW COURSE DEVELOPMENT

Our new courses for graduate students have been funded by
New York State Education Department and by New York City
Department of Education. Over the last three years, we have
been training our Earth science teachers, and I should say that
this is also with NSF funding, through the geoscience education
grant. We received funding to develop a new teacher education
program of 30 credits that brings together geoscience and
education linking content and pedagogy in every course. This
requires, of course, that the Geology Department consider this
a priority, and we have been very lucky to find that the
Department was willing to be a partner with us.
In one of our first courses, developed with NSF funding, we
found that 45 percent of students responded that they had
gained a lot of ability to analyze and solve problems as
opposed to 16 percent overall for the Geology Department. For
55 percent, they gained a lot of ability to find and use
information on their own.
So we have been able to change the culture of graduate
study in the Geology Department and, in fact, the Department
has received funding through NSF to revise their undergraduate
curriculum as well.
So one department at Brooklyn College has said inquiry-
based instruction is not just right for K to 12, it is the
right way to approach graduate and undergraduate education for
teachers and for all of our students.

HIGH-STAKES STANDARDIZED TESTING

Okay. I just want to say a few things about some other
barriers to the use of inquiry in K to 12 and that is high-
stakes standardized testing.
New York City and New York State have begun to change how
they evaluate students, New York City with the eighth grade
exit project, New York State with a high-stakes exam that looks
at both objective testing as well as a practicum. However, for
the most part, these tests are expensive. They are difficult to
grade. They require each student's test to be individually
graded. And I think that it would be very helpful if we had
very good, well-normed tests that actually looked at inquiry-
based learning and science process skills as well as the tests
that we currently have which are looking at which facts you
have memorized. That is the lowest level of knowledge according
to Ping's Taxonomy of Learning, the highest level being able to
analyze and evaluate material as opposed to just recognizing
that it is right.
One method that might be very useful to develop would be an
electronic concept mapping assessment. Concept mapping was
developed by Novak at Cornell University to look at how
students learn biological sciences. It is now used routinely in
many classrooms to help students organize their understanding,
and there are electronic concept map programs that allow us to
see what students can do. It should not be that difficult for a
good computer programmer to turn this into a high-quality
assessment.

INCREASING UNDERGRADUATE STEM MAJORS

Okay. And one more thing in response to the comments that
were made earlier about undergraduate science education. One of
the things that we have discovered at Brooklyn College, again
with funding from the National Science Foundation through a
STEP Grant, we discovered that students who did not think they
wanted to be science majors but who were good at science and
math as high school students could be redirected to a major in
science, including a major in physics, if their freshman year
course work was well supported, including social support as
well as academic support.
So what we have done is we have created learning
communities where students learn about career opportunities in
the sciences that they are not aware of as they come into
college. And they also work with peers in peer-assisted
learning to practice the skills that they need to be successful
in their courses.
What we found is that over half of the students who were
participants in the freshman year choose a major in one of the
STEM fields even though it was not their original intention. We
also find that we are retaining virtually all the students who
choose a science major. And that is unusual. Usually you lose
more than half of students because of the rigors of the
freshman year course work that they are not prepared for.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you both.
Dr. Hill, why don't you bring that back?
Dr. Hill. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Is this just absolutely not working? It
sounds like it might be.
Dr. Hill. It probably needs to be closer.
Dr. Miele. Can you hear? No, it is not working.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we are not far apart, but we need
it. Is it working? Okay. If you speak closely. And,
unfortunately, this is so tight that it cannot--okay. I hate
fighting with this.

COGNITIVE TRAINING

But, Dr. Hill, you talked about a reference, cognitive
training.
Dr. Hill. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. I would like for you just to talk about that
a bit for the Committee, give us a better understanding of what
cognitive training is----
Dr. Hill. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And how it----
Dr. Hill. And I also would like to contrast that with
tutoring which is the usual approach to, you know, remediating
things like math skills.
So cognitive training, first of all, is not instruction. It
is actually trying to build the underlying cognitive
architecture in the student, so you can take a task, there is a
famous task in experimental psychology called the Stroop Task
where you have letters, I mean, I am sorry, words that spell
out color names, but the ink of the color could either match
the color name or could be incongruous with the color name.
You can use that kind of task to teach attention. They have
to attend to either the color of the ink or what the word is
saying. You can use that task to train processing speed because
as they master a certain skill level, you can cause them to do
it in a shorter amount of time.
And so you can take any kind of task like that and use it
to train processing speed, memory. You can give them distracter
tasks. They have to now have divided attention, sustained
attention, selective attention.
But basically what we are talking about is building the
underlying structures of cognition that then allow you to have
kind of a framework to place abstract concepts like higher
level mathematics, for example, or even processes like critical
thinking skills. It is like you need some basic architecture
underlying that in order for it to work.
And this is kind of an innovative approach, but when I
first encountered the data from this Learning RX organization,
I was just stunned at the kind of changes they were getting in
15 weeks. You mentioned 15 weeks too. That seems to be kind of
an interesting number.
But what we are looking at is the transfer that this kind
of training has to things like learning math. And we are
finding that even measured with imperfect measures like the
standards of learning test in Virginia that we get tremendous
increases after one semester of these kinds of interventions.
Now, the problem is in the past, these kinds of
interventions have been one-on-one, kind of in a clinical
setting almost. And so we are trying to find ways to broaden
that so that you can have group administration on a computer
that is not going to be as efficacious, but we want to see if
it is good enough, you know, if we can still get some
significant results with that because that would be much more
practical in an educational setting.
Mr. Mollohan. Intervention sounds like a remedial process.
Does cognitive training happen the way you think it should
happen and when you think it should happen?
Dr. Hill. Well, it is remedial in the sense that I guess if
a person grew up in an enriched environment where they were in
a home where there were many books around and they were having
conversations with their parents, these kinds of cognitive
skills would tend to develop naturally.
You are talking about kids who come from homes where there
might be one or no parents around, where their nutrition is
inadequate, they get no stimulation, no supervision sometimes,
and so they are not developing these kinds of skills.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. What I heard you saying is that the
examples that you were alluding to happened after a period of
time when it would have been good to lay this cognitive
foundation, this framework that you are talking about.
And so what I am really asking is, how should it happen,
unless I am misunderstanding what you said----
Dr. Hill. Well----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. How should it happen in the
normal educational process and when?
Dr. Hill. Well, normally these kinds of processes would not
be directly dealt with in education other than in the kind of
inquiry-based learning that we just heard about, which do tend
to develop thinking skills.
But what we are saying is that if these skills are not
there, it is not that there is some critical period that they
have to be developed. And even in adulthood, you can start to
train these skills and get those kinds of results.
So this has been very encouraging that even if a kid comes
from an impoverished and stimulus-poor environment that at the
middle school level or at the high school level, it is not too
late to have these kind of interventions.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is what I meant when I said that it
sounded like you were describing a remedial process. And by
that, I meant a process of intervening at a later time in the
educational process and just forgetting for a second what
socioeconomic background somebody comes from.
Dr. Hill. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you suggesting that the educational
system should be laying that framework down in the educational
process at some point----
Dr. Hill. Yes, from the beginning.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In a child's development? Okay.
Dr. Hill. These kind of inquiry-based methods of
instruction.
Mr. Mollohan. And, I mean, we are talking pre-K?
Dr. Hill. Pre-K.
Mr. Mollohan. We are talking kindergarten, we are talking--
--
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Is that happening----
Dr. Hill. No.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Anywhere?
Dr. Hill. Well, apparently it is happening some places. In
Brooklyn, yes. But in general, and can I just piggyback on what
was said about these high-stakes standardized tests, in
Petersburg, for example, where you have a distressed district
that has a hard time holding on to good teachers, these are
just deadly. Their whole day is spent teaching to the test. I
mean, it is deadly for the teachers. It is deadly for the
students. And it does not have the outcomes that we----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I really think we are convinced that
there is a problem seriously, I mean, based on this testimony
and, you know, what we hear.
Dr. Hill. Yes.

THE SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. Mollohan. But let me ask, Dr. Miele, is there any real
debate about the advantages, the superiority, if you will, of
inquiry-based STEM education as opposed to direct fact
learning? Is there any real debate about that?
Dr. Miele. There is no debate. The consensus of the science
education community is this is the right way to teach young
people.

WHO MAKES STEM EDUCATION CHOICES?

Mr. Mollohan. Then why is it not being readily accepted and
hearing you all testify here today, it is apparent it is not
systemically embraced?
Dr. Miele. Because the choices are not made by the people
who are in the science education community. The choices are
made by generalists in grades one through six. Principals are
typically not science educators. They are typically more likely
language arts. Actually, we get a lot of people from the
humanities. I am not knocking the humanities. They are great.
Those people are not aware of the special needs of education in
the sciences and in mathematics, but they are making the
choices of curriculum.
Mr. Mollohan. So the obvious question is, how is this
overcome? I mean, if it is consensus among the people who
should know, but there is this impediment to mainstreaming this
kind of education in math, science, how is that overcome in the
real world?
Dr. Miele. One step is to make sure that the standardized
tests test those skills so that the principals know that their
students have to learn them.
Another way is to make sure that some funding for schools
has to go not to textbooks but to consumable materials for
learning science. If it was earmarked in the budget that the
only thing you can spend this money on is either a kit or your
own materials purchased and demonstrated to be appropriate for
teaching hands-on science, and that might just be, you know,
vinegar, baking soda, and plastic cups, frankly, it does not
have to be a sophisticated kit, it just has to be the things
that have been shown for the last 50 to 100 years to be
effective. If you have to spend some of your money on
consumables, you have to be doing science.

EFFECTIVE, ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we are in the business here of
funding worthy programs in a very competitive way. We could
fund these demonstration projects and the STEM education grant
that you got from NSF which comes from this Subcommittee all
day long, and if you did it on a grant-by-grant basis around
the country, it would be our great, great, great, great
grandchildren by the time it got down to them.
How does this form of education become the accepted model
and in that way be adapted by educational institutions from K
through graduate school in a far more expeditious way? How does
that happen? Do you need a definitive study from NSF or from
the National Academy or what? And so we have those?
Dr. Miele. You know, at this point, many of the studies
show mixed results. And it is my belief that the reason they
showed mixed results is that just because you bought an NSF-
funded curriculum does not mean that your teacher used it or
used it properly. So you do need truly systemic change, but you
also need the high-stakes test to match. And we have never had
that congruence where the high-stakes test was, in fact, one
that looked at inquiry skills and at the same time, you had an
entire discernible region that really implemented it.
If we could have that, it would be helpful. I do think that
we need more people to be trained as evaluators. There is a
dearth of high-quality educational evaluators who also
understand science. So that would probably be helpful.
We also need to train the teachers that are veteran
teachers because our young people coming out know how to do
inquiry science. I have yet to meet a science educator who does
not teach inquiry. It is the consensus, but they get out to the
schools and all of a sudden, it is not what is happening.
It is generally believed that you need a minimum of 60
hours of high-quality professional development that is truly
inquiry based with a facilitator who can help you make the
transformation and a principal who will let you do it.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Dr. Hill. Can I add to that also?
Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
Dr. Hill. I mean, if you look around the country at the
schools that are succeeding, they are the ones that have some
degree of independence, you know, usually a charter school or
some other mechanism they have had to extricate themselves from
the educational bureaucracy so that they can try innovative
kinds of things.
And just to put in a word for the humanities, I do think
that, you know, in many of these inner city schools, we have
kind of almost eliminated the humanities, you know, things like
music, language. Those kinds of exposures at an early age can
also have transfer to the kinds of critical thinking skills
that we are talking about at the middle school and high school
level.
And so part of this is budgetary. You know, good education
is expensive. And so we are cutting corners wherever we can. We
are trying to stick to the basics, so to speak, which usually
means teaching to the test. And it is just a complete mind set
that has to change.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is why I am suggesting you need some
seminal study that----
Dr. Hill. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. [continuing]. No one can deny the validity of
and that everybody has to respect and then adopt it. And that
is really what I was kind of----
Dr. Hill. I mean, if you could find a superintendent at a
major city that would be willing to, you know, implement this
evidence-based practice throughout the system and, you know, it
could be your hard case like, you know, in places like New York
City, Chicago, Los Angeles and demonstrate its efficacy in that
environment, I think that would be very convincing in other
parts of the country.
Mr. Mollohan. You need a good model.
Let me call on----
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

INDIVIDUAL SUCCESSES AND PERVASIVE PROBLEMS

I have some questions. Maybe we will just submit them for
the record and just ask you, I mean, have we not really done
all of this, though? I mean, this country is 230 years old. We
had the best educational system in the world. And now when you
look at the scores, and I have not looked at them for the last
couple months, the figures, but we were like 21st or 22nd in
math.
We have so many individual successes around the country,
but overall there is the problem. And I think, and I do not
know that it is just necessary funding, it is an attitude and
there is something wrong. There is something going on that, you
know, why are the young people here not as interested or
scoring as high as they are in China or as in Singapore.
The purpose of the amendment that we offered last year to
the National Science Foundation is we should know what the best
practices are now and have every school system in the country
adopt whatever these best practices are because we have been
operating. We have a broad foundation. We have all these
different groups doing all these studies and research and
putting a lot of money. And we have the Gates Foundation doing
all of this.
So I would think that we would know now what works and what
does not work. The question is getting the localities to
implement and also doing something to make the young people
have an excitement about math and science and physics and
chemistry and biology and different things like that.
But why do you think we have fallen behind?

TEACHER TALENT

Dr. Hill. Can I address that? I think the teacher variable
is one thing. I mean, for decades, if not centuries, in this
country, we had a free ride because the best and brightest
women would go into education because that was the only field
available to them. And when opportunities opened up for women,
we did not replace them in the classroom. We did not raise the
salaries to attract the best and brightest. We did not raise
the prestige level of teachers.
And so now it is a hard sell to get the best and brightest
to go into the classroom. And no matter how good the methods
are, no matter how good the curriculum is, if the teacher is
not excited about knowledge, if the teacher is not
knowledgeable in their subject matter, it is going to be hard
for them to convey that to their students.
So we have to find a way to get the best and brightest
again attracted into the field of education.

REWARD OF STEM CAREERS

Dr. Miele. And I concur 100 percent, but I would like to
add that we also have to get the message out that careers in
science are exciting. As I said, when we showed freshman what
you can do with a science major, they were shocked. They had no
idea. They thought they had to wear a white coat and be in a
lab.
But there are many, many careers that are based on a sound
technology or science major, including careers in law,
environmental law, for instance, medicine. I mean, there is
quite a long list. And when they go out and interview people
who did majors in physics and chemistry and find out that some
of them are entrepreneurs starting green businesses, they say,
oh, I could see myself doing that and suddenly they want to
major in science.
But what the message has been to the generations for the
past, I would say, 20 or 30 years of young people who are
thinking about science is you are going to have to become a lab
coat scientist or you might as well, you know, go to Wall
Street or become a lawyer straight, you know, straight from a
liberal arts background.
And we do not actually reward our scientists very well.
Dr. Hill. And if I can add to that, too. Making them aware
of the possibilities in terms of salary. I mean, business
schools are bulging in most universities because kids have the
idea if you get a business degree, you are going to do pretty
well salary-wise in your career.
So I do think it is a matter of getting the information
out, getting the word out.
Dr. Miele. They want to go to medical school. They do not
realize that they can do well by doing science.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, you know, we can talk about this
forever. I remember the movie I saw of the young boy from West
Virginia, October Sky, and I just think there is something
missing. There is something wrong.

DECLINE IN U.S. MANUFACTURING

And, you know, I think the real danger is, and I think we
could be approaching the point, is that the fewer manufacturing
and fewer things we do in this country, even if you then create
an interest in young people, there will be no place to go.
If you get on the train in Washington and take it up to New
York City, if you do not read your book, you just look out the
windows, the factories are closed. You go through my old
neighborhood. We had the largest General Electric factory I
think in the world. It is gone. It is all gone.
And if you no longer have the manufacturing base and
opportunities, then it will almost become a self-fulfilling
prophecy because I think some of the young people believe that
there will not be the jobs even if they get in it.

GOOD STEM EDUCATION

So I think, you know, the time is now. I think we should
have enough information. My sense is you have to deal with it
in K through six. If you lose somebody after sixth grade, maybe
it is fifth grade, maybe it is seventh grade, you are not going
to find them again.
In my area, we have Thomas Jefferson High School, one of
the best high schools in the country. These kids are creative.
They are anxious. They are interested. I think we should be
able to replicate that all over.
But, anyway, I appreciate your testimony. There is
something wrong. Anyway, thank you so much.
Dr. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the
questions, if I can, for the record, please.
Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
Dr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, can I make one other comment about
funding?
Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.

CHALLENGES FOR YOUNG FACULTY AT HBCUS

Dr. Hill. Since you mentioned it, you know, this Committee,
that is one of their charges is to go through agencies like NSF
and NIH to get the funds out there. If we could have some new
models of funding like I was mentioning earlier for faculty at
places like HBCUs that do not have the traditional steps for
acquiring funding because even when NSF has an HBCU initiative,
the issue is on the other end, on the faculty member having the
time to write a competitive proposal. And that is why sometimes
a lot of money stays on the shelf that, you know, could be
accessible.
So if we could think of things like research initiation
grants where we are giving money directly to HBCUs to fund
their faculty research, to give them the time, those are where
the bodies are, the roles models.
And, again, we have an engineering school that takes in
three or four hundred kids every fall and we lose two or three
hundred of them.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, maybe some of the other members want to
talk about that, and then we can talk about it when it becomes
my turn again.
Dr. Hill. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for once again leading
the full Committee by coming out of the gate with the first, to
my knowledge, the first hearing. The President's budget has not
even dried yet and we already are like we did last year into
asking some good questions of bright panelists.
Thank you both for being here.

MATH SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL

There are so many things, and I, too, would like to submit
my written questions for the record for your consideration, but
there are just so many things going through my mind.
Last week, I taught at Alabama School for Math and Science.
I am from Mobile, Alabama. And our State School for Math and
Science, which is a residential campus, is in my hometown of
Mobile. I did not teach math or science. I taught a class on
American civics.
And the graduates from that school have an opportunity to
go to MIT and Stanford and Harvard and some of the finest
schools in America with full-ride scholarships. So it is
something we are very proud of.

STEM EDUCATION IN RURAL AMERICA

And, yet, I am from a town of 1,200 people in the most
rural part of Alabama, and I know there are rural parts of West
Virginia and there are even rural parts of New York, Chairman
Serrano, but I worry about science education, math education in
rural towns because the town I grew up in, I was blessed. I had
a very good math and science teacher that loved it, knew it,
and shared it.
But in listening to the story of Brooklyn or what is going
on in our larger cities, I do worry what can we do about making
sure that our rural educators and our rural science and math
curriculums are not being left out because everyone cannot
travel to the zoo and have an up close and personal experience.
Again, we have got a science explorium in Mobile. We have got a
lot of things that a lot of other cities, communities do not
have.
What do we need to do to make sure we do not forget about
the rural schools in America?
Dr. Miele. I would say that the rural schools have things
that New Yorkers do not have. Those young people actually know
what a cow looks like. You know, every community has its
strengths and the real thing, the world is there for all
students if they have educators that know how to help them look
at it objectively, systematically, and to think about how the
world works.
I really do not think that that is the issue. I would love
to be able to bring our students, you know, to nature. And for
us, all of our nature is highly degraded. I mean, we go and
look at a forest and it is trampled by millions of feet. And
the only kinds of animals you see are squirrels and maybe rats.
I think the issue really is when we talk about good
science, it is about process. And if you have learned to think
like a scientist by the time you are 12, you will be able to
learn in the formal way, what we call the direct instruction.
It is not difficult to learn new material once you have learned
to think like a scientist. But if you had not learned to think
like a scientist and you have not valued that whole approach to
knowing the world, then those doors are completely closed to
you and you are basically thinking magically the way a three or
four-year-old would even if you are 35 or 50 or 60.

EIGHTH GRADE EXIT PROJECTS

Mr. Bonner. Well, Dr. Miele, let me mention or ask you to
elaborate. You mentioned in your testimony here something about
the eighth grade exit project.
Dr. Miele. Yes.
Mr. Bonner. My daughter is in the eighth grade. I hope she
exits the eighth grade. Tell me a little bit about what you
were talking about in greater detail.
Dr. Miele. I believe it was five years ago, we had--New
York City, as you know, is big. You know, we have got a million
school children. Actually, I think it is 1.1 right now. And we
had local control. So every community school district chose its
own curriculum, chose its own assessments. The only commonality
was the State Regents examinations and periodic tests,
standardized tests just for promotion.
But New York City decided that they wanted to do something
to enforce learning in an inquiry way, so they said, okay, we
want to make sure our children can think independently and
logically and the place to look for it is eighth grade on the
doorway to high school.
So they instituted the requirement that every student had
to complete an independent study and it could be in social
science or it could be in natural science. It had to be one or
the other, and it required that they formulate a question and
figure out how to answer it. They could choose to answer it by
using literature resources, but they needed to be valid
literature resources. They could not just take the answers from
Wikipedia, for instance, and they needed to document what their
sources were and why they chose them. And they needed to
complete usually a tri-fold panel for the equivalent of a
science or social science fair and to defend their work in
front of their peers, teachers, parents, and visitors.
As I said, the first year we really did not know what to
look for. There was no clear criterion for what excellence
looked like. But the city decided to bring together a panel of
scientists and social scientists to provide feedback about what
exemplary exit projects would look like.
And they developed a very extensive rubric to support the
students and also a multi-step sort of guide to help them
figure out what do I do first, what is a reasonable question to
ask, how do I know it is a good question, what is my first step
in finding information, where can I go for data if I want to do
secondary research where I am using a data set that someone
else has collected, but I want to ask my own question about it.
For instance, the GLOBE Program provides databases that
students can access. Maybe they will take some data from GLOBE
and maybe they will collect some of their own data and do a
comparison.
So these are the kinds of projects that students are doing
in New York, and they cannot get into high school without
having thought for themselves deeply at least once.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Who probably knows something about New York
education.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Mr. Serrano. A little bit. Thank you again, as Mr. Bonner
said, for leading us out of the box with the first hearing,
especially during what Washington would consider a blizzard. So
it is quite an accomplishment.
Mr. Mollohan. That is a testament to our witnesses.
Mr. Serrano. That is right.
Since you have mentioned it, let me just quickly, before I
ask a couple of questions, including one that comes to mind
that I did not have planned, talk a little bit about my
background. Prior to my 20 years in Congress, I was Chairman of
the Education Committee of the State Assembly. Prior to that, I
was everything within the school system except a teacher. I was
a paraprofessional teacher's aide. I was Director of the Title
1 programs at the State Urban Education Program.
So I have a little bit of a background in that area which
leads me to this question. There is a lot of press, good press
for charter schools. And I may be the only elected official in
New York State that has not signed up making glowing statements
about charter schools.
And while I understand their success and support their
success, my fear continues to be that it is just part of an
excuse not to attack problems of the public school system and
that charter schools may become what we, some people who
support public education, have always attacked in the parochial
school, in the private school system, which is you will be able
to take the better students, show better results, and leave
behind in public schools those that are weak, with parents who
are not as mobilized as the ones in the charter schools.
So you see, for instance, in New York City, whether what
side you fall or not, you see the Mayor closing down 19 schools
and then upping the amount of charter schools available in the
city. And we have not figured out yet if that is really a way
of just turning your back on the public schools.
So my question is, have we reached the point, especially in
the inner cities, where it is save yourself if you can and,
therefore, charter schools serve that purpose and do we run the
risk of turning our backs politically and otherwise to the
public school system more than ever so before? What is the
future of the public school system in this country if we
continue to grow charter schools, to both of you?
Dr. Hill. Well, if I can address that a minute, I think one
of the roles of charter schools now is to be innovative and to
test some things that might not have been able to be instituted
in the public schools, the normal public schools.
I think you raised a big issue and I think this goes back
to what I was saying earlier about the need to think of
education as a civil right. Somehow we have said it is okay for
there to be Thomas and Maggie Walker Schools in Richmond that
offer excellent education, but they are not for all kids and
that it is okay for the kids in the inner city to just to get
by with whatever the basics are.
We need to change that mentality and recognize. I mean, we
need to think of it in terms of our own self interest, that it
is not the other kids, the other people's kids are the ones
that are involved here. This is going to be something that
impacts us as a nation and get our self interest involved in
seeing schools transformed in general.
And a lot of times to do that, I mean, Richmond, Virginia
is a good example, I mean, go back to 1954 when the Brown
Decision came, you had the school issues were along racial
lines, you know, in terms of resources. They are separate but
equal, so to speak.
Over the years, that what started out as a racial issue,
you know, merged with class and other issues and so now it is a
much more complex problem, but it has its roots back in the
days of segregation where it was okay for some kids to get a
quality education and some kids not to get a quality education.
We have to find a way to get beyond that and maybe it takes
shame. You know, we should be ashamed as a country that we have
allowed this to go on for 50 years. And we need to take the
hard fixes and not necessarily the easy fixes.
A lot of times when we find, for example, the minority kids
are not passing a particular test, we attack the test rather
than dealing with, well, why are they not passing that test.
Why do we not put the resources in there. And the rural kids,
the same issue in rural communities.
But I think the distrust of charter schools among those of
us who kind of grew up in the civil rights era was a remnant of
the time when public money was going to provide education and
private academies and the inner city kids were being left
behind.
But I think we have gotten to the point now where we have
to think outside the box. We have to revolutionize our whole
educational system. The whole model needs to change. I mean, it
is kind of an industrial age model, and we need to have
innovation. We need to have creativity. We need to free up
principals and teachers to try innovations and then use
evidence-based practices wherever we can.
That was kind of a round-about answer.
Dr. Miele. I have a few things to say about that as well.
I think it is a very sad situation right now that the
schools, many of the schools that are closing have parents that
support them. And this to me is a disconnect. When the parents
are involved enough to know what is going on in the school and
care enough to come out and say do not close my school, then it
is not an issue of the parents that do not care. So there is
definitely something going on here.
There are a number of things going on in New York City
schools. For the past, I think it is probably about 15 years,
the reading programs, for instance, have focused entirely on
poetry and fiction. Students are not really learning to read
content. This is one of the reasons they come to middle school
unable to read a textbook.
By middle school, as much as I support inquiry education,
students should be able to read a textbook. By the time they
are 13 years old, it should not be too hard for them, but that
is the situation that we have because the skills they are
developing are not giving them the ability to read content
objectively, to read it critically, to read it deeply, to
understand what are the facts, what are the opinions, what is
the evidence that supports these assertions.
There is no system that allows students and parents to
really truthfully say what are the strengths and weaknesses of
the school. They know. My own children went to New York City
public schools and there were good years and there were bad
years. And we were committed to public education and we rode
out the bad years and did what we could to ameliorate what
educational weaknesses there were.
But my husband and I are college educated and we are
educators and we could do that easily. It is, in fact, an
equity issue. There is no way that an immigrant family working
two jobs, even if they love their children and want the best
for them and try to help them with their homework, can provide
what college educated Americans can provide. It is impossible.
So, yes, the issue, I think, is how can we make all public
schools truly provide a quality education for all students and
not go around--and, by the way, the charter schools are
inequitable to teachers as well. They do not pay them as well.
Dr. Hill. Right.
Dr. Miele. They will hire people who are not certified and
make use of the fact that they are bright and committed and
caring and willing to share apartments.
So what I would like to see is more money going, as I said
earlier, to making sure that there are materials of instruction
and money going directly to the schools for high-quality
professional development to teach them to teach with the best
practices if they are not yet prepared to do that and something
that will hold principals accountable for best practice in
every discipline, not just the one that they were trained in.
Mr. Serrano. You know, one of my fears--do I have time, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. One of my fears is, and I do not know if it is
the same in other districts, I am sure it is if we look
closely. I get people coming to me, I need a letter of support,
I want to open up a charter school. I do not give those letters
of support out. But I say what do you know about schools. And
they are usually very active community leaders who may be great
on some issues, but what do they know about schools?
But under the charter school system, I can open up a
charter school tomorrow if I get okayed. And if I left
Congress, I probably would be okayed to open up like ten
charter schools. Well, I may have the best intentions at heart
and I probably have a little more background than some other
folks, but what qualifies me to open up a charter school?
Then the argument we hear, which is a solid argument, but I
think it does not speak to this point, is, well, when we had
all the schools run by people college trained and
professionally trained to be teachers, administrators, they did
not do the job. So let us try it now.
But I see it almost like it has become a business for some
people, the charter school, either a business for the position
they hold and so on. So I am still out there like a sore thumb,
you know, standing out in the community being like the only--I
am also the only guy saying New York should hold those terror
trials, but that is me, you know, I do not always go with the
flow, but--so that is a concern.
Now, my last question, which was the one I did have written
down, kind of ties into that when you spoke about the immigrant
parents and so on.

ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

In your studies, Dr. Hill, and I want you to comment on
this, too, the fact that some children have a language other
than English at home and, therefore, may or may not be totally
proficient in English in school, does that add to the mix once
again as it supposedly did in the past?
Now, I had people who spoke only Spanish at home and that
was not an issue in the 1950s and in the 1960s. It became an
issue in the 1970s and then it seems to be an issue again. Do
you find that that is an impediment? What is that situation
when a child in class dealing with the sciences now, math and
science, with another language being spoken at home?
Dr. Hill. I mean, math and science is hard enough when it
is taught in your native language, you know, much less when it
is a second language. But, yes, certainly that is an issue. I
mean, there are so many kinds of noninstructional issues that
come to bear here.

EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON EDUCATION

I mean, when you look at a school district like Petersburg,
again, how many of those kids come to school with no breakfast,
with no parent, out all night, dealing with maybe a drug
addiction in the household, dealing with parents who are
incarcerated? There are so many issues that are beyond the
scope of the teacher, you know, what the teacher can deal with
there.

BUILDING STUDENT SUPPORT

So one of the things that we are doing in Petersburg with
this approach with the algebra project is building community
support mechanisms for the schools because a lot of times, the
kids need, they need good instruction, but they need other
things as well. They need other kinds of social support in
addition to instructional support.
And so having those available to the kids in some kind of
systematic way is an important thing. Mentoring is important.
Having the kid connected with somebody that they can talk to,
whether it is a college student, whether it is an older high
school student for a middle school kid, but having somebody
they can make that connection to that they might not have with
family members, and then counteracting the effect of violence.
I mean, we are looking at some neurological studies now
about the impact on the brain of exposure to violence and it
actually, if your brain is affected, it is going to impact how
well you take in information. And so having some interventions
for those kids who are the victims of violence both at home and
the kind of violence that they might see in the street or even
in the schools in many cases, so it is like an omnibus of needs
that are there that need to be addressed with these kids.
Mr. Serrano. Omnibus is a very tough word to use, you know,
before the appropriations committee. It brings pain up our
back.

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND ENGLISH SKILLS

Dr. Miele. The NSF funded SCIS and FOSS curricula had shown
tremendous ability to improve English language learner scores
when they were studied in the 1970s in the LA area. And from my
own experience, many of my students are themselves, even though
they are college students, are English language learners.
When you are working with the real world and your job is to
observe it objectively, it speaks to you in whatever is your
language. So that is not a barrier; a textbook does not do
that. So if your main source of information about science is a
textbook and you are a fourth-grader from Bangladesh, then you
are basically shut out entirely. But if you are looking at what
objects sink and what objects float and you are measuring their
mass and volume for yourself, then you have learned the
material for the day. And you may not be able to write it down
so that your teacher can understand it, but you have written it
down so that you can.
So hands-on science absolutely brings in everyone
regardless of whether they are an English language learner or
whether they are English proficient.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Jose.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you. I am sorry I was in
another hearing. Do I need this? Is it too loud?
Mr. Mollohan. You need to use it.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRODUCTION OF STEM PROFESSIONALS

Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. First thing, let me tell you where
I am coming from with my questioning. I serve on the
Intelligence Committee and Chair the Technical Tactical
Committee dealing with cyber security and a lot of the issues
involving science.
One of our concerns from a national security point of view
is that China last year graduated over 660,000 mathematicians,
scientists, and engineers. And I think we, the United States,
graduated about 66,000.
Now, the good news, our curriculum still seems to be
superior, but China is gaining very quickly.
Now, in preparing for this hearing and looking at where you
are coming from, both Dr. Hill and Miele--is it Miele?
Dr. Miele. Miele.

HOW CAN WE BRING ABOUT CHANGE

Mr. Ruppersberger. Miele, okay. You are emphasizing that we
need to change the way we teach science and I agree with you.
You are advocating for moving away from memorizing facts and
figures and moving towards more hands-on learning and more
accurately learning that engages the student to be more
inquisitive. I think inquisitive is what you were just really
talking about.
My issue is why have we not moved more towards the
direction of your philosophy and the STEM schools? Is it lack
of resources, equipment? Is it lack of knowledge on the part of
our administrators or people who fund schools which would be
elected officials? And, you know, we need to address that issue
first.
And how we do address it, I think we need to educate those
decision makers why science is so important. I will say this. I
know that some of our military academies from the year about
2013 or whatever will try to have over 70 percent of their
graduates having STEM education because this is where our
country is going, not only just in national security, but just
what we do every day.
Dr. Miele. I mentioned earlier that the problem is the
decision makers. Who are the decision makers? Who is in power
to choose curriculum?
In New York City recently when we sort of centralized the
science curriculum and developed a new city-wide scope and
sequence, principals were told that they could choose one of
two approaches to elementary school science. They could either
choose the Full Option Science System, the FOSS System, or they
could choose a textbook system with additional hands-on
activities suggested at the end of each chapter.
Who actually made the choice in many cases? The principal
delegated a teacher who was free that day to go down to a fair
and go eeny, meeny, miney, mo with a little slip that said this
is how much money you have to spend. That is not how you choose
curriculum.
If the city really felt that the inquiry-based approach was
the most important one, they should have just funded it. They
should have said this is what we are doing and if you want to
do more, that is fine, but you must put Full Option Science
System on your budget for this year or show how you are doing a
full inquiry-based alternative science curriculum otherwise.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. You know, I think one of the
issues there is it is just not only the school system. I think
you have got to get academia, elected officials, the business
community all involved. And that will really help move policy
forward.
Dr. Hill. Yes.

NSA AND STEM EDUCATION

Mr. Ruppersberger. I represent NSA. It is in my district.
And we are trying to develop a STEM program, there are STEM
programs within the State of Maryland, but a STEM program
literally on the campus of NSA and focusing on maybe even late
elementary or early middle school, looking at a regional type
project that could really identify these children who have the
aptitude. I think you have to have certain children who have
aptitude in the area of math or science or whatever. And one of
the things, one of the focuses is to have it as if it was an
internship.
And the culture change of these kids who not only are in a
classroom but then could also maybe, as long as you do not
violate the classified issues, you have these children come to
a campus and they grow. And they have also become really
patriotic in the mission of what an NSA or what a NASA--I mean,
we have Goddard right up the street on 295, but do this all
over the country. And, you know, we can look at certain
positive programs. I think there is a school in Virginia. I
know there are a couple schools in Maryland, in Anne Arundel
County, places like that that are successful, but it has got to
grow nationally.
How would you recommend that we do that?

THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Hill. Well, if I could say something from your original
statement. I mean, I am glad that you are kind of coming from a
national security perspective because we need to have that same
kind of political will that we have around our national
security in the field of education.
In the 1950s, when we perceived Russia as a threat and the
launch of Sputnik as a threat, we put the resources into
science education and it really paid off. And we need to have
that same kind of resolve again because it is a national
security issue.
When you have this large number of under and uneducated
people, you know, particularly congregating in our inner
cities, that is much more of a threat to our future security
than foreign terrorists, for example. And if we had the same
kind of political will to find the resources wherever--you
know, when we went into Iraq, we found the resources. We need
to do that same kind of thing, find the resources to transform
these inner city school districts.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am glad you raised the issue of
Sputnik because that was very dangerous to our country and the
United States of America responded by putting a man on the moon
within 12 years.
And, you know, if you look at where we were then and where
we are now, it used to be that astronauts were just as popular
as NFL quarterbacks and that is not the case. So it seems there
needs to be, you know, a reinvigoration.
I think part of the policy is that--I think the country is
just tired of us going back and forth to the space station. We
need a goal that the country can get behind and bring
excitement to these children. This is extremely important.

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES

But, you know, one thing I, and I know I am probably over
my time, I want to raise this issue, one of the issues that you
are going to find, and I know just when I am trying to work on
the STEM Program in my jurisdiction is still, it is the
politics of the different counties, the different school
systems.
If you are going to have a positive STEM Program, you need
a regional program, regional involving other counties, regional
involving the cities, whatever, so you can identify it from a
regional. And, yet, it seems that there is so much either
litigation or policy that it is difficult to get children from
one county to another county and that cooperation. So there has
to be some really strong political will.
Are you seeing that as an issue also, the bureaucracy or
standards within school systems and not wanting to cooperate or
have a regional type program?
Dr. Miele. I actually wanted to say a couple of things
about that.
I actually was privileged in the 1960s to participate in an
NSF-funded internship program at Columbia University. My junior
high school science teacher said you are going to go do this
and I do not care what you want to do on Saturday mornings
because you have got talent in science.
So I went to the Columbia Science Honors Program. I later
was a faculty member there for 16 years teaching students from
the region, a 50-mile radius, but, again, that is one of those
things where NSF type funding works because to transcend the
regional political power, you have to have something that is
outside school hours and funded separately.

THE INNOVATIVE ROLE OF JUNIOR FACULTY

There is another issue with the success of that kind of
project and that is that junior faculty, the ones who are most
likely to participate in innovative programs, such as bringing
a high school student into their lab, are the ones who are the
most at risk of not getting tenure. They need to focus on their
research. Risking having a high school student in the lab means
their research is going to go slower and perhaps maybe even
suffer a little mishap because you do not have a graduate
student. You have a kid taking attention away from your very
important research.
So there has to be some way to protect junior faculty who
are willing to invest in our young people and willing to mentor
them. And right now that is not the case. I see again and again
junior faculty who are willing to work with young people and to
pay attention to science education and to work hard on their
undergraduate classes to be the best teachers they can, to use
innovative instruction. Those people do not necessarily get
tenure because they are distracted. They are distracted.
I also want to point out that we need a scientifically
literate general population in order to make the proper choices
for our future. So we do need those people who are going to be
scientists, but everybody has got to understand the value of
science and evidence-based decisionmaking. Otherwise, we are
going to be in big trouble.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I do not disagree, but we have to really
focus on STEM too.
I know I am over my time. Can I ask one more?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.

TEACHING INSTEAD OF RETIRING

Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Another issue I think, and you
raised the issue with me, is the instructors, the teachers. We
have a baby boomer generation now that is a lot healthier, they
are working longer, whatever, a lot of retired scientists,
rocket scientists, engineers, whatever. And, yet, in order--and
who probably can come back and help teach and teach hands on
the way it is in the real world, not just from an academic
point of view.
And, yet, because of the rules and regulations and because
of teachers' unions and all the issues that we deal with, it
sometimes is very difficult to get those individuals within a
system or because the school system will say, well, you are not
authorized, you know, you are not certified, you do not have
your master's degree and this or whatever.
And it seems to me that if this system is going to work and
we have those resources out there, we have to find a way to
develop a STEM Program that will be the best it can be and we
have to have some flexibility as we relate to our contracts
with our teachers and whatever.
And I am not saying, you know, we do away with teachers'
unions or anything of that nature. I am saying as it relates to
STEM, you have to develop curriculum that is going to work. And
it is just a shame that we have a lot of qualified people that
can come back and help teach what we need to do in STEM and
make it exciting because a lot of these individuals are former
people who worked at NSA who worked on space programs and might
have another ten years.
So if you have any idea on that, that is something we have
to work on also.
Dr. Miele. I will tell you I myself am not a New York State
certified teacher. I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Did you hear that?
Dr. Miele. I am not a certified teacher. If I wanted to
teach----
Mr. Serrano. Neither am I.
Dr. Miele [continuing]. I would actually have to go back to
school and get 18 credits in education even though I have
taught those classes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Uh-huh.
Dr. Miele. So I agree. But I must also say that I know full
well that I was not prepared with my Ph.D. to walk into a high
school classroom and teach. I was not. I needed to learn quite
a bit about how young people learn. And I was----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree.
Dr. Miele [continuing]. Very, very fortunate to do that
sort of in my own laboratory because as a faculty member in the
Science Honors Program, I actually taught high school age
students and I figured out for myself what worked and what did
not. I was surprised to learn that it was completely congruent
with the National Science Education Standards. When I read
them, I went, oh, I could have written this. I figured it out
by trial and error.
But, again, I think that we need these alternative pathways
for current Ph.D. and master's holders. They do need to spend
some time learning about----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree with you. And you do need
standards. You always need the education standards. And I am
not saying it is a hundred percent. I am just saying there is a
group out there, that we have to find a way. We find it in
other areas. We have people who come back who are retired
military and they are back working government, whatever. We
need to focus on that, though.
And with the partnership between the teachers and the
school administrators and these individuals, we should be able
to help them train them and work as a team together.
Dr. Miele. It is a priority.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for your comments.
I am sorry. I have to go back to Intelligence and the no
window--well, we do not have windows here either.
Mr. Mollohan. And we are pretty intelligent here. We have
got all these educators.
Mr. Serrano. I agree with you. It is pretty intelligent.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Dr. Hill. And I hope you will continue that idea of
regionalism because I think that has a big impact in most----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And it gives you strength.
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I mean, it is the only way to go, no
question.
Dr. Hill. And you get away from, you know, it is okay for
those kids over there not to have, you know, as long as my kids
are okay, you know, that is the mentality.

SKILLS TRAINING VERSUS INQUIRY

Mr. Mollohan. Let me go back to this and let both of you
talk a little more about skills training versus inquiry. And
you used that word skills when you were talking about reading
and saying that, you know, that inquiry is great and wonderful,
but kids need to be able to read when they get to, and need to
have skills to read.
And, Dr. Hill, you also alluded to that and I am not sure
where I wrote it down. But just talk to us about the--Dr.
Miele, you begin and then Dr. Hill. You need skills and inquiry
is in your judgment essential if we are really going to develop
the potential and have the result that we--in terms of numbers
and quality of youngsters coming into math and science and just
the general population being literate in that. So if you would
talk about the balance that exists there and how to achieve it.
Dr. Miele. I think that in the 1970s, there was a tendency
to throw the baby out with the bath water. And in the interest
of developing inquiry skills, there was less focus on content.
It is not a true dichotomy. The best way to learn science is to
learn the content that the scientific community agrees is
foundational to progress as a practitioner and the processes
that those scientists use.

INQUIRY SKILLS

So what are the skills? What is inquiry? Inquiry means
applying the basic science skills. The first skill is
observation, looking at the world objectively, knowing the
difference between what everyone would agree is happening and
what you think about it. I may see a flower opening up and
think, ah, how beautiful. But as a scientist, what I have to
look at is, well, how did the petals separate and what is the
position of the pistils and the stamens. Does the pollen mature
at the same rate as the ovary? And I need to know these terms
in order to discuss it with someone else who is a botanist.
So there is language and vocabulary that is unique to every
scientific discipline. As a biologist, I do not speak physics.
I am not at all versed in geology. I am learning because I try
to talk to my colleagues and develop that common vocabulary.
But one of the first things you learn when you are a specialist
in one area and you talked with specialists in another area is
that you use the same words and you mean different things.
So in order for a student to become truly proficient to
enter a STEM profession, by the time they are finished with
high school, they have to know how to look at things
objectively. They have to know how to measure things and what
kind of measurement is appropriate to the task. They have to
know how to collect and organize data. They have to know how to
analyze that data and what the appropriate tools are to analyze
any given kind of data. Is it qualitative? Is it quantitative?
Is it some combination of the two?
They have to understand the language of their discipline
and be able to speak it. Well, that takes a long time. And how
are we going to do it? We are going to do it by starting with
kindergartners, maybe even pre-K. In pre-K, we develop basic
language. What do you call something? How do you describe it?
What does it do? That is, you know, it is nouns, it is adverbs,
it is adjectives, it is verbs.
Mr. Mollohan. So that is skill training?
Dr. Miele. This is skill training.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Dr. Miele. As a scientist, you are learning. As a scientist
who is five and looking at a cloud, it is a very different
person than a NASA or NOAA meteorologist looking at a cloud or
an astronaut who might be looking from different perspectives.
That five-year-old is thinking that fluffy white thing
looks like milk or cotton candy. Well, do you think it might be
cotton? Well, if I am thinking magically, yes. But if I am
thinking about somebody who threw cotton up in the air and it
always came down, then, no.
So how do you decide which kind of thinking you are going
to use when you look at something? How do you develop the basic
skills of common sense looking at patterns of nature that a
scientist uses as opposed to the skills that you would be using
as a poet or an artist?
You need to practice and sometimes you practice looking at
things as an artist and sometimes as a poet, sometimes as an
objective writer and sometimes as an analyst. When you are
looking at nature as an analyst, you are applying science
process skills.
Mr. Mollohan. How do you teach it?
Dr. Miele. One step at a time. You start with observation.
You start with recording what you observe, learning to develop
language. Just describe this rock, describe it well enough so
that your rock can be separated from everybody else in the
class's rock. Even a group of apples. Can you describe your
apple so well that when we pile it back up on the table with
all the apples we picked----
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Dr. Miele [continuing]. In our class, you get the right
one? And maybe that means I have to not only be very detailed,
but maybe I have to start doing things like measuring and I
have to measure accurately. Accuracy becomes important.
Mr. Mollohan. So your----
Dr. Miele. So one step at a time.
Mr. Mollohan. That is an integration of skills learning
within inquiry learning?
Dr. Miele. Absolutely. So you do these things and you are
integrating mathematics at every step of the way.
Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you, Doctor. I now remember how I
would like to introduce you to this question. Robert P. Moses
has written Radical Equations: Civil Rights for Mississippi to
the Algebra Project. And I understand that this is a project
that is also in Petersburg.
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that correct?
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, that would suggest that learning the
skill of algebra is fundamental to creating this
infrastructure, if you will, intellectual infrastructure for
moving to inquiry-based learning.
I am just curious. How do you teach----
Dr. Hill. And both. I mean----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. The fundamentals of algebra
and----

BUILDING A COGNITIVE NETWORK

Dr. Hill. But one thing that the inquiry-based learning
does is building these cognitive skills. You know, it is like
building this network of associations. And that is basically
how you learn. You make new associations and you put them into
your network of previously existing associations and your
network expands. So every time you learn a new fact, your
network has to accommodate that fact.
And so if you have an impoverished network, it is difficult
for new facts coming at you to stick. And just getting new
facts does not do anything for your network. You have to engage
with the material in some kind of way. You have to use this
inquiry-based processing or you are using different modalities
that make these associations that then lead you to be able to
hold on to the facts.
And so if you just have a fact-based approach, and we see
this with kids all the time, they get these facts thrown at
them, they are isolated, they do not see any connection between
them. If they learn them at all, they are just memorizing them
in separate kinds of ways. And they do not retain it. You know,
they might take a class, have a hundred different facts, and
one year later, they have forgotten all of them because they
never were integrated into this underlying cognitive structure.
So the approach that the algebra project takes and the
things that we are doing with this cognitive training are
trying to develop the structure and then connect the
information to the structure and to the processing that is
going on, too, because both of those things are important.
And, yes, the algebra project in particular is very good at
taking abstract concepts from mathematics and connecting them
to the everyday experience of the kids so that they are making
these associations, they are making these connections. And
these are not just isolated facts or facts that are so abstract
they have no connection with them at all.

STUDENT MATH ACHIEVEMENT EVALUATION

Mr. Mollohan. Is student math achievement being evaluated
and do you see any problems with the evaluation instruments in
general use today? You spoke to that a little bit. If you
would----
Dr. Hill. Yes. I mean, we are basically, because in order
to get cooperation from the school districts, we have to tell
them this is going to impact your standardized test performance
because that is all they are concerned about. And so we are
using those actual standardized tests to see what kind of
change we get in the performance of these kids after a year.
But it is a flawed instrument and there are some instruments
out there that would be better at capturing that process that
is going on as you are using inquiry-based education and
developing these cognitive skills.

TESTING INQUIRY SKILLS

Mr. Mollohan. And that is what you, Dr. Miele, were
speaking about when you said that the testing needs to be
testing that captures the inquiry-based learning skills?
Dr. Miele. Exactly. The testing needs to see if the
students have the skills, not just the content knowledge, not
just facts that they recognize, which is the lowest level.
In the scientific community and science education
community, we refer to getting knowledge like this as
constructivism. You are basically building a house, building a
structure of knowledge that includes facts, but the facts are
the lowest level. It is the theories that you want to get to
and it is the processes that allow you to build those theories.
Mr. Mollohan. How do you test inquiry learning?
Dr. Miele. Well, one of the things that you can do, I
actually wanted to talk a little bit about one test that I
rather like, the New York State Earth Science Regents
examination that many people feel is sort of a flawed
instrument because it does not test enough memorization. I
think that is ironic because we are so used to memorization
being the paradigm that when it is not the paradigm, we reject
it.
This New York State exam requires students to read a
question, recognize what the question is asking, which means
that they have to have the vocabulary to know what the question
is about. Then they have to go to the back of the exam where
there are reference tables, find the appropriate reference
table, find the appropriate data from the reference table,
perhaps do a minor algebraic manipulation of it to find the
right answer, and then answer a multiple choice test.
You have the efficacy, the very quick and easy method of
evaluation of scanning a multiple choice test, but it is a
multi-step process. So it is actually looking at what the
student can do, not just what the student can recognize.
So it is actually possible to make a standardized test, a
simple kind of familiar standardized test that can break out
these things. You can also have a test that asks the student to
look at something and say, well, what does that measure, what
is the appropriate measurement there. So it is a proxy for a
hands-on measurement assessment.
There are a number of ways that you can create situations
in a test which will look at process. Can you group things
appropriately? Can you look at a chart or a table and collect
the right data from it to get the correct answer?
Dr. Hill. Yes. And even with a standardized test, depending
on how the questions are framed, you can even get higher level
thought process involved in a multiple choice test if it is not
just simply recognition memory. You know, you are just
recognizing the right answer. But if you have to do some kind
of processing to distinguish between the alternatives----
Dr. Miele. So I think what we need is developmental and
cognitive scientists helping us in test design. Traditionally,
these tests are designed by practitioners of K to 12 education
coming together as a group and deciding by consensus what a
good question is, but we need this higher level of awareness so
that we can make sure that we are looking at a higher order of
thinking in these exams.

TEST SCORES AND SCIENCE INTEREST

Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Hill, are you finding a correlation
between student scores on State standardized tests and their
students' interest in achievement in science?
Dr. Hill. No, not at the moment, and mainly because those
State tests are just minimum standards. They are not really
geared toward assessing the person's creativity or their
inquiry skills or any of that. So it is almost like minimum
literacy in these various areas. So, they are not good
predictors of who would go on to a career in STEM or in any
other area that I know of.
Dr. Miele. We have found similar findings with our Brooklyn
outreach for science and careers. We basically do not have
enough science majors at Brooklyn College. They all want to be
economics majors, education majors, or pre-med because they
want to make money.
Our students are by and large first generation students to
go to college and their going to college is their ticket to
American success. But they do not know that you can be
successful as a scientist, so that is a major problem. We have
a disconnect between what students think you need to do to be
financially successful and the various paths to success.
We have been able to break that by exposing students to
career opportunities, but again, that is a band-aid approach
for our particular little pocket of students. We really need
some kind of broader systemic way of making clear to students
that science is something that is fun to do that you can be
somewhat autonomous, independent. You can do something
different every day. You can make a contribution and you can
feed your family and buy a house.

ARE IMPROVEMENTS READY FOR BROAD IMPLEMENTATION?

Mr. Mollohan. Are the improvements that you described ready
to be spread to more schools and school systems, and we spoke
of this a little bit, but let me give you an opportunity to
answer specifically, and what do we need to do so? Dr. Hill?
Dr. Hill. Yes. There are certainly a lot of evidence-based
practices out there that are ready to go. It would take
political will. It would take an independent principal or some
other administrator who is willing to implement these things
and not worry about the immediate consequences to their SOL
test performance or whatever the standards they are using.
So, yes, they are ready to go. We just need to create a
climate in which that could be implemented on a widespread
basis.
Mr. Mollohan. Can you cite specific examples of models
where this turnaround has occurred based upon inquiry-based
learning?
Dr. Hill. Well, Petersburg is a good example. As I
mentioned, over the last three years, we have seen their test
scores go up. We have seen the engagement of the students go
up. You know, we are in the middle of a three-year project. We
will have a lot more data in a year-and-a-half from now. But
all the trends are in the right direction, and we are excited
about the possibilities. And a place like Petersburg is small
enough to be kind of like a little laboratory.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you working in the middle schools?
Dr. Hill. Primarily the middle schools and the high
schools, yes.
Mr. Mollohan. And what has been the story with regard to
scores----
Dr. Hill. Well----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In middle schools?
Dr. Hill [continuing]. I think I shared with you----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, share it with me again.
Dr. Hill [continuing]. Some of that data. The middle school
that we are working with in 2007 had an average SOL score of
39.7 and the passing score is 70. And this year, their average
SOL score in math was 88.86. So there has been more than a
twofold increase in three years in their math scores in that
middle school and similarly in the high school.
And, again, we have had kind of a three-pronged approach.
We have had the approach of cognitive education. We have had an
approach of the algebra project, pedagogy, and community
organization and involvement. And I think it takes that kind of
multifaceted approach to really make a difference.
Mr. Mollohan. Are other schools in Virginia coming down and
seeing what you are doing and saying we would like to replicate
this?
Dr. Hill. Not yet. We are trying to get the word out and
hopefully we will. I mean, my appearance here was the result of
an appearance on NPR, so maybe the word is starting to spread.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you working with any kind of innovative
programs or organizations like the Darden School at University
of Virginia or any of those?
Dr. Hill. No. Right now we are only working with two
outside organizations other than Virginia State University and
that is the Algebra Project, Incorporated and Learning RX which
is the cognitive training organization.

TEACHER-STUDENT RAPPORT

Dr. Miele. You know, I want to just mention something else.
One of the problems that we have with middle school and high
school is it is the opposite of the problem we have with the
elementary school system. There you had specialists. The people
who identified themselves as scientists or mathematicians
fairly early on chose higher education in that area and as a
result are not always aware of the struggles of the average
student when confronting these subjects.
So we very often have a disconnect between the math teacher
or the science teacher and their students because the math
teacher says, well, you know, math is cool, it is great, and
they have not figured out how to convince their students that
that is true.
We have the same problem with our science teachers. And,
again, because our science teachers traditionally go through a
more formal kind of education in higher ed, they have not had
any inquiry instruction in their college experiences, they are
not really prepared to teach inquiry and they are not committed
to it as an approach to instruction.
So we really need that change at the middle school and high
school level as well. Middle school gives us some opportunity
because we have, many teachers who are moving up from
elementary school who are elementary school science specialists
who really got so excited by it that they wanted to teach it at
a higher level. And they have been able to bring a great sort
of elementary school approach to middle school, but with more
content understanding.
Dr. Hill. Yes

IMPROVING HIGHER ED

Dr. Miele. I think that we need to get our college teachers
also encouraging our undergraduates to think about how the
discipline evolved and how we know what we know and what you
need to do to get to the next step because myself as a graduate
student, it was only my last year at college that I was
introduced to how we know what we know. And that was just a
short step. Then I had to start figuring out new knowledge
myself the next year as a graduate student.
So we need some changes in higher ed as well and that, I
think, will allow more people to stay in STEM who think that
they might. We are losing way too many potential science and
math majors in their freshman year.
Dr. Hill. We are working with our math ed people at
Virginia State in particular to try to put some of this
innovative pedagogy into their content for teaching math
teachers. So that is an issue.
And I have also found even at the middle and high school
level that often the math and science teachers, let me think of
the charitable way to say this, they are not able to do much
more than process facts either. I mean, they are not very
inquiry based in their background.
Mr. Mollohan. Did not learn the approach?
Dr. Hill. They did not learn it that way.
Dr. Miele. They did not learn it that way.
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Dr. Miele. They are good memorizers.
Dr. Hill. Yes. Particularly in math, I mean, they can plug
in a formula, but they are not able to conceptualize the
connections and what this formula is actually saying in terms
of the real world.
Mr. Mollohan. Can teachers be retaught? Can they be
reoriented? Can they be retrained?
Dr. Hill. Yes. And that is what we are doing with this
algebra project approach. We are mainly focusing on the
teachers and their pedagogical skills.
Dr. Miele. Sixty hours of professional development that
actually is inquiry based, actually is active learning.
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry. Say that again.
Dr. Miele. Sixty hours seems to be the minimum for
transformation.
Mr. Mollohan. You said that before. To re-educate and to
educate?
Dr. Miele. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. We are coming to a close. I would like to
give you all an opportunity for any final thoughts that you
would like to put on the record for the Committee.
Dr. Miele, why don't you go first?
Dr. Miele. I think I would like to take this opportunity to
speak again about the issue of the support for college faculty
to make sure that these transformations can happen.
In order for us to have the most robust STEM practitioners
at the highest level, we need the best instruction at the
college level and we need to make sure that junior faculty who
embrace inquiry do not get pushed out by senior faculty who are
threatened by it or do not see its value.
I do not know what you can do to protect them, but it is an
important issue.

EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS IN SCIENCE GRANTS

Mr. Mollohan. Well, why don't you help us? We fund NOAA and
NASA, NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education. But in
those accounts, how do you think that we could help----
Dr. Miele. Traditionally----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Within that area?
Dr. Miele [continuing]. As I understand the--I have been
out of the pure science grants area for 20 years myself having
recreated myself as a science educator, but pure science grants
have a small requirement that there be an educational
component.
If that could somehow be made a little bit more robust, a
higher amount of the score for the grant actually count for
meaningful inclusion of inquiry learning or the quality of
their instruction in their undergraduate class work, how will
this research transform their undergraduate class work, that
way, it would be a science grant, so it would count for
promotion and tenure, but it would actually have some
meaningful impact on undergraduate instruction.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we will ask our NSF friends when they
come to testify about that.
Doctor.
Dr. Hill. I would piggyback on what Dr. Miele just said.
The grants process, as I mentioned earlier, is kind of stacked
against young faculty members, particularly at teaching
institutions. If there are some ways that NSF could come up
with some more creative-- I mean, they do a lot. I do not want
to complain about NSF because they have a tremendous amount of
science education funded programs.
But if we could just add another more innovative funding
mechanism of, say, a research initiation grant that could be
given to a new faculty member. I mean, the way it is now the
grants are, the proposals are evaluated by, you know, peers in
the field and so they are looking at credentials, they are
looking at publication record, they are looking at what else
they have done.
And so if we want to get to where particularly the minority
kids are, which are HBCUs, we need to have some more open kinds
of innovative funding mechanisms that allow these faculty
members to develop their program of research. And by necessity,
the people they would be working with would be minority STEM
majors.
So I guess this would be under the term of research
initiation grants. If there could be more research initiation
grant funding at places like NSF, it would be very helpful in
this area.
Mr. Mollohan. Could be more research initiation grants?
Dr. Hill. Yes, to allow the researchers where----
Dr. Miele. Research one institutions.
Dr. Hill. Exactly. Since I guess--and not just HBCUs but
Brooklyn College and--
Dr. Miele. Yes. Places that are research one are going to
have a higher opportunity to get funding for their junior
faculty to do pure research. Those of us who are at
institutions where research is not the high priority, but
education is, our junior faculty are at something of a
disadvantage.
Mr. Mollohan. In the NSF grant process?
Dr. Miele. The NSF grant process, yes.
Dr. Hill. NIH, you know, all the funding mechanisms.
Mr. Mollohan. And so what good do we achieve if we address
that problem at the----
Dr. Hill. Well, for one thing, you are kind of bringing
together research and education because these are the places
where the education is going on, where the teacher education is
going on.
Mr. Mollohan. But they are not the places that generally
have favorable responses from NSF for grant----
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In response to grant----
Dr. Hill. Exactly.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Solicitation?
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. And so to fix that, it should be fashioned to
bias----
Dr. Hill. And, again, NSF does a good job.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. We are not bashing NSF.
Dr. Hill. Yes. Another track would be good.
Dr. Miele. Integrates research and instruction----
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Dr. Miele [continuing]. That would be targeted for
nonresearch institutions. So the goal is to bring young people
into the research paradigm.
Dr. Hill. Because NSF has some programmatic kinds of grants
for things, places like HBCUs. They do not have the research
dollars targeted for kind of start-up type research careers.
And that is the kind of thing that we need.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am going to ask you all for the
record, this is my 28th year and I think 20 probably--anyway,
long enough on this Committee and I believe every hearing that
I have sat with NSF, this question of youngsters in America
falling behind by all kinds of measurements, youngsters around
the world with regard to math and science education has always
been a part of the presentation.
And, okay, well, what are we going to do about that or are
we just being scared so we will fund more for NSF? What is
going on here? After 25 years, there ought to be some really
concrete approaches to dealing with the issue, number one. And
then there ought to be some desired results coming out of it,
number two.
And during that period, not being an expert in the area,
but the concrete proposals and the desired results have eluded
us, I think. And so I think it is fair to take the kind of
testimony you are giving us and ask NSF, look, let us get down
to brass tacks here. How do we actually achieve those desired
results?
And so I would like to ask you to in writing, if you would,
and you have been so forthcoming here to begin with in your
testimony and your attendance, but to address that question.
We fund NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education.
But NSF obviously plays an important role here, particularly at
the research level. So how do we work with NSF through the
appropriations process to help facilitate the desired results
that everybody wants as an outcome?
[Clerk's note.--The written material follows:]

Dr. Miele. One of the things that I discovered in working
with the Museum of Natural History and the zoo is that there is
no NSF funding for formal partnerships with informal science
institutions.
In other words, for a school district to say during school
hours we want these informal institutions to help us with our
State mandated core curriculum instruction, it is only for
after school and enrichment. Well, here is this wonderful
resource that can expose young people to career opportunities
in the sciences and, you know, all of our major cities have
them and many of our college campuses have institutions
associated with them that can fill this role. Even the Boy
Scouts, the Girl Scouts, Explorer Scouts, institutions like
that that have a strong natural knowledge mandate----
Mr. Mollohan. Well----
Dr. Miele [continuing]. Can help with this.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Maybe the people who----
Dr. Miele. That is a new area that is not funded right now.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Maybe the peers that review, and I am
not interrupting, I want you to hold your thought and I have
trouble holding mine, so let me say it, maybe the peers who
review these applications do not appreciate that the importance
of those partnerships and----
Dr. Miele. It is actually in the guidelines that you cannot
do it for a formal partnership. It is only for enrichment and
outside school hours. So----
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I do not know exactly what that means,
but I am going to ask you to put that in your written----
Dr. Miele. Okay. And one thing I wanted to mention is that
when we judge ourselves against the international standards,
remember that places like China and Russia do not give their
young children who have talent in math and science the choice
of what to do with their lives. They are funneled into math,
science intensive instruction from the time they are 12 years
old. They are begun on college level course work much earlier
than our students and part of that is because they are not
given the chance to, you know, to be Shakespeare.
So they get what they are putting in. They are creating
scientists and mathematicians for its political and social
construction. And it makes sense for a building economy to
force their students perhaps into----
Mr. Mollohan. They are pushing and we are trying to pull.
Dr. Miele. Exactly. Exactly. We are trying to, you know,
cajole, coax, and we are not doing it very effectively.
As I say, I myself left a career in science because it was
not supported, frankly. It was a difficult, very difficult life
writing grants, hoping you will get them, exposing yourself to
all kinds of dangers for the benefit of mankind and not--
frankly, I did not make enough money as a young scientist to
pay for my kids' childcare and my extra travel.
Mr. Mollohan. It is a dangerous world out there no matter
what profession you are in.
Dr. Hill, final thoughts? You do not have to.
Dr. Hill. Yes. I mean, I think most of the things have been
said already. Anything you all can do that will bring more
funding in this area, I think, is great.
And I think again if you look at our political will as a
nation, we have not had science as a priority and our funding
has reflected that. And so anything you can do that would kind
of get the word out that we need to make this a priority, I
think it is important.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, funding is going to be scarce which
makes your thoughts about this more important so we can focus
scarce resources. And we so very much appreciate your
appearance here today. I thought it was an outstanding hearing,
and we look forward to your written statements and any other
thoughts that you have.
I know you are working closely with our excellent staff
which we appreciate your having done in preparation for this
hearing. I notice with your eyebrows, you recognized I am right
about----
Dr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your testimony here this
morning.
Dr. Hill. Thank you.
Dr. Miele. Thank you.
Thursday, February 4, 2010.

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH EDUCATION

WITNESSES

DR. JULIE LUFT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
DR. CRAIG STRANG, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all
for being here today. And we are starting a few minutes late.
We ordinarily would not start without the Minority
representative, but Mr. Wolf is running a little late, and it
is fine with him if we start. So we are going to start.
Welcome. Good morning to the second hearing of the
Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics, STEM, Education.
In testimony yesterday, we heard about two examples of STEM
education activities and today we will hear two more. We also
learned that development precursors do not always resemble the
skill to which they are leading and how the environment around
schools can be effectively used in inquiry-based education.
Did you not catch that? Yesterday we learned that
development precursors do not always resemble the skill to
which they are leading and how the--to which they are leading
and then we also learned how the environment around schools can
be effectively used in inquiry-based education. I will let you
think about that.
Testimony helped us become aware of the challenges to
transforming science education and including student activities
such as devising original experiments, observing the natural
world, using math and reasoning with data.
Today we will hear from witnesses recommended to us by NSF
and NOAA as outstanding recipients of federal education funding
provided through our appropriations. These witnesses are Mr.
Craig Strang from the Lawrence Hall of Science at the
University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Julie Luft of
Arizona State University.
Mr. Strang has pioneered the development of materials that
help enable inquiry in STEM education. Dr. Luft has been both a
middle and high school teacher and an educator of secondary
school science teachers. Dr. Luft is currently the Director of
Research for the National Science Teachers Association.
And thank you both for coming, being here today. Your
written statements will be made a part of the record and then
we would invite you to present your oral testimony and then we
will follow with questions.
Dr. Luft, why don't you begin?
Dr. Luft. Chairman Mollohan, thank you today for inviting
me here. I am honored to be here to talk about inquiry-based
science teacher education.
As you know and as you stated, I have been involved in
science education for a long time. I was a former middle school
and high school teacher and currently I am an academic in an
institution of higher ed. Specifically I am a professor at
Arizona State University.
In addition to my duties at NSTA, I am also an associate
editor for the Journal of Research and Science Teaching and I
am also an incoming fellow for the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
As you know, the National Science Education Standards have
led the way in our thinking about science as inquiry. This
document has made it explicit that science as inquiry is a
content standard. That is something that all students should
know about, have the abilities to do, and that they should
understand.
And in the standard, it describes specifically what science
as inquiry is. It includes among several things being able to
ask questions, collecting data, analyzing that data, and
sharing those findings.
In science teacher education, we think a lot about this
standard and we think of it in two ways. We think of it as a
way to teach and a way to learn. And our work in this area
focuses on helping teachers to learn how to teach using this
method as well as understanding how students learn in an
inquiry setting.
Now, I know this sounds very simple, but it is really quite
complex. And this is where most of my work has been. I have
pondered how we can better assist teachers in implementing
science as inquiry. My current work, which is funded by the
National Science Foundation, is targeting a unique group of
science teachers and that is teachers in their very first
years.
So this is what we know. We prepare teachers to teach
inquiry and we provide wonderful professional development for
them to support their learning of inquiry. But when they first
graduate, when they first come out of their teacher preparation
program, they have no rich support to do inquiry.
So my premise was what if we intervened in that period and
actually gave them very rich support what would happen. And NSF
funded me to find out.
I followed 120 teachers over three years, the first three
years, and we found out that with rich support to teach
science, these teachers actually enacted more inquiry. And what
we are finding out now as we go into the fifth year of this
study, it is being sustained.
So this research is really important in that it gives new
insight into how teachers can develop their practices and how
we can strengthen them and how we can sustain them.
From this research, we found in addition to that conclusion
that science induction, and that is what we call it, support is
critical.
We have also found that teachers have great advances in how
they understand how students learn in these first few years. In
teacher preparation, we focus on that. But when they actually
hit this classroom, their understanding of how students process
science takes incredible leaps and bounds.
So this work has been critical. It has allowed me to work
with several federal agencies. And I am hoping to continue this
work. And in thinking about that, I was thinking about some key
suggestions I might have for federal agencies.
First off, I think it is really important that this work,
as work of a lot of my colleagues, that we think about how do
we translate this or support this work so it can go into
practice. We know this now. We found this understanding, but
how do we actually put it in the hands of people who can use
it.
I think there is also the potential for funding agencies to
think about long-term support. We are beginning to understand
more about how teachers develop their practice and how students
learn, and these are going to be projects that require a lot of
financial support to really get at some very important
understandings.
And, finally, I think it is really important that we just
continue our support for research in science education.
So I want to thank you very much for having me here today.
I hope we can continue to talk about some of these issues, and
I am looking forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Luft.
Dr. Strang.
Mr. Strang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify about the importance of inquiry-based science education
and thank you for supporting the role that NOAA, NSF, and NASA
play in improving science education. You can be proud of their
work that improves the lives of young people, provides
assistance to teachers, and strengthens our workforce.
If I leave you with one message, it is science agencies
must play a leadership role in the improvement of science
education. Achieving science literacy for all Americans and
preparing future scientists requires direct involvement from
today's scientists. Science agencies must have the mandate and
funding to devote significant resources to science education.
I am Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science,
University of California, Berkeley. LHS is a national leader in
the development of K-12 inquiry-based science and math
instructional materials. One in five children in the U.S. uses
curriculum materials developed at Lawrence Hall of Science.
I am also Director of a NOAA Office of Education sponsored
project, the Ocean Sciences Curriculum Sequence for grades
three through five. This grant created a partnership between
the LHS Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence and
Rutgers University to provide students with inquiry-based
experiences in ocean sciences. These materials will become the
most widely used elementary ocean sciences curriculum
nationwide. They were developed by science educators,
scientists, and educational researchers, tested by the
developers in local classrooms in Berkeley, then field tested
by 70 teachers nationwide to ensure their effectiveness and
broad applicability. We are now analyzing the very positive
field test data to revise the final version of the materials.
My written testimony provides more information about those
materials, including our evidence of their effectiveness. But
this project would not have been possible, however, without
previous strategic investments by NSF and NOAA to build on and
change the landscape of science education that has made a
project like mine possible.
For most of my career, marine education has resided at the
distant margins of K-12 science education. Understanding the
ocean is critical to the health of our planet. Climate change,
ocean acidification, extinction, hurricanes, tsunamis dominate
the news. California alone has a $43 billion ocean economy.
Yet, ocean topics are idiosyncratically missing from national
and state science standards.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported that the
absence of ocean sciences in schools has resulted in a
generation of Americans ignorant of the importance of the
ocean, placing our economy, environment, and national security
at risk.
So in 2002, the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences invested
$3.5 million to establish a national network of Centers for
Ocean Sciences Education Excellence or COSEE. I am the Director
of one of those centers.
COSEE has coalesced and elevated ocean sciences education
by engaging scientists and science educators in mutually
beneficial partnerships. Ocean scientists themselves believe
that education is so critical they now devote their research
dollars to the endeavor.
In the early days of COSEE, we first began to discuss
creating an ocean literate society by infusing more ocean
topics into the K-12 science education standards.
Then in 2004, the NOAA Office of Education made a strategic
investment, just tens of thousands of dollars, to convene
meetings between leaders of COSEE, NOAA, National Geographic
Society, the National Marine Educators Association, and College
of Exploration to define ocean literacy and the few ocean
concepts that should be in K-12 science standards.
The result was the publication of this brochure that
describes seven big ideas that all twelfth graders should
understand about the ocean. This ocean literacy brochure is a
transformative consensus document. There have been nine
conferences in three countries devoted to it. It has resulted
in the publication of a high school textbook, another high
school course, several museum and aquarium exhibits, including
here at Sant Ocean Hall at the Smithsonian, several lecture
series and web sites. Several states have incorporated some
ocean concepts into their standards as a result and this is the
new context that has been created for the development of our
ocean sciences curriculum sequence.
NOAA and NSF funding brought coherence and prominence to a
once marginalized domain of science education. Their
involvement ensures that science education keeps up with the
fast-moving world of scientific discovery.
Public understanding of science leads our young people to
be creative, thoughtful decision makers and is a key to the
improvement of our environment, economy, and quality of life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the
Committee, and please continue to support science education
within NOAA, NASA, and NSF.
[The information follows:]

SUPPORT FOR INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Thank both witnesses.
Today we are really focusing on and learning more about
STEM education, the status of STEM education. Yesterday I asked
one of the witnesses, ``Is there any credible debate out there
as to the benefit of inquiry-based education to teach STEM
courses?'' And the answer was no.
And then it became clear as the hearing went on, when you
talked to the witnesses, that while there may not be a debate
at some level about the superiority of inquiry-based education
for these disciplines, there certainly was a lot of difficulty
in migrating that technique out through the real educational
systems across the country, which seems to be a bit of an irony
or at least a tragic problem.
If there is really no debate that inquiry-based education
is by far the superior way of teaching young Americans about
science, then why is it not being embraced universally across
the school districts of the country?
Dr. Luft.
Dr. Luft. You know, that is a really good question. We do
see that there are more and more good inquiry curricula that
are being put in schools, but I think you have to realize that
this curriculum costs money. And schools, especially right now,
are making choices about what they are going to fund. Over the
years, they have made these choices, too. So it is acquiring
the curriculum; it is also supporting the curriculum.
So for the teachers that I work with in the Phoenix area,
many of them have the FOSS kits, but some of them are in
districts that may not have a science coordinator who can help
provide professional development for the teachers to support
them in using these kits appropriately. If they get the kits,
learning how to use them in ways that are really conducive to
developing understanding is critically important.
I think another concern on the teacher education end, which
I am comfortable to speak about, is that we really need to work
in the science education community on who knows this. We need
to work to help our teachers understand how to use the kits
when they go into the schools. But sometimes there is a
disconnect between the materials and supplies we have at the
University versus what is in the local schools.
So while there is great curriculum, that curriculum varies
by district, and it also is supported in ways that are not
equivalent. Some districts may be able to or have a science
coordinator and other districts may not. So supporting that
enactment is very difficult.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I would like to get down to the detail
of that a little later.
But, Dr. Strang.
Mr. Strang. Mr. Strang.
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry.
Mr. Strang. It is okay.
Mr. Mollohan. It is Dr. on your card there.
Mr. Strang. Oh. Well, I appreciate the honorary degree.
Mr. Serrano. We give everybody titles.
Mr. Honda. No money, but----
Mr. Serrano. Dr. Mollohan.
Mr. Strang. I agree with everything that Dr. Luft said and
I think resources and money are certainly an issue.
But aside from the current budget crisis that, for
instance, California schools are in, I think there is another
issue that is just as profound with the implementation of
inquiry in our science programs and that is the issue of
instructional time, not so much money.
We are finding in school districts across the country, but
especially in California, that even after the adoption of the
FOSS Program or other inquiry-based materials that because of
the emphasis on accountability and English language arts and
mathematics at the elementary level, that elementary science
programs have been virtually dismantled.
In the San Francisco Bay area, the Lawrence Hall of Science
did a study in 2008; we found that the average elementary
school teacher in the eleven Bay area counties spends about an
hour and 15 minutes a week teaching science. And we know that
most of that time is spent in grades four through six or four
through five. So we figure that at the K through two or K
through three levels, teachers are spending maybe 30 minutes a
week teaching science, and you cannot do inquiry in that amount
of time.
So while we know, and I think most teachers today
understand the importance of inquiry and the difference in
student understanding when they present concepts using inquiry
versus when they present them through other direct instruction
methods, even though teachers understand that, they are in this
constant conflict over managing the time of their instructional
day.

SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. Mollohan. If I might. The witnesses yesterday made that
point that inquiry-based, while most people, and you just said
while most people acknowledge inquiry-based, is superior, in
effect, you said that. In spite of that testimony yesterday and
just for purposes of discussion here, I really wonder about
that and that seems to be a real threshold question to me.
As much as people are ringing their hands about America
being behind in teaching math and science, if everybody
believed, that there was this consensus out there that inquiry-
based education is the way to go, then I do not know that we
would be having difficulty developing materials here at NOAA
and all the other places materials are being developed and
trying to get it out on a onesie and twosies basis from bright
people who are working hard and really trying to pull the kind
of organizations together to get the curriculum and get the
teachers taught and then actually support them in the field. I
do not think we would be having so much of a problem about
that.
So my question really goes to the premise that everybody
believes that inquiry-based education is a superior way to
educate these young people in science.
Mr. Strang. I think that there is a growing consensus about
inquiry and the effectiveness of inquiry, but alternatively,
science education is not a priority. So there are many school
districts in California that are telling us, well, we would
have adopted FOSS in the last science adoption year, but we
knew we could not do it justice and it is expensive and if we
are not going to use it, why would we pay for all those kits?
So we just bought the textbooks.

IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED STEM INSRUCTION

Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, if everybody agrees that inquiry-
based education is the way to teach science, then we ought to
be about how does the Department of Education migrate inquiry-
based education like that throughout the country if that is how
we ought to be teaching science to youngsters.
Dr. Luft. So I think this is again a complex problem. We
can agree. And I think if you talk to teachers, we agree that
science as inquiry is incredibly important, but there are
factors that really bear down and constrain the teaching of
inquiry, no matter how much we know or how important it is.
And you are right. The testimony yesterday really hit on
this hard that the testing and the accountability has
constrained the teaching of science as inquiry.
At the secondary level, I have walked into science classes
to watch teachers teach, but I have been told the science class
is canceled at the secondary level to prepare for testing. The
kids were getting skills to take the test, so we are losing a
period of time. This is huge.
But the other piece is communities. I think when we have
lost a lot of funding for the professional development of
teachers, when that funding went away, teachers did not have
the support or the communities to constantly be thinking about
their practice and enriching that practice.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. We will follow-up.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pursue this
a little bit more.
How is it that we define inquiry and why is it only
confined to STEM and why do we focus only on children when it
is the teachers that teach?
Are we focusing enough time on the teachers to be able to
do that across the curriculum instead of just focusing on STEM,
because you have instruction and content, process and concepts?
You have deductive, inductive approaches, too, but process
seems to be where inquiry is.
So I was wondering, combining all these questions in one,
do you have some sort of idea what it is that people see that
is going on because I really do not see a constraint.
Dr. Luft. So I think you are asking me two questions--that
is what I am hearing. I think you are asking me what is it that
makes science as inquiry unique. First off, that----
Mr. Honda. I am asking you what is inquiry?
Dr. Luft. What is inquiry?
Mr. Honda. What is teaching inquiry?
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Honda. I mean, if a teacher cannot teach it, how can
they expect it? Are we sure that the teachers are being
instructed on how to do that?
And if it is only done in four and five, it seems to me
that K through 8 seems to be a strand of instruction when you
do inquiry because we ask our youngsters to check for
understanding. We inquire, and that is something that
youngsters can mimic from teachers when we do that. Am I off
base or what?
Dr. Luft. Do you want to--this is----
Mr. Strang. Yeah. Well, there is a variety of----
Dr. Luft. There is a variety----
Mr. Strang [continuing]. Directions here. Yeah.
Dr. Luft. So I think that we are really trying to, if I
understand this, I think we are really preparing our teachers
to do science as inquiry. And in the research that I do, what
we really see is that it is constrained when they first go into
the school.
When they graduate from preparation programs, I think they
know and they understand what science as inquiry is and they
want to practice this. But when they first hit the schools,
they can be constrained in the environment if there is not
adequate support or if their other colleagues are not engaging
in this. So it is not-- it may not happen for teachers.
Mr. Honda. It seems to me that through any subject matter,
one can use the inquiry method and teach youngsters by modeling
that. And it is not only-- unless you are asking-- trying to
teach the scientific method in going through those steps and
then you do the observation, note taking, and then you----
Mr. Strang. Right.
Mr. Honda. You still can do that, I think, in other
instructional areas where--in an integrated approach to a
curriculum and teachers get together trying to figure out how
we are going to get this as an outcome.
And I understand time on task, but I wonder whether we
really use enough time to teach and to rest assured that we
are, in fact, agile enough to understand how to use this in
other curricular areas.
Mr. Strang. Right. So I will respond with an example. I
think there are many things that are unique about inquiry in
science, about science inquiry. And at the same time, we are
doing quite a bit of work at the Lawrence Hall of Science right
now trying to understand the relationship between science
inquiry and literacy skills. And we think about good thinkers
in language arts classrooms as being inquirers into text and
inquirers into ideas. So there is some overlap there.
We are in the process of developing a new set of materials
that I think by the time of the next round of science adoptions
will be available on a large scale. The new program is called
Seeds of Science, Roots of Reading and it explores the synergy
of the integration between science and literacy and how
students very consciously and directly thinking about the
similarities and differences in how they investigate phenomenon
versus how they investigate text and ideas.
Mr. Honda. So you are saying that there are these skills
that build upon each other?
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Honda. There is a hierarchy of skills in inquiry?
Dr. Luft. That is right. And that there is a curricular
economy in integration that could help to overcome some of
these instructional time issues that are such a challenge at
the elementary level.
So we have students that are doing investigations in their
science class and reading text, reading student reading books
that are written in such a way that they elaborate the concepts
that the students are investigating and teach reading skills at
the same time.
Mr. Honda. But you are assuming that they are using a
textbook as a guide rather than a teacher's insights in
understanding the hierarchy of these skills and incorporating
that as she or he teaches and leads youngsters through a
process?
Dr. Luft. Yes, absolutely. So teacher preparation and
professional development and the skilled nuanced teacher are
essential, but also good materials that allow a teacher to
follow along through a teacher's guide that embodies inquiry is
also very important.
Mr. Honda. Well, that is my point, Mr. Chairman, that if
the teachers only depend upon the textbook and they are not
taught to have the insights and integrate within themselves
that skill and understanding of where youngsters are and how to
move and weave this thing, we may not be paying enough
attention to where the problem really lies. And it is us adults
assuming that we can teach to those things because a scientist
is skilled in what they do. And we just all of a sudden
understood the contact between physical and biologic kinds
because we are able to get down to the nano scale. We have
other inquiries that we start to develop, but the basics are
still there.
I challenge what you guys are saying about instruction and
only gearing inquiry to the area of STEM.
Dr. Luft. Maybe I can take another--so science as inquiry
is very unique to science and it is different. Mathematics is
problem solving. And in mathematics, a student in math would
never be able to look at a phenomena as an advanced
mathematician does and create the formulas or the proofs that
are needed to explain the mathematics. But in science, we are
really interested in understanding the natural world. And it is
about making explanations about that natural world using
argument, using evidence, collecting data, and these are unique
pieces to science as inquiry and they are not necessarily
transferable to some of the other areas by the nature of the
content with which they are associated.
Mr. Honda. But is not math a language of science?
Dr. Luft. Math is.
Mr. Honda. It is a tool of science. And, I mean, if you
want to get that way, you can send a youngster through a
neighborhood and over time, they can figure out the facts and
say every time I go down the street, I am going to get hit, so
I have to figure out another way of getting around it.
Intuitively they have ways of looking at a problem and
solving it and we just have not figured out how to transfer
some of that----
Dr. Luft. Right.
Mr. Honda. [continuing]. Just trying to have us reshift our
thinking. And then, Mr. Chairman, if I could just close with
this one comment.
We have something like a little over $2 billion invested in
I think 120 STEM education programs by 12 agencies, none of
which are coordinated. Do you think that--you know, I have a
bill called ESTEM where we asked ourselves to gather all this
information. We have a repository where we can take advantage
of the information that is gathered by all these grants and
research.
Is that a need as far as having a place where we can go and
get the information that has already been figured out but never
been shared or coordinated or have some cohesion about what we
have already?
Mr. Strang. Well, coherence is good. So the more
coordination that can be achieved through the science agencies,
the better. And different science agencies are engaged in
different fields of scientific discovery and so have different
new material that gradually should become part of the science
education curriculum nationwide.
So there is a role for the separate agencies to be
exploring and discovering in their respective domains. And
then, of course, education efforts should be coordinated with
the goal of coherence. And we are hoping that the common
standards, the common core will help to achieve some of that
coherence in the near future.
But a lot has changed in the world of science discovery
since the National Science Education Standards were published
in 1996. So clearly we need some updating of what we think
students should know and understand by the end of twelfth
grade.
Mr. Honda. So we do not have anything that does that right
now?
Mr. Strang. Correct.
Mr. Honda. Do we need one?
Mr. Strang. One what?
Mr. Honda. To do that function that you just described.
Mr. Strang. One agency or one what?
Mr. Honda. Way. I mean, should we spend some time to do
that? Is it worth the time?
Mr. Strang. Sure. I mean, I think that coordination is
important and that the discoveries that are coming out of NOAA
and NASA and NSF have to be looked at in the context of what
are the salient ideas that kids need to know in order to have
access to these new discoveries as adult learners.
Mr. Honda. I would ask if you would not mind just reviewing
that bill and see if there is a--just getting your reaction,
professional reaction.
Mr. Strang. Of course.
Mr. Honda. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
A recess we have. I apologize to the panel. It is part of
the process here. We have about five votes and a recommit which
means we are probably recessing for about a half hour.
Mr. Strang. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. And we will be voting down there and so thank
you for your patience.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
[Recess.]

ASSESSING STUDENT INQUIRY

Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. We will
continue the hearing by calling up Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
to say, Berkeley, we have a witness from Cal, I mean, where are
the standards, Mr. Chairman? What, what--sorry, it is the
Stanford in me coming out. But I was reading your written
testimony, and plainly if you look at the map here you can see
that the land is far more than 30 percent. I mean, look at
that. Just look how big Antarctica is. It could not possibly be
less than 50 percent land.
Thank you both for coming today. I concur completely with
the thrust of your testimony in terms of inquiry-based
teaching. And when I think back about my high school years in
particular the lessons that stand out to me were very inquiry-
based, were very kind of innovative and not rote memorization.
I had a wonderful teacher, for example, who gave us a test, a
pop quiz that was impossibly difficult. And we were all in a
panic because it was horribly impossible. And we were failing
it. And then he revealed afterwards that this was the same exam
they gave African Americans in order to qualify to vote. It was
the polling exam. And it was a very clever way of teaching us
that the exam was meant for them to fail. And it was a lesson I
remember to this day because of the innovative way it was
taught. I mean, had they just said memorize the fact that they
used to require African Americans to take this test because
they wanted them to fail and not be able to vote, I would
probably never have remembered that. But at one point he would
assign more and more homework and more and more homework. It
got impossible to do and we got together as students and
protested. And he was teaching us about collective bargaining.
It was really quite wonderful.
And the question I have is, you know and I think this is
pertinent in light of the fact that we are looking at reforming
No Child Left Behind. There are some laudatory goals in No
Child Left Behind. We want ways to measure student achievement.
We want to be able to compare school to school. We want parents
to be armed with information so they can say to schools
similarly situated socioeconomically, et cetera, why is one
doing so much better than the other? The parents at the school
not doing so well can say why are our kids not doing as well?
How do you measure achievement in an inquiry-based learning
environment? If you are not teaching to the test, how do we
measure, how do we hold accountable? What are your thoughts on
that?
Mr. Strang. Well, there are assessment tools available that
look at the requisite inquiry skills and I think those tools
are available. And again, the question is are the results of
those assessments, when we look at them and find out how
students are doing, are those results valued compared to
results of content knowledge, understanding, and even more
importantly reading and math skills? So I think the tools
exist. They are a little bit more complicated to administer.
They are more like performance tasks, and open ended
constructive response items on assessments. They tend not to be
multiple choice, scannable tests. But they certainly exist and
are available for school districts that want to use them. The
question is, what is the value of using them if nobody cares
what the results are?

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Mr. Schiff. It has always been considered a strength of
education in the United States, and maybe part of our culture
also, this propensity we have to kind of question things, not
do things by rote, think outside the box. It has been a
competitive economic advantage for us vis a vis other countries
that have turned out much greater numbers of college graduates.
How have we been able to do that? Are we doing less of it now
because we are, you know, sort of teaching to the test, and
going to a more rote system? What are other countries doing? Is
China teaching with an inquiry-based system, or Japan, or
Germany, or India? How do we compare? Are we losing our
advantage?
Dr. Luft. I think the U.S. education system is the best in
the world. And it gives a lot of graduates, we can say this at
the university level, people come from all over the world to
study in our system. So this system is amazing in its
commitment to every student in this country. And we have to
realize when we think broadly not all countries are committed
to every student. So that is something to always keep in mind.
But I think one thing that is really promising that we are
doing in terms of even coming more to a consensus about what we
should be teaching in science is we are working to really
identify some core standards. And I know the common core is
coming up, it is up in English and mathematics, they are
working on that, this is promising. And what it brings forward
to science are the key ideas and the central ideas that are
really important that we need to come around. So we are not
trying to teach a lot of things; we are teaching the very few
important things really well. And when we look at other
countries, that is what we see. We see some very clear
expectations of what students are to know and opportunities for
those students to learn. But when we do look at other countries
too, I want to stress this, in some of the countries we do not
see as much inquiry as we are really promoting here. And I
think the value behind inquiry is the innovation that it gives
this country to be on the front edge of the ability to solve
problems and to really think outside the box. This is something
that this country has always been dedicated to. And I think our
curriculum really supports that. And I am encouraged greatly by
thinking about the common standards. I think that will really
help move us along greatly.
Mr. Strang. I will just add that at the Lawrence Hall of
Science at U.C. Berkeley we have a fairly constant flow of
visitors from Japan, China, Singapore, et cetera. Countries
that all score higher than the United States in the
international assessments of math and science. And they are
coming to the United States, and to California, and to Berkeley
in particular, to learn about inquiry. And they are scoring
high, their students are scoring higher on their tests. But
their students are not engaged in science, and not continuing
in science at the secondary level. So they are coming to us to
learn about this sort of magic of teaching kids how to think,
and how to get excited about the natural world, and how to
investigate and puzzle through problem solving and answering
their own questions. And I think many of those countries are
superb at implementing science education programs, but not very
good at designing science education programs. And I think the
United States is exactly the opposite. We have this sort of
cutting edge, brilliant thinking about the design of programs
but we are very challenged at implementing, as we are hearing
about today, and providing this inquiry-based opportunity for a
large population of students in school districts and states all
over the country that have different standards and different
assessment tools, etcetera.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IMPORTANCE OF STEM EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work that you
are doing that we are talking about today I think is among the
most important things we can possibly do to help strengthen the
country in the future. I completely agree with the Chairman
about inquiry-based education. And am delighted to see the
support that the Committee and the administration have for
strengthening the existing programs at NOAA, and the National
Science Foundation, and NASA to help teach teachers to do a
better job of teaching science and to strengthen these programs
at the district and the state level. My only concern is to be
sure that if states or districts accept the money that we are
not imposing national standards on them. I am a big believer in
education is not under the Constitution under the tenth
amendment, it is reserved to the states. And that would be my
only concern, Mr. Chairman. I am just delighted that you have
called this hearing and very, very supportive of this work and
this effort. Thank you, sir.

STANDARDS OF LEARNING

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the
witnesses. I have introduced legislation in support of common
core. And I think that the fact that the states and the
governors have gotten together and have agreed that there
really is not any difference, you know I represent
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but there is really no difference
in algebra in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and algebra in
Philadelphia, Mississippi. I mean, there are really, you know,
through a number of analyses we know with a certainty that most
of our children do not get the higher order math in the order
that they need to receive it to, by direction of the College
Board twenty years ago, about where the sequencing of these
courses should come. But that is really not happening. It is
not happening in Pennsylvania, or in West Virginia. It is not
happening in Texas.
I mean, so the fact that children do not, the fact that
children do not achieve as well as we would like them to is not
really new. In fact, when the Nation at Risk study came out in
the 1980's it talked about the dearth of our young people being
able to pursue rather science or math. Most of our children in
this country are not taught math and science by a teacher who
majored or minored in the subject matter. And it is impossible
for one to transmit information that they themselves do not
have. And I have spent a lot of time looking at some of the
challenges, and you know, states have been wrestling with this.
The common core, I think, gets at this in a way in which even
me and my colleague from Texas can agree since this is a state-
driven initiative by individual states who have gotten together
to say that we really need to, I think it was President Nixon
who said it was a national imperative, that we really do need
to make sure that our young people gain an ability to
critically think and analyze.
So I want to thank the Chairman. He has done a great deal
without notice over the years to promote science and math
through the work of this Subcommittee. And there is more that
we need to do. And we have problems all the way throughout our
system. We have almost, I mean I do not want to be overly
dramatic, which is the way it is done here in Washington, but
there is a significant absence of native born Americans
pursuing terminal degrees in math and science. So that when we
talk about, if we looked at the National Nuclear Security
Agency, who are handling our nuclear stockpile, as these people
are checking out, that is retiring out, and some 80 percent, 85
percent of the workforce is leaving in the next decade, in
terms of young people pursuing nuclear physics, and some of
these other, you know, needed disciplines, there is going to be
no one to even hire that meet the security requirement of being
an American citizen to be able to do this work.
So we have to do something. The idea that education is a
local prerogative, and that people can decide how dumb they
want their children to be, and it is no concern to us if they
do not want to provide an education, no that is not true. And
that is why in this international competition economically we
are getting our clock cleaned by nations that have really
devoted themselves to driving math and science through to their
young people. And many of these countries, you know India has
got a billion people. So, you know, if we have got a much
smaller population, and there is some who would like us to have
even less of a population, you know, in terms of immigration
issues, then we are going to have to be a lot smarter if we are
going to compete. You know, and then China has got even more
people. And they are ramping up their education system.
So, you know, when Japan was out-competing, out-producing
us in engineers, you know, a couple of decades ago, people
said, well, it is a much smaller country. You know, it does not
really matter, and so on. Now China is out-producing us in the
production of engineers and it really does matter. You know?
And it really will have an impact.
So I just want to thank you for the work that you are
doing. And I want to thank the Chairman for putting a focus on
this at the very front end of the work of the Subcommittee as
we go forward. Because when we talk, when we are out on the
floor talking about jobs it really starts with the work that
you are doing. That if we do not do something about this it is
impossible for us to be competitive economically and to have
the job base that we want to have in this country. So thank
you.

SPREADING INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you, Mr. Fattah. We talked a
little bit earlier about if there is a consensus among those
who really think about these things that inquiry-based STEM
education is the best way to proceed. How do you get a broad
based consensus, and then how do you get broad based
implementation? And is that the crux of the challenge we face?
Dr. Luft.
Dr. Luft. I think it is two-fold. You know, we have to get
the information out there. And I think teachers really do
agree, again I want to stress it, they do agree that science as
inquiry is a great way to teach but they feel incredibly
constrained.
Mr. Mollohan. Now you are talking about teachers out in the
field?
Dr. Luft. I am talking about teachers out, and teachers
that I prepare. So I work very closely and monitor a lot of
what happens in teacher preparation. So across the continuum:
pre-service teachers, new teachers as well as experienced
teachers. And I think they are excited about inquiry and what
it offers. But I think, again, they are very constrained by
sometimes the, as we have talked about extensively about here,
is the testing that is imposed on them to meet those standards.
Mr. Mollohan. So what are the impediments? Testing?
Dr. Luft. Testing is a big one. I think also having the
fiscal support for getting the materials into the classroom.
Mr. Mollohan. Materials?

TEACHER'S CHALLENGES

Dr. Luft. Having some personnel that can actually support
them, which would be important. Professional development
programs that are extensive, so we know, actually the research
is pretty compelling that we are looking at threshold hours,
they said sixty yesterday, the data I have seen has said
eighty. There is some effect, but then when you push up to 160
you start to really get an effect of using inquiry. So----
Mr. Mollohan. And that is retraining the teachers?
Reteaching the teachers, 180 hours you are really----
Dr. Luft. Professional, extended professional development.
Yes, yes, I think you are right. Training the teachers. And it
is really giving them deep opportunities to learn the content
but to also work with their peers. So some of the more
compelling work that is coming out is talking about teachers in
communities. So as teachers work together to examine students'
work they can really see what they are doing, and they can make
decisions about what they need to do in the curriculum to
enhance the work that they are doing in the classroom. And
schools are set up, though, not to give teachers this kind of
time. Schools, by the very nature of their construction, do not
give teachers enough time to sit and reflect and really
understand what their students know. I mean, to do that these
teachers would have to pore over the work. They would make
judgments about the work, and they would say, well what am I
going to do next? And schools do not allow that, because they
start at 7:30 in the morning, and these teachers are with these
students the entire time until they go home.
Mr. Mollohan. So you really have to do that outside the
classroom, and probably outside the school year in some sort of
retraining program, and materials and----
Dr. Luft. But, but yes----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. The money to do that, and
incentivize teachers to actually come into those programs.
Dr. Luft. So you are----
Mr. Mollohan. You probably have to work with stipends.
Dr. Luft. So you are giving them another, I just want to be
very clear about this, you are giving them a second job on top
of their current job. And I think all of us in our profession,
we have, I have opportunities, my university says, Julie, we
want you to get some training. We are going to give you two
weeks off to go get that. You know? Because it is that
important that you bring it back to us. And I think we have to
think----
Mr. Mollohan. Is that two weeks off paid?
Dr. Luft. If it is affiliated with my work----
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Sure. I mean----
Dr. Luft [continuing]. They will work with me on it. Yes.
Yes. I can work my schedule.
Mr. Mollohan. I think you have to be unapologetic about
that, to tell you the truth.
Dr. Luft. Yes. Yes. No, no. But I am paid by a taxpayer.
Mr. Mollohan. Because there are a lot of teachers out there
that they only time they have to relearn is during the summer,
and they have got a lot of things to do in the summer.
Dr. Luft. And it gets worse.
Mr. Mollohan. If this is important.
Dr. Luft. Absolutely. And it is worse than that. So these
guys not only want to improve their practice, they are working
with kids and they cannot get the time off during the day to
think about it. But say they want to go to a conference to meet
with other people who are excited about what they are doing.
They cannot get the time off from their district to go to these
conferences because the district cannot give them time because
they do not have enough subs. So the very barriers, the very
barriers that are in place are keeping these teachers from
doing the work that they want to do and need to do.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Assuming we have got all the right
things----
Dr. Luft. These pieces, yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. You should be doing. Mr. Strang.
Mr. Strang. Yes, so I think our schools are set up in a way
that we assume that once a teacher is ready to teach that all
they need to do is just teach. And none of our jobs are like
that, and we are expected to grow, and continue learning, and
to interact with our colleagues and our peers on a regular
basis. And it takes up a lot of our day each day. And I think
we need to rethink the learning and the teaching environment.
If we are expecting kids to engage in inquiry, then teachers
need to be engaged in their own inquiry, and adult learning,
and extending their own practice in the same way that they are
expecting their kids to.
And I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that
even with extended teacher professional development, teachers'
beliefs and understandings, their knowledge and beliefs, change
long before their practice changes. And this is true of all of
us, but we observe it very clearly in teacher professional
development. That teachers take the pre- and the post-survey.
They tell us that, oh my God, this is changing my life. I am
going to, you know, I get it, I understand, I am never going to
teach the same way again. And we go back into their classrooms
a month or two months later, and we observe their lessons, and
they are teaching the same way they did last year.
So this is the sort of ongoing professional development
that Dr. Luft is talking about, where teachers need to be
trying something out in a scaffolded, structured environment,
gathering student work, bringing it back, sharing it with
colleagues, watching video tapes of themselves teaching,
observing their colleagues teaching, and really thinking, how
do I know what my kids are learning? How do I know what is in
their heads? And when I find out what is in their heads, what
is it that I can do to make them turn this way rather than that
way? And at what point in my lesson could I have asked a
different question, or provided additional experiences, gone
back to observing the phenomenon, etcetera, that could have
overcome that potential misconception that is building in my
kids' heads? And I think, you know, that is challenging,
thoughtful work, not to be taken lightly. And it is not just
going to a workshop and coming back and, oh I get it, I am
different now. It is just as hard in a teaching setting as it
is in any of our professional lives, to actually change our
practice.
Mr. Mollohan. Sounds like some really good elements for a
demonstration project you all are coming forth with, here.

TEACHER PREPARATION IN SCIENCE

Mr. Strang. Yes. And I want to also just comment on
something that Mr. Fattah said about the importance of having
people in schools teaching science that have some background in
science. And that is a challenge at the secondary level. It is
almost an impossibility at the elementary level.
Mr. Fattah. At the elementary level it does not exist.
Mr. Strang. Yes. And I think this notion of attracting our
best and brightest science students into the teaching
profession is very important. And there are many high quality
programs, like Dr. Luft's at Berkeley. There is the Cal Teach
program that is a teacher preparation program that attracts
science students in particular into the teaching professions.
There are examples of those things. But broadly across the
country there is still a phenomenon in science departments in
universities that scientists, faculty, consider it a failure if
their graduate students go into teaching. That is considered
second, or third, or fourth class. And I think that this
reflects the view of the American public of the teaching
profession. And that part of our job also is to elevate the
teaching profession and make this a desirable, noble job for
teachers to pursue, for students to pursue from all different
disciplines.

STEM EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan. You all, I bet, interact with the Department
of Education?
Dr. Luft. I have. I have had projects that have been
affiliated with the Department of Ed.
Mr. Mollohan. What is the Department of Education doing in
this area?
Dr. Luft. I mean I think this, you know----
Mr. Mollohan. But I mean to facilitate the national
adaptation of inquiry-based learning, and the teaching the
teachers that needs to happen in order to accomplish that? And
getting the materials out that need to accomplish that?
Dr. Luft. I think one of the----
Mr. Mollohan. Which I want to get into a little bit.
Dr. Luft. Yes. I think one of the big initiatives that
just, I mean you did form, their Math and Science Partnerships
were moved to the Department of Ed.
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry, what?
Dr. Luft. The MSPs, the Math and Science Partnerships were
moved there. So that has been their responsibility, to try to
cultivate and support these partnerships. But I think the work,
and it is very good work, it is very important work, but I
think the coordination that is coming from the science
community, or the efforts that are coming from the science
community, NSF, those are the pieces of work that are really at
the heart of the matter of the materials and of the
professional development opportunities.
Mr. Mollohan. Why is Education not doing this? I mean, they
are the ones who would know this before we would know it,
supposedly.
Dr. Luft. Are you talking about the Department of
Education? Or are you talking about educators? Or----
Mr. Mollohan. I am talking about the federal government. We
are an Appropriations Committee, and at the end of this I am
going to ask you for some suggestions, guidance on funding. And
maybe doing a demonstration.
How you would like to see that happen. We are going to
invite you to help us with that. But right now I am asking you,
why is the Department of Education not, if there is that
consensus out there among the thinkers, and it is not being
readily, or quickly, integrated into the educational system in
these areas, STEM areas, across the country, what is the
Department of Education doing about that? And why, are they
doing it well? Or are they not doing it well? And if they are
not doing it well, why not?
Dr. Luft. Their work is different. I mean, I think----
Mr. Mollohan. The Department of Education?
Dr. Luft. Well, they have the MSPs and they have the IES
grants, the institute grants which develop research, and they
are looking for degrees of scale-out in terms of
implementation. But when you go into in a separate, so somebody
who has worked, you know, remotely with some of those projects
and been involved on them, it is not the level, it is, there
are different types of projects. I think when you go to NSF you
have an investment in curriculum materials, and the development
of curriculum materials.
Mr. Mollohan. But I am actually talking about changing the
culture. You would think that it is ubiquitous, it sounds like.
They would have to go in and really change the----
Dr. Luft. But they are not. It is not there.
Mr. Mollohan. I mean, some national symposium, or some
national study that would redefine how science and math should
be taught in education. It seems you would have to deal with it
at this level. Because we are down here doing model projects to
prove out what has already been proven. Because you have told
me, and the last panel told the Committee that inquiry-based
education is the way to go. So if that is an established fact
among the thinkers then it seems to me the next problem, the
real thing that has to happen, is to get it down to it.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, let them answer that, John.
Mr. Culberson. Maybe a little help on this?
Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask them to help first.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Mollohan. And then I will get right to you.
Mr. Strang. Well, I think this gets back to some of my
earlier comments about first of all, sort of a disconnect in
priorities. That despite the fact that we know what works in
science, science in general is not a priority in our education
system.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh my gosh. That shocks me because, and I
said this yesterday, that every year the National Science
Foundation comes up here and reports on the status of education
in America. Science, our students are always behind, as Mr.
Schiff and Mr. Fattah pointed out, always behind the world in
that. I just have to----
Mr. Strang. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. At least as it is presented to
us through NSF----
Mr. Strang. Right. So----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. It sounds like it is a problem.
Mr. Strang. Yes. And so, and my earlier comments were that
I think that the science agencies, NOAA and NASA and NSF in
particular, need to play a lead role in----
Mr. Culberson. Bingo.
Mr. Strang [continuing]. In getting----
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Strang [continuing]. Science education out there in
schools. That we cannot expect educators with no background in
science to be promoting and implementing and disseminating----
Mr. Mollohan. Ah.
Mr. Culberson. That is the key.
Mr. Strang [continuing]. High quality science education
strategies.
Mr. Mollohan. Department of Education?
Mr. Culberson. That is what I was going to----
Mr. Strang. And I think that, you know, I go into
elementary schools in California where the school principals
are telling their teachers, do not open that science kit until
your reading scores are raised.
Dr. Luft. That is right.
Mr. Strang. And all the research points to the fact that if
they open the science kits, the reading scores would go up. But
they are telling their teachers, ubiquitously, across the
board, science is not a priority. It is not a priority until
your math and your reading scores are up above this line.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, that is interesting.
Mr. Strang. Because we get hit over the head if the reading
scores are not up. It gets published in the newspaper. 100
percentile, 100 percent science scores do not help us a bit
when the scores get published in the newspaper.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, No Child Left Behind ought to hear
this. John.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is
the point I wanted to drive home. You are exactly right. That
the key is that the National Science Foundation, NOAA, NASA,
but particularly NSF need to be the lead on this. And when you
get professional educators----
Dr. Luft. That is right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Educrats, as I like to call
them, in charge of this they screw it up because they do not
understand how important it is. And the root of the problem,
Mr. Chairman, I think is, one of many bills that President Bush
pursued that I voted against and opposed, in his last, second
to last bill, remember Bush pushed a bill that transferred
responsibility for science education from the National Science
Foundation to the Department of Education.
Dr. Luft. The MSPs, that was the MSPs.
Mr. Strang. That was the MSPs.
Mr. Culberson. It passed the House. I opposed it. I do not
know what happened, I guess it passed in the Senate. Sometimes
you lose track of these things. That is the root of the
problem. And that is what they are testifying about, is at the
Department of Education they are just typical bureaucrats. They
do----
Mr. Mollohan. John----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Not have their priority right.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. You do not have to be
disparaging.
Mr. Culberson. I will be nice. But, I mean, NSF, we need to
seriously----
Mr. Mollohan. It is President, President Bush.
Mr. Culberson. By President Bush, unfortunately, this is
one of many things he did that I voted against. And we need to
get it back and NSF needs to be the lead agency. That is the
root of the problem.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is very interesting.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, this could be a major
breakthrough. I think I heard my colleague say that these
federal agencies should put together a national science
curriculum?
Mr. Culberson. No, no, no, be the lead to----
Dr. Luft. Lead----
Mr. Fattah. Oh, I am sorry, I did not hear that----
Mr. Culberson. With incentives, as I heard the Chairman
say. We need to do it through incentives. But NSF clearly needs
to be the lead, Mr. Chairman. And whatever we can do to undo
making the Department of Education the lead and put NSF back in
charge, they would work wonders.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Luft. It competes with everything.
Mr. Culberson. Is that correct?
Dr. Luft. That is absolutely----
Mr. Strang. I think there are some studies, some actual
cross site analysis of the Math and Science Partnership
programs that were run by NSF compared to the Math and Science
Partnership programs that were run by the Department of Ed. And
across the board, the NSF run programs had stronger outcomes.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, that is the root of the problem, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Did you get that study down? What study is
that?
Mr. Strang. I can send you a citation?
Mr. Mollohan. Please do.
Mr. Strang. Let me make myself a note.
Mr. Fattah. Yes, let me just, I am sorry?
Mr. Mollohan. No, Mr. Fattah.

SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION

Mr. Fattah. You know, all joking aside, I just want to make
sure that the record is clear. I mean, as long as we understand
that at this point in time, at the pre-high school in our
country, none of the teachers are even subject certified for
the most part.
Dr. Luft. That is right.
Mr. Fattah. So that in terms of science and all that, in
terms of our international competitors they are so far ahead of
us by the time our kids show up at high school. And then in
many of our both urban and rural areas, and you can go to
great, you know, states like my own, you can go to Texas, you
can go to West Virginia, there are schools that do not have,
they do not have science labs. You know, the Washington Post
had a front page story a few years ago, it said that, you know,
they focused on one school inside a city, and one school right
outside the city, in walking distance literally across the
county line. And they described one, and they said one of them
had a science lab, and it had, you know, microscopes, and it
had, the whole science faculty had advanced degrees in math.
And the school had, you know, just, it was a wonderful story.
And then they talked about this other school. And it did
not have any working equipment. It had no lab of sorts for kids
to do experiment and so on. And nobody had to guess which
school was inside the city and which school was in the suburbs.
And you did not even have to think about which city, because we
know that exists all over our country. And so, you know, we
should not be, it is intellectually dishonest for anybody to be
surprised when our kids do less well when we test them under
these various testing schemes. Because we know that we are
giving them less of everything we know they need in terms of
learning. So that at the end of the day, you know, that is the
challenge that we have. That if we want to do differently we
are going to have to act in a much different way. And it will
have to be a scale.
And the Chairman is right. We know what works. You know? It
is just a question about whether we are going to decide that we
are prepared to do to make sure that children are exposed to
quality teaching, and, you know, and a rigorous curriculum.
Because that will require an investment. And sometimes the
tradeoffs between, you know, tax cuts and investing in
education politically are more instantaneously rewarding than,
you know, it takes a kid, you know, seven years at Penn to get
a Ph.D. in math. So if you are starting to worry about this kid
in preschool, all the way up to there, you know, it is a
thirty-year pipeline.
Mr. Culberson. Well, if the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Fattah. And, you know, we do not have the patience for
that in Washington. You know, we do not, it is hard for us to
see that far.
Mr. Culberson. I really do share, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
very briefly, I really want to help you with this. This is, I
think, as important to our national security as any investment
we make in intercontinental ballistic missiles, or nuclear
submarines. Investing in science education, and getting NSF
back in the drivers seat I think. I want to help any way I can,
Mr. Chairman. I am with you. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I welcome that offer for help,
particularly from the gentleman. I just want to point out it is
going to cost money.
Mr. Culberson. No, I am there. Science education, I am
there.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, that is great.
Dr. Luft. It is the most important thing we can do.
Mr. Culberson. As long as there are not national standards.
Mr. Fattah. Bipartisan----
Dr. Luft. There are national standards----
Mr. Culberson. As long as there is no national curriculum,
I should say.

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

Mr. Mollohan. Let me, I would like to explore, thank you,
thank the gentleman. We will count on it. I would like to
explore just a couple of topics here quickly. Materials, we
have a lot of materials that are produced by, or do we? Do we
have a lot of national textbook material production folks? Or
is that pretty well concentrated? And are they embracing
inquiry-based education in the curriculum materials that they
are producing for school systems?
Mr. Strang. Well there are many textbook publishers that
develop and publish and distribute textbooks. There are really
only a handful of instructional materials developers that
embody inquiry-based science methods. So that is a smaller
subset.
There is the Lawrence Hall of Science and Education
Development Center, TERC in Boston, BSCS, there is--you can
count them on one or two hands.
Mr. Mollohan. That do inquiry-based materials production.
Is it a comprehensive across all the topics you would teach in
these areas and for the various grades?
Mr. Strang. They are--go ahead.
Dr. Luft. Oh, no, go ahead.
Mr. Strang. Well they are developers of comprehensive
curriculum materials, they are also sometimes the same
developers also produce supplemental or enrichment materials or
modular materials that can be inserted into other programs. So
the range is available, and there are comprehensive materials K
through 12, life science, Earth science, physical science that
are available for large scale adoptions.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, doctor.
Dr. Luft. I concur. I mean, I think that is--there are the
materials there, it just becomes--as you get into the secondary
level the materials issue becomes a little bit more complex
because sometimes you need more advanced materials in order to
run the investigations.
So the limiting factor, I mean, you are talking about--you
could be talking about microscopes or using advanced equipment.
So sometimes just doing some really important investigations
are more--require more materials.
Mr. Mollohan. Uh-huh. Well the same, if these--Prentice
Hall, that sticks in my mind. Is that a----
Dr. Luft. That is a publisher.
Mr. Strang. Textbook publisher, yeah.
Dr. Luft. Textbook publisher.
Mr. Mollohan. Of academic, yeah. Produce materials and
brought them down to a middle school and said we have a whole
new set of this inquiry-based and then we have the traditional
things you have been buying for years, and gee, you know, we
are selling books so we will sell you either group. But that
isn't available is it? I mean----
Dr. Luft. The problem isn't--I mean, I don't want to--the
materials are an important piece of this, but the problem is
the support that goes on with it. You know if I buy the
materials that is fine----
Mr. Mollohan. How do I teach?
Dr. Luft [continuing]. But how do I really teach using
those materials is a key piece, and districts don't have money
or they don't have the person who is knowledgeable to support
the use of those materials or the teachers.
And we know this too, that teachers can have access to
great materials, but they can be used in ways that aren't
productive.
Mr. Mollohan. So this has to start back in the education--
teacher education.
Dr. Luft. It has to--you have to hit it all the way
through. I mean, you have to always make sure that if you want
good science instruction you have really got to make sure that
you support it when teachers are in schools, and this is having
teachers have access to how to use the materials.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Dr. Luft. Just buying the materials, anybody is happy to
sell the materials, but supporting the materials so the
teachers really take that, and studying--it is working with the
materials to uncover student's understanding so that we know
what to do next.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Dr. Luft. That is a very powerful piece.
Mr. Mollohan. So it really is a cultural issue. It is all
these threads have to be changed in order to----
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And it has to be coordinated in
order to shift.
Dr. Luft. You are right; in pre-service it is very
important that we support these teachers and help them
understand how to use the materials. I mean, that is a big
piece of it also.
Mr. Strang. Right. And providing teachers with a consistent
message all through their educational career.
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Strang. Including their professional development.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Strang. And as a practicing teacher, you know, there
should be, I would hope, some unity in the message that they
are receiving about these different methods.
The other thing that I just wanted to mention is that when
you talked about Prentice Hall saying well we have two sets of
materials, the traditional and the inquiry, it is a little bit
more complicated than that, because the nature of the
development of those materials is very different. And while a
textbook publisher can take the most recent set of standards
from any particular state and develop a textbook very quickly
that addresses everyone of those standards, the development
time line for inquiry-based materials might be three years and
require a significant investment in the design and development
because they are research-based, they are applying educational
research and pedagogy, they are extensively pilot tested, field
tested, revised and field tested again before they hit the
market, and textbook publishers are not typically set up to do
that kind of development. That is why we depend on NSF and NOAA
and NASA to support the design and development of those
materials and then we establish relationships with publishers
for the distribution. But without the initial investment from
the science agencies the materials would never be developed.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for getting that on the record,
that is very important to this Committee, because we are
interested in supporting that. But it does make the point that
materials is development and integration and support for its
integration is a real inhibitor to moving in this direction.
Dr. Luft. But also providing----
Mr. Mollohan. Correct?
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Strang. And the support.
Dr. Luft. And the support. But I think what would be really
great is if NSF did some of this originally was when they
developed these materials--and I know that you work with
curriculum agencies or with the textbook companies to do the
dissemination--but it would be really fantastic if NSF would
help develop these materials and also help put them in schools.
So if we bypass some of the people who are selling them, but
having the people who are developing them really working with
teachers to help them put them in schools that would be
fantastic. And originally that was done a long, long time ago
that was part of the initiative
Mr. Mollohan. Where was that done?
Dr. Luft. In the--at Sputnik. It was an outgrowth of
Sputnik. They actually had the people who were developing the
materials were also supporting to put them in schools.
Mr. Mollohan. I guess there is an example out there that we
could go look at.
Dr. Luft. It is a historical example. But now we move
through textbook publishers. You may or some do or some don't,
but the idea there is this long-term investment even beyond the
development of the materials so that it can get into schools
and with teachers from the people who had envisioned how they
were to be used.
Mr. Mollohan. So who would do the support? I know who would
develop the materials, that is the textbook people. If there
were a demand out there they would spend the three years
developing the materials, but who does the support and where do
the resources come? And obviously that would take a lot of re-
teaching and re-training. How do you teach this material? So
whose responsibility is that?
Mr. Strang. Well when--I will speak for my institution at
the Lawrence Hall of Science. When we develop materials we
assume that the development and publication of the materials is
the first half of our job.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Strang. And we are very deeply involved in the support
of the implementation of those materials. So we establish
professional networks around the county, centers around the
country that are supporting the local implementation of our
materials. And the leaders of those centers come to Lawrence
Hall of Science and go through days or sometimes weeks worth of
professional development with us.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that supported by the marketplace or the
educational systems in each state or county, or do you have a
grant that is supporting that all the way through?
Mr. Strang. Our involvement is typically supported by
grants, typically NSF.
Mr. Mollohan. Ah.
Mr. Strang. And----
Mr. Mollohan. So you are--I am sorry to interrupt you. Let
me just understand each piece and you remember what you were
going to say, if you will.
So you have the grant that helps develop the materials, and
also as an academic institution supports the integration of
those materials into the classroom----
Mr. Strang. That is right.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Which really involves teaching
the teachers and bringing the teacher back for more education,
and then an ongoing--they could pick up the telephone and say
gee, I got this problem, you can say----
Mr. Strang. Right.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. This is the solution. That is
the kind of system you are talking about.
Mr. Strang. Absolutely, absolutely. And it happens in a
couple of different ways. Probably many more than that, but two
that I will mention.
One is that we receive grants to do the development, and
then we receive grants to conduct professional development
related to the materials that we have developed.
When we are developing the materials, I mentioned a couple
of times, we go through this extensive field testing process
and we have partnerships with school districts around the
country that are very eager to field test our materials because
they know that typically they are pretty good, and at the end
after the field test they are going to be interested in
implementing. And by going through the field test they are
building support within their district at the earliest stages
for these particular materials.
So teachers that have field tested the materials are very
invested in continuing to use them and they get their name in
the book as field test teachers and there is some status that
goes along with that they work. And we listen to the teachers
that are field testing and they can see their comments and
feedback reflected in the final drafts.
The other way that that support happens other than the
field test and the subsequent grants for professional
development, are that in--we chose very carefully the
publishers that we establish partnerships with, and the
publishers make commitments to school districts that when they
purchase the materials there is a certain amount of
professional development that will be--that will accompany the
purchase of the materials, and then the publishers contract
back with us to go deliver the professional development.
Mr. Mollohan. You pay them to do it.
Mr. Strang. The publishers pay us to do it.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, oh, okay, I see. I see.
Mr. Strang. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. I see. So the grant to develop it and then
you have the--they make the commitment and you are
subcontracted.
Mr. Strang. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you have anything to add to that?
Dr. Luft. I think Lawrence Hall of Science is an exemplary
model in how it should work, but in a lot of instances there
are districts that don't get that kind of support.
So when I look in the Phoenix metropolitan area there are
some schools that I know participate in this, but there are
many schools and science teachers that I work with that just
don't have access to this. So I don't know.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, I guarantee you.
Dr. Luft. Yes. Because this is fiscally intensive, it just
doesn't happen. I mean, it is just not that common.
Mr. Mollohan. Well and that is the question, which is what
I am saying. How do you scale these proven materials,
techniques, how do you scale that up on a national level? So
how do you?
Mr. Strang. Well we went through----
Mr. Mollohan. You have to incentivize somebody.

SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES

Mr. Strang. Yes. We went through sort of a generation of
NSF supported systemic initiatives, statewide systemic
initiatives, world systemic initiatives, urban systemic
initiatives, et cetera.
Mr. Mollohan. That was about 15 years ago wasn't it?
Mr. Strang. Yes. And they were across the board;
generalizing, pretty successful. And when the funding stopped
the fidelity to the implementation started to decrease.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, but as you point out, the science
agencies, you know, simply proving out. They are the ones that
understand the science and so you could only expect them to
prove it out, they are not going to be sustaining. At some
point the state educational systems have to pick this up.
Mr. Strang. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. They are spending money on science, so
obviously it didn't work, because it didn't take.
Mr. Strang. That is right.
Mr. Mollohan. And why didn't it take to make systemic
initiatives? It wasn't mature enough? Your program wasn't
mature enough for it to be recognized as the way to go, or it
wasn't----
Mr. Strang. Oh, I think many of those programs used FOSS in
the early generations of FOSS, and I think--you know, it is a
good question. I don't have a simple answer, but I think that
there are a lot of policy issues that impact schools.
So I get back to, you know, we invested all this time and
money in purchasing the materials, even in doing professional
development, being part of the systemic initiative, and now we
are told that the only thing that matters is our reading and
math scores.
Mr. Mollohan. So are you suggesting that No Child Left
Behind is kind of overtaken with this?
Mr. Strang. I think there were unintended outcomes to No
Child Left Behind----
Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me for interrupting. Are you all
telling the authorizing Committee who is reconsidering re-
authorization of No Child Left Behind, are you telling them
this--these problems?
Dr. Luft. We are working very hard on doing that on all
fronts. I mean we are in academics, we are at the National
Science Teacher's Association meeting.
Mr. Mollohan. What about the chairman of the Committee that
is dealing with this?
Dr. Luft. We would be----
Mr. Mollohan. Here.
Dr. Luft [continuing]. Happy to meet with them and tell
them----
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, no, I know you would, I am just wondering
if you are.
Dr. Luft. And you have a lot of teachers in this room who
would probably be happy to meet with him and tell him, too.
Mr. Mollohan. Well and the members of Congress that are on
that Committee, that is where it all starts. You really have to
get in.

PERSONNEL TURN OVER

Dr. Luft. You are getting at another fundamental issue here
that is really problematic too. I mean, we can have the USIs
and the rural and urban systemic initiatives were important,
but teachers don't stay in the same place the whole time, and
neither do administrators, and neither do science specialists.
So if you put a lot of resources into help a community develop
inquiry, and I was in a district that did, but when the
superintendent left, when the science coordinators were done
away with, when teachers moved to new schools you have lost the
momentum to teach in those settings. So this isn't just
something where it is one shot in the arm. You know, you have
to kind of keep having boosters in this.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I mean it would be a bad strategy to
embed the ideas in people. You need to embed the ideas in the
system.
Mr. Luft. But the problem is that the system is always
fluctuating in education, and that is--we have superintendents
who leave if they don't work with the board, we have principals
that are moving, you have science coordinators who are--so it
is how do we get right the curriculum that is in there and get
the sustained professional development for the teachers that
they always enact this?

NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Strang. And I think also when the National Science
Education Standards were published in 1996 subsequent to the
AAAS benchmarks for science literacy there was a huge emphasis
in both of those documents on inquiry-based science education.
When the National Science Education Standards were published in
1996, it called inquiry the central strategy of science
teaching, and that supported the benchmarks for science
literacy that was previously published by AAAS.
So there was wide recognition, and as I think Dr. Luft
said, the inquiry was considered content, that this is, you
know, this is important for kids to learn, this is as important
as any of the concepts.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT

When assessments of student learning were developed most of
the assessments focused on assessing student's knowledge of
science concepts, because it is easier to assess. So one of the
problems is if you are assessing--are we assessing--it is
always asking the question, are we assessing the things that we
care about, or are we assessing the things that are easy to
assess?
Dr. Luft. Right.
Mr. Strang. And there is a huge difference and disconnect
there that we measure the things that are measurable or cheaply
measurable, and that is fine, but we then have to have some way
of paying attention to the things we care about that may be
more challenging or more expensive to measure. And it is not
that it is not possible to measure them, it certainly is
possible, but----
Dr. Luft. It is expensive.
Mr. Strang [continuing]. It is more complicated and more
expensive.
Dr. Luft. I was actually fortunate to build on this. I was
actually fortunate to be in graduate school when they were
developing performance assessments that they were going to
scale for national assessments, and that is if you really want
to get at student understanding, performance assessments are
fantastic, but they are difficult because you have to figure
out what it is you want to test, but you also have to think
about what is the test that you are going to issue. And in
science it becomes confounded by the content.
So there was some original work actually done out of
California to create some performance assessments that they
were looking at that they were doing to disseminate broadly so
teachers could do these assessments in class. The beauty behind
this assessment is it provided information that was formative
so that teachers could know what to do next, but it would also
let you know where students were. So it provided more
information than just the score on the test, it gave
information to a lot of people about how students learned and
what teachers could be doing. Those are the rich assessments we
need to go after. Those assessments are incredible.
And the reason I think our project kind of came to a halt,
they are expensive to enact, they are expensive to calibrate,
you have to keep updating them to get people to give them, that
is a whole other problem. So it is an expensive business if you
want to have a really good assessment that does the right kind
of things.
Mr. Mollohan. So is that an ongoing assessment process that
it is so expensive and so hard to do, or is that just proving
out the system?
Dr. Luft. That is a great question. It is not that it is--
the ongoing process is, say if I am going to give a performance
assessment, I am going to have to have somebody give that
assessment in multiple classrooms, but then not only that, I
have to score these assessments. And these assessments,
performance assessments, can be scaled by a rubric, which just
states the criteria in where the student is, or it can be, you
know, some kind of checklist that you are looking for. But
there has to be some accounting of what the student is actually
performing or doing, and those--just watching that and
gathering that data is very expensive, because it costs people;
it is people time.
Mr. Mollohan. Well then that is very sad. Because when you
get down into Webster County, West Virginia, which isn't in my
district, you get down to Webster County, West Virginia, they
are not going to have a lot of money to do that. So if that is
true, you can't work around that, and that is--and I am not
quite understanding what you are saying, but if that is
crucial--I am not quite sure what you are saying with regard to
this point. If that is crucial for implementing inquiry-based
education then that is very sad, because that will be a real
stopper when it gets down to the local level if the school
superintendent who has scarce resources has to come up with
2 times how much it costs to test.
Mr. Strang. Right.
Dr. Luft. Well, I think the issue is this. If you want
science's inquiry the question, and what we are trying to hit
on really hard is, that it is how you chose to assess it. And
how you chose to assess it is ultimately going to drive how it
is enacted.
And you are right, to have the kind of assessments if you
want to look to see how a kid is observing, how they are
handling this kind of information, the assessments that they
develop to do these kinds of things cost a lot of money.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that part and parcel of inquiry--based
education for science? A significant increase in the cost of
teaching and testing and everything that is involved with it?
Mr. Strang. So when we develop materials now we build into
the instructional materials an assessment system, curriculum
embedded assessments that provide teachers with information
about student learning for the purpose of informing their own
instruction and practice, not for the purpose of grading kids.
Dr. Luft. Right.
Mr. Strang. Which is a very different purpose. So when we
talk about assessment we need to talk about what is the purpose
that this assessment is being used for?
So we build in these curriculum embedded assessments that
help teachers to get at student thinking. Where are they in the
conceptual development? And we call--there are certain embedded
assessment, and then at certain points in the units we have
what we call juncture assessments. They are assessments that we
want teachers to administer to assess the culmination of
students' understanding of a particular concept. And they are
junctures because we think if kids haven't generally acquired a
certain understanding of the concept the teacher shouldn't go
on. They should go back and find opportunities for re-teaching
and providing additional experiences. So these juncture
assessments are important in the continuity of a unit of
instruction.
Part of the problem is that our curriculum embedded
assessments do not necessarily provide teachers or school
administrators with predictions about how kids will do on their
standardized tests at the end of the year. They are completely
misaligned.
Mr. Mollohan. We had some testimony here yesterday that
there were dramatic improvements. Some people were trying to
make the point--and I more understand what they were trying to
do--they were trying to make the point gee, inquiry-based, it
will result in better test scores on the standardized tests,
and that is questioned I guess, but there was some testimony
that----
Dr. Luft. No, it----
Mr. Mollohan. I mean it was just hopeful testimony.
Dr. Luft. They said yesterday that you could develop
instruments that would measure--that would be measurable. That
you could develop strong multiple choice.
And I think what you are getting at is where the community
is in this. I think there are psychometricians or people who
develop tests that say that they can do it, and I think there
are people who look at student learning and teacher learning
and they say this is a little tougher than that.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I will tell you, if you are going to
move this--just thinking about it as a public policy matter--if
you are going to move in this direction then you are going to
have to have some sort of work around these two hard of things.
Because they can't be too hard to do this or it won't happen.
Mr. Strang. Agreed.
Mr. Mollohan. So you got to have some work around.
Dr. Luft. Right, right.
Mr. Mollohan. And it sounds like testing is one of the work
arounds.
Dr. Luft. I think that would be a great place for a lot of
work to occur.
Mr. Strang. Right. And for starters, good assessment, bad
assessments aside, or assessments of what we care about and
assessments of what we don't care about aside, again, at the
elementary level those standardized tests that kids take in
fifth grade in science don't really move the needle on the
school's academic performance index.
So even if the kids are scoring incredibly high on their
science test doesn't really help the school administration.
Dr. Luft. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. But then it would be understood in this re-
authorization I would think.
Mr. Strang. Yes.
Dr. Luft. There is one more kind of consequence about this
that I just saw for the first time this year that deals with
testing, and it is again working in schools which have been
very fortunate to do, is that the most important thing we can
do is build the capacity of our new teaching workforce. Right?
So this year I was charged with placing teachers in
schools. And in one of the schools we wanted to put I know very
good inquiry teachers who were doing great things in a science
area that is being tested. I said, I would like to put some
student teachers in there. And the teacher was very clear with
me saying, I can't take the next generation of teachers because
I need to make sure that I--these kids, my students hit and do
well on that test.
I have never seen this happen before, but we are being
locked out now in teacher preparation because of the pressure
to achieve on these tests.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you know, you are telling that to us
and we really value that and appreciate your doing that, and as
soon as I hear that I think about gee, this person over here
better hear that, and that is the person that is fashioning
this legislation, and I guess the education--Department of
Education who is advising them of what they ought to put into
this.
Dr. Luft. Good teachers don't want to take the risk to
build the next generation of teachers.
Mr. Mollohan. Well that is another really difficult
problem, I know.
Well, we are drawing to the close of the hearing, and I
would like to invite you all here in a summary fashion, and you
can talk as long as you want, but in a summary fashion we are
an Appropriation Committee, and we are trying to seriously look
at this issue. You both have expertise, so as we look at this
issue we would like for you to give us advise about how we
should be thinking about applying the scarce dollars that we
have to have the maximum benefit to achieve the results that we
are all--that are implicit here. So, Mr. Strang.
Mr. Strang. Thank you. Well let me just start by again
thanking you and the Committee for inviting both of us here,
and it is a pleasure and honor to have the opportunity to share
some of this information and hear about your work and some of
the challenges that we are all facing together in this endeavor
to improve student's abilities to think critically and make
their lives better by understanding how the natural world
works.
And I guess, you know, one of the things that-this issue of
policy constraints is huge, out there in the day-to-day lives
of teachers and school principals and school superintendents,
and so I think we have talked about that a lot, and I just want
to emphasize that no amount of curriculum development or
teacher professional development or teacher preparation can
really overcome those policy constraints that teachers and
schools are under.
The other thing that I want to go back to and reemphasize
from my comments is again the importance of the science
agencies in leading the effort to improve science education,
and there are many reasons for that that we have talked about,
and I want to say again that agencies like NOAA and NASA and
NSF in addition to having great expertise and understanding of
the endeavor of science and how to teach science and how to
expose kids to the process of science and scientific habits of
mind and scientific ways of thinking, in addition to that they
are out there making discoveries every day, and those
discoveries need to have a pathway into the curriculum at the
earliest levels of a child's educational career. And without
the involvement of NOAA and NASA and NSF things like ocean
science, like climate change, like atmospheric science, like
earth system science will never really get out there to kids.
We are still teaching in many school districts early twentieth
century science that is divided neatly into biology, chemistry,
and physics, and the world of science doesn't work that way
anymore.
So NOAA in particular has recently been allowed to play a
larger role in science education. Because of their location in
the Commerce Department I understand that they had been
prohibited from supporting education for many years, and there
is some shift in that direction. And with a very small amount
of money in a very short time NOAA, combining efforts with NSF
has changed my professional world in a way that is hard to
explain to you sitting in a Committee room, but ocean sciences
education as a community and as a field has advanced a
generation's worth in the last five years, and I think there is
no underestimating the value that NOAA and NASA and NSF have
added to the endeavor of science education.
Mr. Mollohan. Well that is a good endorsement, for we have
education accounts in all these, and we want to support them,
and that statement is very helpful in justifying our support
for it.
Dr. Luft.
Dr. Luft. I just want to thank you first off for inviting
me here today, and it has been great. I work with teachers, I
work with teacher educators, I work with principals, I work
with superintendents, and I know that at each level everybody
would like inquiry implemented.
I also want to say we are, and everybody I have talked to,
we are encouraged by this Administration's dedication to
science education, and we cannot say thank you enough. It is
cool. Science is cool again.
So what I would to say though is NSF has been invaluable in
my work, and they have been invaluable to work of a lot of my
colleagues. NSF has focused in on transformative work, and that
is where they have put the emphasis for a long time, and I
think that is very important, but I also think in addition to
doing transformative work it is important that you think about
what happens to that transformative work.
So it is important that NSF not only be supported for more
research and science education, we are just on the cusp of
understanding how students learn really complex ideas. We are
at the point where we really are starting to understand what is
working with, we know what works a lot in PD, but we are
getting at some really good novel ideas and we need to kind of
keep pushing for that. We need more resources for this kind of
work.
NSF needs to be encouraged to continue a research to
practice trajectory. They do a lot of great work, and how is it
going to make a difference in the lives of teachers? And that
is not only science work, but that is work in science
education. The new understandings that we have in science
education are critical, and we have to have--teachers have to
have access to this information.
I think as you heard, it was a great example of the
potential of a long-term support program. NSF typically is a
PI. We reapply for grants every three to five years. And it
would be great, our colleagues, my colleagues in science have
long-term funding. They know that their resources are coming
year after year for 15 to 20 years, that they can really invest
in solving a problem and trying to meet the needs.
I don't know what the answer is for education, but I know
it would be nice to know that I can walk in for a lengthy
period of time knowing that I can do some development work and
get it all out within the same long-term funding cycle. So it
would be a little bit novel, but it would be a nice approach.
And I think finally the last piece that I think is
important is there has to be just ongoing consistent funding to
the science agencies for work in science education. It is
difficult to come back with budgets that are reduced or when
programs are moved out. The M's piece was a great example. It
would be great to make sure that we have a consistent line of
funding that is dedicated to this issue.
Again, thank you, and it has been an honor to be here.
Mr. Mollohan. Well it has been an honor to have both of
you. When you talk about long-term studies, talk to that a
little bit more.
Dr. Luft. Long-term support is really critical. So I can
think of it in a lot of different venues. We are just starting
to understand how students learn complex ideas and how these
ideas should be sequenced in order to really optimize student
learning.
So is there some place where something should be learned
before something else, and how do these things build so that
students have coherent knowledge? We are just getting into
that.
And for those of us who do research around these issues, I
need to re-apply every few years. You know, I have to say this
is what I am doing. I can't say I am doing more of the same for
long. I have to say what is it I am doing that is different
sometimes, and that degree of difference has to be really well
discussed.
So wouldn't it be great if somebody knew that for ten years
I could work to really crack this problem? Or wouldn't it be
great if a curriculum developer, as we have heard, knew that he
could not only--they could not only develop the curriculum, but
they would be responsible for targeting, you know, over 10,000
schools? I mean to have that consistent push would be really
powerful. And that puts--that to me is what we are talking
about when we are talking about long-term funding.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are suggesting that the original
solicitation should provide and make a commitment for resources
for a ten-year effort.
Dr. Luft. For some projects, yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Dr. Luft. I think not all projects merit that, but I think
the potential of some of these projects having that kind of--
you could be powerful things with that kind of support.
Mr. Strang. And the support obviously can and should be
contingent on demonstrating performance.
Dr. Luft. Performance.
Mr. Strang. Yes.
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Strang. So it is not just a contract for ten years
regardless, but I think that when warranted----
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Strang [continuing]. That that sort of ongoing funding
would make a huge difference.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well finally I would like to invite
each of you to submit those and any other recommendations, you
know, flesh them out that you would have for the Committee as
we consider--as we mark up our bill. So just submit in writing
what you have said just now here at the summary----
Dr. Luft. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And what would you like to see.
Dr. Luft. It is a big decision.
Mr. Mollohan. I am not saying that we can do it----
Dr. Luft. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. I am just saying we would like
to see if. There is no commitment.
Thank you all very much for your appearance here today.
Dr. Luft. No, thank you.
Mr. Strang. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mollohan. We very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Strang. Thanks.
Dr. Luft. Thanks.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WITNESS

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISOR

Opening Statement--Chairman

Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon. Welcome, doctor. Welcome everybody to the hearing of
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal
year 2011. Today we will cover the budget status and future
prospects of U.S. research and development. Our witness is the
President's Science Advisor and Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren. Dr.
Holdren, this is your first appearance before this
Subcommittee, and we have much to discuss. And we would like to
especially welcome you to the job and to the hearing.
Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the United
States economy, in excess of population growth, is primarily
the result of the innovations and new technologies that result
from public and private investments in research and
development. Accordingly, we are in the midst of a ten-year
doubling in funding for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy
Office of Science as contemplated by the America Competes Act.
This doubling was accelerated by $18.5 billion added to the
fiscal year 2009 appropriation for R and D in many agencies as
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds
have gone to increase grant funding across all areas of science
and to various science infrastructure investments.
Within the Subcommittee's purview the budget request for
fiscal year 2011 continues the planned doubling for NSF and
NIST with roughly 7 percent increases over the 2010 enacted
levels. While this doubling was authorized in the America
Competes Act, that authorization was only through fiscal year
2010. The budget strengthens climate observing and research
through significant increases for NOAA R and D, including
equipment and development for polar orbiting satellites, and
NASA Earth science missions and research. While funding for
planetary research has increased, funding for other areas of
NASA science is essentially frozen. While our climate related
activities are a higher priority, all of NASA's science
contributes to the nation's science enterprise just as much as
does funding for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science.
In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase
to NSF education programs focused on hands-on, inquiry-based
instruction in grades K-12 and in K-12 teacher preparation.
Earlier this year, in hearings which we held, we heard
testimony from those who work in this area. They provided
examples of successful efforts in improving science,
technology, engineering, and math education, STEM education,
evidence of the benefits that result from federal investments
made through NSF, NOAA, and NASA. For decades the science and
education communities have stated that inquiry is essential to
effective STEM education. And yet, it remains rare in K-12 and
college teaching. It is high time to change this.
Given the critical role of science and technology in the
future prosperity and international leadership of the United
States, we look forward to hearing from Dr. Holdren on the
state of U.S. science and technology, its position relative to
other countries, and its future needs and prospects.
Dr. Holdren, before I ask you to summarize your remarks,
and your written statement will be made a part of the record, I
would like to call on Mr. Culberson for any comment he should
like to make.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf
of Ranking Member Wolf, Frank would like to present his
statement in person. So I want to reserve the right to allow
Mr. Wolf to make his opening statement in person. He will be
here very shortly. He is at a funeral at Arlington.
Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. You are welcome. Dr. Holdren.

Opening Statement--Witness

Dr. Holdren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. It is really a privilege to be here today to talk
about the research and development and the STEM education
components of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. As you
noted, Mr. Chairman, I submitted a written statement as well.
The administration is working hard to keep the nation on
the path out of recession through recovery and into a new era
of revitalized growth. That of course means sparking job
creation to get millions of Americans back to work. It means
building a new foundation for a long term prosperity that will
reach every American family. And a crucial element of that
effort is the targeted investments that we are making in
science, technology, and innovation that will lead to new
products and services, new businesses and industries, increased
American competitiveness, and high quality sustainable jobs.
Our strategy includes investments in fundamental and applied
research and development that will lead to better technologies
and the jobs that will go with them for advanced manufacturing,
for clean energy, for healthcare, for environmental protection
and remediation, and for national and homeland security. And it
includes increased use of public-private partnerships to speed
up innovation and get the results more rapidly into the
marketplace. It calls for exploration and discovery from the
depths of the oceans to the frontiers of space, expanding our
knowledge of our world and our universe while igniting the
curiosity and ambitions of our young people. And it includes a
focus on STEM education that will support and sustain, rather
than stifle, that curiosity so that we can cultivate the next
generation of innovators along with the technology savvy
workforce that competitiveness in the 21st century requires.
Obviously we need the continuing support of the Congress,
and importantly the continuing support of this Committee, to
get it done. But if there is one message I most want to convey
in my comments today it is that the investments in the
President's R and D budget are at the very core of America's
future strength. So I am certainly looking forward to working
with all of you to make sure at this very important time in our
history, when competition abroad is growing and the stakes are
ever increasing, that we put America on a path that keeps this
nation great for our children and grandchildren. A path that is
built on scientific evidence, on technical progress and
prowess, and on a nation of people who are inventors,
innovators, and makers, not just consumers.
Let me give you a very brief bird's eye view of the fiscal
year 2011 R and D budget, and then elaborate on a few
highlights. The President's 2011 budget proposes a record $61.6
billion of investment in civilian research and development, not
including facilities and equipment. That is an increase of $3.7
billion or 6.4 percent over the 2010 funding level. Those
increases are counterbalanced by some reductions in defense
development funding, such that the combined defense and non-
defense R and D budget would be $147.7 billion. That is just
two-tenths of a percent above the enacted 2010 level. If you
adjusted for projected inflation it would be a cut of about
nine-tenths of a percent. I think this is a smart R and D
budget, one that is fiscally responsible overall with some
important targeted increases where investments today can do the
most good for us tomorrow.
Among the highlights let me first note, as you did Mr.
Chairman, that the 2011 budget reflects the President's
commitment to double the budgets of the National Science
Foundation, the DOE's Office of Science, and the NIST
laboratories. The President's plan for science and innovation,
and the America Competes Act, as you noted, identified those
three agencies as key to the fundamental research that
underpins our future prosperity. And fundamental research which
the private sector will never do enough of because the risks
seem too high and the returns seem too far in the future. Last
year this Congress and this administration worked together to
put those agencies back on a doubling trajectory that had
faltered in the previous administration, and the fiscal year
2011 maintains that trajectory with a 6.6 percent increase for
their combined budgets.
I want to highlight as well some of our goals within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which
plays a vital role in supporting research on the earth's
oceans, atmosphere, and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of
$5.6 billion is an increase of $806 million over the 2010
enacted level. That is going to allow NOAA to improve weather
and climate services that protect life and property, invest
more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts, and to ensure
continuity of satellite observations of weather and climate
that are crucial.
I want to emphasize some recent progress in that latter
area. The large increase in the NOAA budget reflects in part a
new architecture for the National Polar Orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, which is a tri-agency
program, NOAA, DOD and NASA, that has had a troubled history.
Since last August OSTP has led an Executive Office of the
President task force that, in close cooperation with those
three partner agencies, has been investigating various options
for how to place the NPOESS program on a pathway to succeed.
Earlier this month the three agencies announced a plan to
restructure the program--a plan reflected in the 2011 budget.
And under this plan there will be a division of satellite
acquisition but the three agencies will continue to partner in
areas that they have successfully shared in the past, including
the ground systems and the data management. I want to assure
the Committee that OSTP will continue to be engaged in
overseeing the transition to the new structure of this critical
program.
A number of other items in the R and D budget, I think, are
worth highlighting, including support for activities in the
next generation air transportation system, NextGen; the added
billion dollars in the National Institutes of Health to speed
discovery of new treatments and cures for cancer and other
diseases; the added support for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, DARPA, for research in high priority areas
such as night vision, cybersecurity, enhanced GPS, and force
protection; the more than 25 percent increase in funding for
environmental health and safety studies under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative; and the significant increase in
support for the multiagency U.S. Global Change Research Program
mandated by Congress to improve understanding of climate
science, expand global observing systems, and develop science-
based resources to support policy making and resource
management.
I want to focus on two other areas before my time is up.
The first of those is NASA. Our space program in the United
States represents not just a grand and inspiring adventure of
exploration and discovery reaching outward into our universe,
but it is also an indispensable platform for observing what is
happening on the Earth below. It is a crucial element of our
communications infrastructure and our geopositioning
capability. It is a source of new products, services,
businesses, and jobs whose potential is barely beginning to be
tapped. The fiscal year 2011 NASA budget proposes a science and
technology centered restructuring of this country's space
exploration program. It will invest in American ingenuity to
enable us to do things in space that are more useful, more
exciting, and more affordable then returning astronauts to the
moon surface fifty years after we did it the first time using
essentially the last century's technology.
The new approach, which adds $6 billion over the next five
years for NASA, includes a vigorous technology development and
test program that will begin to reverse decades of
underinvestment in NASA in new ideas. It will extend the life
of the International Space Station, likely to 2020 or beyond,
thereby increasing the number of U.S. astronauts who will be
working in space over the next decade. It will support the
development of private sector capabilities to lift astronauts
into low Earth orbit and it will shorten the duration of our
reliance solely on Russian launchers for that purpose. And by
investing in new game changing technologies it gives promise of
getting our astronauts to deep space destinations sooner,
faster, safer, and cheaper than what could realistically have
been achieved under the old approach.
Finally just a few words about STEM education, which you
also, Mr. Chairman, mentioned in your opening remarks. The
President has been emphatic about his commitment, which I
share, to increase the participation and the performance of
American students in science, engineering, mathematics, and
technology, aiming to improve our performance in comparison
with other nations from the middle of the pack to the top of
the pack over the next decade. The 2011 budget would invest
$3.7 billion in STEM education programs across the federal
government, including a $1 billion investment in improving math
and science education among K-12 students. That is an increase
of over 40 percent in that category. The impact of those
investments is going to be magnified by the Educate to Innovate
Campaign launched by the President late last year to motivate
and inspire young people to excel in STEM fields. This campaign
has already mobilized over $500 million in financial and in-
kind support from companies, foundations, universities, and
nonprofits. In addition to those investments the 2011 budget
provides an additional $1.35 billion in funding for Race to the
Top, a Department of Education program which provides a
competitive advantage to states that commit to a comprehensive
strategy to improve STEM education.
The investments in R and D and in STEM education proposed
in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget reflect his clear
understanding of the importance, the critical importance, of
science, technology, and innovation in addressing the most
compelling challenges our nation faces while respecting, at the
same time, the need for overall budgetary restraint under
difficult economic conditions. It is a budget intended to keep
this country on a path to revitalized economic growth, real
energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better
health outcomes for more Americans at lower costs, strengthened
national and homeland security, and continuing leadership in
science and in space. I look forward to working with this
Committee to make the vision of the President's fiscal year
2011 budget proposal into a reality, and of course I will be
pleased to try to answer any questions the members may have.

Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Holdren, Mr. Wolf has arrived and I am
going to let him make his opening statement. Then I will pick
up with my questioning, and then I will yield to Mr. Wolf to
follow with his questioning. And then we will proceed in the
order of members' arrival here today. After which I will be
turning the chair over to one of the ranking members because
the EPA administrator is before the Interior Committee and I
need to appear there.
Mr. Wolf, I yield to you for your opening statement.

Opening Statement--Ranking Member

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for not
being here. I was at a funeral at Arlington Cemetery and I just
got back, so I do apologize.
I just want to make this clear because of your important
position. Last October the Augustine Commission issued a report
entitled, ``Seeking a Human Space Flight Program Worthy of a
Great Nation.'' The proposal this administration has submitted
for NASA to abandon the Constellation vision and strategy
leaves the program worthy of a lesser nation than the United
States. You are proposing the most radical change to NASA's
mission and program since its inception, and yet the President
has been silent, and the White House has been silent since the
release of the budget.
You may recall that in August 2008, then candidate Obama
told an audience of 1,300 people in Florida, ``Here is what I
am committing to: to continue Constellation.'' This is a
notable reversal from the President that will have a
devastating, I believe, impact, the consequences for decades
for the future, for the future of young people, for the future
of this country.
Based on the little information that was provided to the
Congress, it appears that this plan was hastily developed
without proper vetting from NASA's scientific and human space
flight experts. Over the last week I have heard from a number
of Apollo astronauts and NASA leaders. I would like to share
with the Committee, and with you, just a few of the initial
reactions and submit their full statements for the record.
Former NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin wrote, ``I
believe this budget request advocates a strategy that is
frankly disastrous for the U.S. human space flight program.''
He added that this proposal clears the way for the Chinese
dominance in space. China, which has thirty-four Catholic
bishops in jail, hundreds of Protestant pastors, spies against
us every day, will literally take the lead with regard to this
program.
Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo flight director and
former Johnson Space Center Director said, ``The U.S. space
program is in great peril if the President's budget proposals
are enacted.''
Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham wrote, ``This budget
proposal,'' he said, ``accelerates America's downward spiral
toward mediocrity in space exploration.''
Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator Harrison
Schmitt wrote that this proposal would ``cede the moon to
China, the American space station to Russia, and consign
liberty to the ages. Other nations would accrue the benefits--
psychological, political, economical, and scientific--that the
United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success
forty years ago. This lesson had not been lost on our
ideological and economic competitors.''
Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke said, ``We cannot afford
to lose our leadership in space. The Constellation program must
be continued.''
And perhaps most notably, I received a letter from Burt
Rutan, the X prize winner who flew the first private commercial
craft into space in 2004, who ardently opposes this budget
proposal. He said, ``An observer might think that I would
applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over
to commercial developers. However,'' he said, ``he would be
wrong. Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon,
America led the world in awarded PhDs in science and
engineering and math. Today we are not even on the first or
second page. The motivation,'' as you were just speaking
earlier, ``the motivation of our youth is the most important
thing we do for our nation's long-term security and prosperity.
NASA's role in that can be as critical as it was in the sixties
if the taxpayers fund true research and exploration.''
Manned space flight and exploration is one of the last
remaining fields in which the U.S. maintains an undeniable
competitive advantage over other nations. To walk away is
shortsighted and irresponsible. By killing the exploration
program in favor of a vaguely defined ``research and
development program,'' you are guaranteeing that the Chinese,
the Russians, and others will be closing the exploration gap.
We will be dependent on the Russians in the short term for
rides to the International Space Station, and worse, we will be
forced to play catch up to the Chinese and the Russians in the
future. The Chinese, who are aiding and abetting the genocide
in Darfur, and the Russians, who have more of bad things that
we all know through history. When that time comes I fear that
the U.S. will no longer have the resources or the political
support to relaunch our human space flight program.
James Lewis with the Center for Strategic and International
Studies said he sees this decision ``as a confirmation of
America's decline.'' In the interim our space flight and
manufacturing base will wither. We will be forced to spend far
more to recreate our current capacities at a later date.
The editors of ``Space News'' argued similarly that this
could have a devastating effect on the U.S. propulsion
industrial base, endangering DOD launch operations. This also
has very serious national security implications. Alternative
commercial vehicles will not be available much if at all sooner
than the Ares I rocket. Worse, these alternative contractors
have no experience in manned space flight and the safety
measures necessary.
As Norm Augustine said, ``Space operations are among the
most demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by
humans.'' NASA's workforce has forty years of experience,
having learned by tragedy and success. The Constellation
program contractors have been working on these issues for seven
years. As a result of your plan, at the end of this decade we
will only have a few years of flights to the International
Space Station followed by a fleet of low Earth orbit vehicles
with nowhere to go. Worse, you will have no exploration vehicle
system to go beyond the Station. Above all, the budget proposal
leaves NASA with no clear exploration mission goal. An agency
with no vision or leadership will slowly decay. It will no
longer be a place for our nation's best and brightest to work.
What we need is a NASA with vision, expertise, and support to
maintain and grow our competitive advantage in space
exploration.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I just yield back and I thank
you.

NASA--CONSTELLATION

Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you Mr. Wolf. Dr. Holdren,
because I am going to have to leave. I am going to give you an
opportunity to, in a relatively uninterrupted way, speak to the
question of NASA's decision to revamp its exploration program,
to essentially cancel Constellation and to move forward as
proposed in your budget. I note that prior to your commenting,
we were all excited, I think, those of us who are interested in
space exploration, when President Bush announced what he
described as his Vision for Space Exploration. The problem with
that was not the expression of the vision. The problem was in
the funding of the programs that were necessary to fulfill it.
So really what started as an expectation ended up being a
considerable disappointment as the program fell behind in many
different ways and was, as a result of incredible underfunding
and at the recommendation that we probably would have to be
spending $3 billion, $4 billion more a year on it. Not to catch
up, but just to keep the Constellation program going.
I say this not making judgment about the administration's
proposal, frankly. But in fairness, noting where this
administration found itself after its election. It proceeded, I
thought, extremely responsibly by calling on Norm Augustine to
head a review commission. We all have confidence in Norm
Augustine because of his service to the country and his
considerable industrial experience. The Augustine Report, which
was the beginning of NASA's and the administration's review of
the exploration program, came essentially to the conclusion,
certainly implied the conclusion, that is reflected in the
President's budget request.
The failure of President Bush's vision because of his
lacking in the application of adequate resources is measured in
a number of different ways. The gap that increasingly grew
between the termination of the space shuttle and the coming
online of another transportation system for U.S. human access
to Station, I think, is probably one of the most glaring
measurements of the failure of President Bush's space
exploration program.
So it is, I certainly recognize, and I think most members
of this Committee who work so closely with the science
accounts, understand how inspirational a grand vision of space
exploration can be, and how it can drive the decision making of
youngsters to go into science and to go into research. We saw
that certainly with Apollo. But it has to be real, and it has
to be not only articulated but it has to be supported with
resources. And if not, then it is in fact a hollow vision.
Again, that is all not by way of passing judgment on the
administration's request, or its proposal, for exploration in
and of itself, or in regard to Constellation. But simply to put
in perspective this issue as I invite you to comment on it, as
I say, in a fairly uninterrupted way which might be your only
opportunity to comment on it in a fairly interrupted way. Not
only on this Committee, but you can expect when you come up to
have to flesh out the rather skinny presentation that we have
with regard to the President's proposal at this time. There is,
as you know, an awful lot of interest in this, and concern as
expressed by the Ranking Member. Dr. Holdren.
Dr. Holdren. Thank you. Well, certainly there will be more
opportunities and there will be more detail forthcoming. And I
know the Administrator is going to be up on the Hill tomorrow
testifying. But as NASA has more time to pull all of the
details together there will certainly be a lot more detail
forthcoming.
But let me start by saying that as the Ranking Member's
comments indicate, there is certainly a difference of opinion
in the space community about whether this is a good idea or
not. The Ranking Member mentioned, as you did Mr. Chairman, the
Augustine Commission. Well Norm Augustine has strongly endorsed
the new proposal. He says ``By making a significant investment
in creating commercial capabilities to take humans and cargo to
low Earth orbit, overseen from a safety standpoint by NASA,
this will drive competition, lower costs, open new markets, and
make space more accessible. Similarly, by allocating the
technology resources highlighted in our report as being
necessary it will be possible to lay the foundation for travel
beyond low Earth orbit, including destinations such as the
asteroids, the Lagrangian points, Mars' moons, and Mars itself,
as well as revisits to our own moon.''
The key point is that what the administration's plan is
aiming to achieve is not a retreat from the exploration of
space, not an abandonment of human space flight, but an
approach to doing it that invests in advanced technologies to
do it better, to do it cheaper, to do it faster, to do it
safer, and to do it in a way where we can match the mission to
the resources. I think a goal of being able to operate
successfully in deep space is more important as the guiding
light for the program than any one destination. And our goal is
to be able to operate in deep space, to be able to reach a
variety of destinations to deploy the technologies that can do
that in an effective way.
Buzz Aldrin, the first person to set foot, second person to
set foot on the moon, after Neil Armstrong, also endorsed it.
He says, ``the truth is, we have already been to the moon some
forty years ago. A near term focus on lowering the cost of
access to space and on developing key cutting edge technologies
to take us further faster is just what our nation needs to
maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for
the rest of this century.''
So obviously, there are differing views. We could get in
warring quotations probably for a long time. But there are a
lot of prominent folks, including the folks on the Augustine
Commission, Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space, who
strongly endorse the program. Obviously there are differing
views. I think some of those differences are going to shrink as
the details come out and people have the chance to discuss them
in a variety of forums.
I would point out that we were already going to be
dependent on the Russians no matter what we did the moment the
decision was made. And it was made in the Bush administration.
I think it was made correctly, that we needed to retire the
shuttle in 2010. Now under the new plan we have provided a
budget to fly out the manifest into 2011 if that is necessary,
to do it prudently and safely. But whatever else we did, we
were going to have a period of dependence on the Russians to
lift U.S. astronauts into low Earth orbit.
We think under the new proposal that we will be able to
shorten that period below what it would likely have been in
Constellation. The Augustine Commission conclusion was that
Constellation would not be able to take astronauts to low Earth
orbit until 2017 or 2018. That would have been after, under the
program of record, the International Space Station would have
been crashed into the ocean in pursuit of savings to pay for
Constellation. The Augustine Commission characterized the
Constellation program as unexecutable. And they concluded that
if Constellation were funded in a manner that could return U.S.
astronauts to the moon before 2025 it would cost between $45
billion and $60 billion more between 2010 and 2020 than what
was programmed under the 2010 guidance.
So we had a big challenge already with the Constellation
program, in terms of being able to go where the original vision
called for it to go, when it called for it to go there, as
again you pointed out Mr. Chairman in your remarks. And the
administration's task was to find a way forward for the space
program that would maintain U.S. leadership in space, that
would maintain the capacity to explore above Earth orbit, that
would make it better and cheaper, and that would do it within
the bounds of something that we could afford in difficult
financial times.
I could say more but I think it probably would be better to
have some back and forth.

NASA--HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. Mollohan. There is this woe that this is a real threat
to our human exploration of space. That is going to be a
concern. That the United States has just relegated itself to
second place in that area. Speak to that. How does President
Obama's way forward with regard to human exploration, access,
when we get back with our own transportation system, one
approach versus the other. Speak to this whole concern of
human, USA human access to space.
Dr. Holdren. By extending the International Space Station
we are ensuring that there are going to be more U.S. astronauts
in orbit over the next decade than there would have been if we
had crashed the Space Station into the ocean in 2016. That is
point one. Point two, in terms of deep space exploration, in
terms of getting humans beyond low Earth orbit, we think the
way to do that is with better technologies. We think NASA has
been underinvesting in advanced technologies for decades. And
the result is that we were talking about going back to the
moon, and imagining we could go beyond someday to Mars, with
chemical rockets very much like those that we had in the
sixties and seventies. We need to do better if we are to take
astronauts as far as Mars and the only way we are going to do
it is with better technology. The only way you are going to get
that better technology is making investments in developing it.
We have a whole range of technologies that we are able to
pursue if we wind down Constellation, and take better advantage
of the very large sums of money that were going into that
program, which were considerably more than foreseen at its
inception. That makes available money to do research on
advanced heavy lift propulsion, advanced deep space propulsion,
on orbit refueling and fuel storage, a variety of technologies
that can make it practical and affordable for U.S. astronauts
to go into deep space. If the Chinese and the Russians keep on
with a trajectory that is based on the old technology we are
going to leapfrog right past them with an approach that invests
in American ingenuity to do better.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Again, I am sorry to have to leave
the hearing. I have asked Mr. Ruppersberger if he would
dedicate the rest of the afternoon, and he was kind enough a
while ago to say that he would do that. I would ask that he
come and take the chair and call on Mr. Wolf.

NASA--CHINA AND RUSSIA

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many have characterized
this proposal as ceding leadership in manned space flight to
other nations. Charles Krauthammer wrote that, ``Decades from
now there may be a robust private space industry,'' but to
quote he said, ``in the interim space will be owned by Russia
and then China.'' What are the implications of abandoning
Constellation at the same moment that other countries,
particularly China, are setting specific space exploration
goals?
Dr. Holdren. Well, Administrator Bolden and I wrote a
letter to the editor of the Washington Post indicating that we
disagreed with Mr. Krauthammer on virtually all of his
conclusions. I do not think we are, as I have indicated, I do
not think we are ceding leadership in space to the Russians and
the Chinese at all. As I said, I think we are going to develop
technologies that are going to maintain American leadership in
space. Advanced technology has always been our strength in this
country and it will continue to be our strength. And I think
that will apply to deep space as much as it has applied to
other domains.
If the Chinese are able to get back to the moon fifty years
after we did it, I do not think that demonstrates anything
about Chinese leadership. We were there in 1969. We went back
five more times into the 1970's. Anybody who thinks that the
Chinese lead because they get there fifty years later should
talk to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. We are going to stay
ahead of them because we are going to have better technology
than they do.

NASA--CONSTELLATION

Mr. Wolf. Was the decision to scrap Constellation fully
considered from a national security perspective? And was the
National Security Council part of the decision making process?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, the process that we ran in the White
House after we received the report of the Augustine Commission
included the National Security Council as well as the Office of
Management and Budget, OSTP, and of course it continually
included NASA with the folks at NASA continually in touch with
the national defense community as well because they have many
overlapping interests and responsibilities. So the short answer
to that question is yes.

NASA--JOB LOSSES

Mr. Wolf. What do you anticipate as the impacts of this
decision on the workforce, civil service and contractors? And
how many jobs will be lost and when? And what measures do you
plan to take to minimize the impact to job losses and the
negative impact on the industrial base?
Dr. Holdren. First of all, the job losses are obviously a
very important concern. They are important to everybody. They
are important to the Congress. They are important to the
President. This is not a time in which we would lightly
entertain job losses of any sort. We knew we were going to be
in for job losses in connection with the shuttle program as
soon as the shuttle was retired. There was no option that would
have avoided significant losses in the shuttle program as soon
as the shuttle had retired.
We think this plan does more to mitigate those losses by
creating opportunities. It is going to create opportunities, as
I have indicated, in heavy lift propulsion, in advanced space
propulsion. We have a plan to invest considerable additional
resources in the Kennedy Space Flight Center to upgrade its
capabilities to make it a launch center for the 21st century,
to increase its capacity to support the increased number of
missions we are going to have. We are going to have more
robotic missions. We are going to have an increasing number of
commercial missions launching from the Kennedy Space Center.
With respect to the jobs in Alabama, the Marshall Center,
which has tremendous expertise in rocketry, obviously, is going
to lose some jobs when Constellation is wound down. But it is
going to gain some jobs in heavy lift propulsion research and
in other advanced technology research in which the capabilities
there are unmatched anywhere. This is a consequence. Anytime
there is any change in direction you are going to have some
jobs lost in some domains, other jobs gained. We are making
every effort to maximize the number of jobs that will be gained
by the changes in this program.
Mr. Wolf. So what is the number of jobs? The question was,
what is the number of jobs?
Dr. Holdren. I do not think anybody knows exactly,
Congressman, what the number of jobs will be. All of those
analyses have a little bit of slop in them.
Mr. Wolf. But you must have looked at----
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, we have----
Mr. Wolf. So tell us what you----
Dr. Holdren. We have looked at job losses. I think we are
looking at something like 5,000 job losses in Florida. And we
think we will be able to restore at least something in the
range of 1,700 to 2,000 of those with programs that we have
already identified. And those are the jobs we were going to
lose in the shuttle program anyway. The number of jobs at risk
in Alabama, there are 2,500 civil servants employed at
Marshall. Some of those jobs will presumably be lost but many
of them will be retained because of the additional research and
development efforts that will go on there.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ruppersberger. [Presiding] Okay, I think on the list I
am next. And then John, I think you are. I want to get into
three areas continuing some of the questioning on the
Constellation, get into NOAA, and then the final is the
restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial satellites.
There is a big concern there and I think that if we do not look
at that more thoroughly that France, Germany, Spain, Italy are
all talking about doing what we do right now and it looks like
it is another ITAR. So I would like to get into that.

NASA--CONSTELLATION

But let us get back to the Constellation. What you are, and
we want to do what is right for America. And, you know, the
administration is there, we want to work with the
administration. But, you know, right now this came out of
nowhere from where we are sitting, those of us who deal in the
space program, whether it is intelligence, defense, or this
Appropriations Committee. And we talk, the concept sounds
great. The fact that we are putting a lot of money into
research and development, and we have not done that for a
while. In fact, if you look at, I think, the failures of our
space programs, things that really are still classified, we
cannot talk about all of them. A lot of it is because we took a
lot of money away from research and development and testing and
the things that needed to be done. You can have a major
contract with one of the big boys, whether it is Northrup, or
Boeing, or Lockheed, you know, all the big corporations. And
they would have these contracts, and then they would do the
research and development along the way. It would be over price,
over time, and half the time the bird would be so big because
every three-star wanted everything on it and nothing was going
to happen. So I think your concept is good.
My concern is that it is happening very quickly without a
plan, the way we see a plan. And we need to have a plan. And
then let us evaluate that plan. You look at this county, some
people feel that if you control the skies you control the
world. When Sputnik came out we responded as a country in eight
years and put a man on the moon, and that really helped us do
the research and development to get us where we are now as
being dominant in space. But as you know, we have had a lot of
failures. And that is what I am sure you are focusing on now.
But I am worried about the details, and doing something too
quick, too soon. It almost reminds me of the healthcare bill.
And, you know, when you, when you are focusing on something as
important as our national security, and where you are going to
be going, I feel the commercial is very important. I feel in
the area of defense and intelligence we have been way behind
and we have lost money where we could have one, four satellites
to one because of the traditional ways that the, I call it, not
out of disrespect, but kind of a joke, the old bulls, admirals,
and generals, or whatever. And just wanting not to take the
risks that maybe we took when we put a man on the moon years
ago.

NASA--MARS

But where the concern is, and I am going to ask you this
question, is it our intention to put a man on the moon again?
Or a man on Mars again? Is that the administration's intention?
Dr. Holdren. I think in short yes. Mars, everybody agrees I
think Mars is the ultimate destination. We are not ready to put
a date on that. There was no date, by the way, on going to Mars
even in the Constellation program. But yes, Mars is the
ultimate destination for human space flight beyond low Earth
orbit. The President has not abandoned that. Administrator
Bolden has not abandoned it. We will ultimately put people back
on the moon, when we are ready to do interesting things with
them on the moon surface. The problem with the Constellation
program is that we would at most have been ready to put U.S.
astronauts in the vicinity of the moon around 2028, according
to the Augustine Committee. And we would at that time have not
had the capability to put them on the surface, because we would
not have been able to pay for the lander under the budget that
was foreseen.
We will go back to the moon and we will ultimately get
people on Mars. But when we do it we will do it in a way that
makes sense, a way that we can afford, and a way that is safer
for the astronauts.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The way the administration, the
perception at least from my perspective, is that, ``Well, we
are going to go where we need to go in space, but we are going
to let the commercial side take more control.'' And I do not
have an issue with that. And some, as I said before, in defense
with some intel. But if you are going to put a man on the moon,
commercial has not had the research and development. They do
not have the capacity at this point to put a man on the moon or
Mars. And by the way, why that is relevant, too, is because our
younger generation, I feel, is not going to space anymore
because these programs are out there forever, it takes forever
to go where we need to go. And, you know, that is, the younger
generation really needs to be more active and we need to focus
more in this area of space.
Also, we need to get the country excited. Because people
are tired. They are just not used to having, let me say it this
way. In the old days, an astronaut was as popular as an NFL
quarterback. These days that is not the case. And I think the
country just is not excited about going to the Space Station
and back.
I am going to get back, though. What is the plan? I mean, I
am hearing theory but I am not hearing detail. And until you
have detail, and we are sitting here as appropriators, and we
are worried about national security. And, you know, it is such
a big decision on where we go and how we are going to develop
our space and science, and how we are going to control the
skies. I am worried we are going too quickly on this thing.
Dr. Holdren. Okay, let me respond on a couple of points.
Mr. Ruppersberger. So educate us.
Dr. Holdren. First of all, I want to be clear. We are not
proposing to use commercial to go to the moon or to go to Mars.
The proposal is to turn over the most straightforward part of
the task, which is lifting cargo and astronauts into low Earth
orbit, to public-private partnerships in which the private
sector plays a bigger role than it has played in the past. And
what has basically changed here is the acquisition model. We
have relied on the private sector to build the technologies
that take our astronauts into space from the beginning. The
Mercury capsule was built by McDonnell. General Dynamics
launched it with an atlas converted from an ICBM. Rockwell
International built the space shuttle. What is changing is the
acquisition model, where the idea is we will buy the service
and the private sector, investing substantial amounts of its
own money, but also some government money at the outset, will
deliver that service. But the technology that we have been
using to take U.S. astronauts into space has always been built
by the private sector.
At the same time, by turning over more of that task of
lifting cargo and astronauts into low Earth orbit to the
private sector we are going to free up NASA's resources to do
the more demanding, tougher, cutting edge jobs for which NASA
is uniquely suited. NASA is going to have----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Give me an example?
Dr. Holdren. NASA is going to have the responsibility for
developing in-orbit refueling capabilities. NASA is going to
have the responsibility for the development of advanced heavy
lift capability. NASA will have the responsibility for
developing the advanced space propulsion engines that can get
us more rapidly to destinations like Mars. If we try to use
chemical rockets to go to Mars we are going to have our
astronauts out there for so long we are going to have a big
radiation exposure problem. We need to do this in the right
way, and the right way to do it is advanced technology. And
NASA is the operation that is going to bring us that
technology. We are not turning the whole space program over to
the private sector by any stretch of the imagination.
You are right to ask for more detail. This plan awaited,
first of all, the completion of the Augustine report before the
administration was even going to consider in any detail what
the options were, and which option it was going to choose. It
wanted to have the Augustine Report. We got the Augustine
Report. We set up an interagency process in the White House to
consider the findings of that report, to consider and develop
and cost out the options. NASA was involved in that. NSC was
involved in it. We in OSTP were involved in it. We presented a
wide variety of options over a period of time and we ended up
with a decision. This is not a decision that was reached
without a lot of input from folks in NASA. It was not a
decision that was reached without input from the private
sector, from our experienced contractors who are not all, by
the way, small operations. The Augustine Committee had an
exceedingly open process in which they talked with virtually
everybody, visited the major space centers, and so on. But the
details do still need to be fleshed out.
NASA has been working on that very hard ever since the
decision was made to go in this direction, I think you will be
seeing from Administrator Bolden, and others from NASA who will
come up here, the fleshing out that you rightly want before you
reach a conclusion about whether this is a viable pathway. I
have seen enough to believe it is.
Mr. Ruppersberger. There are other, I will get to other
questions in another round, so John, I do want to say this,
though. One of the focuses that I feel has to be looked at is
the DOD, intel, and NASA collaborating a lot more. And a lot of
times DOD and intel to an extent hold their satellites close to
the vest when it is not necessary.
Dr. Holdren. I know that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And we need to open that so that maybe a
defense satellite or an intel could be used by NOAA, or
whatever. That is something I would hope you would focus on.
John?

NASA--AUGUSTINE COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Dr. Holdren, I heard you say just a moment ago that
your plan, you were waiting for the Augustine Commission Report
because you would not think of releasing this until they had
their report, right?
Dr. Holdren. Of course.
Mr. Culberson. So you developed this plan before you had
even seen the Augustine Report, did you not?
Dr. Holdren. No, I beg your pardon. I said----
Mr. Culberson. That is what you said.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. We were waiting for the Augustine
Report to look at the options.
Mr. Culberson. I think that was what you said.
Dr. Holdren. No, excuse me, sir, but that is not what I
said. I said we were waiting for the report----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, I think that is what you just
testified.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. So we could see, we were waiting
for the report so that we could see how it characterized the
different options. We had not decided----
Mr. Culberson. You were not even thinking about this and
planning this before the Augustine Commission released its
report. Are there any memos, any discussions at your office, at
the White House of cancelling Constellation before the
Augustine Commission released its report?
Dr. Holdren. I would have to go and look to see if there
was any consideration of that. We knew, sir, from many other
sources, from many other analyses, that there were very serious
criticisms out there about the viability of the Constellation
program.
Mr. Culberson. I know, I was wondering what you----
Dr. Holdren. So it would be surprising if nobody involved
in any of these discussions had mentioned those analyses. But
certainly I can assure you no decision had been made about what
course----
Mr. Culberson. A decision had been made but you were
waiting to move until, I heard you just testify you were
waiting, you would not have announced this before.
Dr. Holdren. We would not have had anything to announce
before----
Mr. Culberson. But you were already contemplating this.
Dr. Holdren. No, we would not have had anything to
announce. Believe me, the President did not know what he wanted
to do. We did not, in the early phases, even have a new NASA
administrator.

NASA--CONSTELLATION

Mr. Culberson. Let me also ask you, if I could, excuse me
because our time is so limited, I also heard you just say that
you contemplated, this was developed with the input of NASA
deputy administrators and, you know, you talked to folks out in
the field. Yet the field center heads, who are your best
experts, Mike Coats who is a prince, he is Director of the
Johnson Space Center, these men and women are the best in their
field. And these field directors, the directors of the field
centers, your associate administrators and field center heads
were not even told of the final details of the plan to cancel
Constellation until just a couple of days before its release.
They were not consulted with.
Dr. Holdren. They were consulted early in the process and
during the process about the options, the characteristics of
different possibilities.
Mr. Culberson. That is not a direct answer. Your testimony
was you consulted with NASA directors and associate
administrators, and it is a fact that your associate
administrators and your field center heads said they were not
told about the decision to cancel Constellation until a couple
of days before the announcement.
Dr. Holdren. Congressman, with respect you are not
distinguishing between consulting them during the process of
developing a decision----
Mr. Culberson. Well you said consult them about options. I
am talking about the cancellation. You are attempting to cancel
Constellation, right?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. They were not consulted, were they?
Dr. Holdren. They were consulted in the whole process.
Mr. Culberson. Did you tell them you were going to cancel
Constellation?
Dr. Holdren. We did not tell them until we told them, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Did you ask them what they thought about
cancelling the Constellation program?
Dr. Holdren. I could not tell you who talked to which
director when about the possibility of cancelling the
Constellation program. The Augustine Committee met with all of
those folks.
Mr. Culberson. No, no, no, you, I am not talking----
Dr. Holdren. We were obviously contemplating a wide range
of possibilities.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Forgive me, because our time is so
short. I am not talking about the Augustine Commission. I am
talking about you and your office, and the folks that sit
behind you that work for you. Did you or any of your staff
consult with and ask any of the field center heads, or any
associate administrator at NASA, what is the impact on American
leadership in space if we cancel Constellation?
Dr. Holdren. I did not ask any center director that
question.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. My assumption is that folks in NASA did.
Mr. Culberson. Your assumption? You are a scientist, you do
not assume. You know what that stands for.
Dr. Holdren. I could not tell you whether any members of my
staff talked to those particular people or not. I know their
views----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Were taken into account in
developing the Augustine Report.
Mr. Culberson. Their views were taken into account? They
were not told of the cancellation until two days before the
announcement.
Dr. Holdren. This is a different question. The question of
when people get told about a decision, and what consultations
go into the decision are two different questions.
Mr. Culberson. The reason for the question, Mr. Chairman,
is very important. Because Dr. Holdren has testified, you just
said flat out that your plan is going to reduce the gap. You
are going to be able to reduce the gap, we are not going to
have to rely on the Russians for as long. I heard you say that.
And that is a statement which you as a scientist, I am
confident, do not make statements unless you have got
verifiable facts that you can back that up. You did not clearly
consult with or ask any of the field center heads what will be
the gap, how long will the gap be if we cancel Constellation
and turn this over to the private sector? And since that
conversation did not occur, you have no basis to make that
statement from field center directors.
And let me also drive this point home. How many, I want to
know how many private contractors you visited with, or asked
their opinions. You say that you can shorten the gap with the
private sector. Did you or anyone from your office ever meet
with Boeing, or Lockheed Martin, or ATK about what the effect
on the gap will be if we turn it over to the private sector
guys.
Dr. Holdren. I would have to ask the people in my office
whether they did. But the basis for that statement was the
Augustine Commission Report, which said that there was a
considerable probability that the private sector could start
putting U.S. astronauts in Earth orbit by 2016. And the
Augustine Committee view was that Constellation would not be
able to do it until 2017----
Mr. Culberson. Someone from your office did?
Dr. Holdren. Sir, I cannot tell you who all people in my
office talked to.
Mr. Culberson. Now certainly----
Dr. Holdren. I have a very energetic and dedicated staff.
They talked to a lot of people.
Mr. Culberson. The Augustine Commission looked at a lot of
different options, and that was one of them clearly. And the
statement, though, you made though, that we are going to
shorten the gap if we follow this proposal you have laid out,
on what do you base that? Who----
Dr. Holdren. I base it in part on the Augustine Committee
Report, which concluded that that was a likelihood.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Let me, if I could also finally, Mr.
Chairman, because I know we are short on time, ask Dr. Holdren,
you directed the administration has essentially as I know has
told NASA to go ahead and begin to start winding down, get
ready to shut down Constellation, right? You have already sent
out those orders?
Dr. Holdren. Number one, I have not sent out any orders.
Mr. Culberson. No, the White House, the administration.
Dr. Holdren. To my knowledge, and I have seen a letter that
Administrator Bolden wrote in response to a letter from
Congressman Alderholt and some others.
Mr. Culberson. And me.
Dr. Holdren. The NASA Administrator has not sent out any
orders to contractors to start cutting things down. They are
complying with the law, they are asking, because the
President's proposal is to wind down Constellation, they are
asking what it would cost to do so. That is a different thing
than saying stop work, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is because
we put in this Committee, and we did so quite properly, put
into statute language, Mr. Chairman, that says that none of the
NASA funds provided herein for prior years shall be available
for the termination or elimination of any program, project, or
activity of the architecture for Constellation, nor shall any
funds be available to create or initiate a new program,
project, or activity unless such program, termination,
elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent
appropriations act.
Now that is statute. You cannot in any way alter or change
or Man Launch Space Program because that is our job.
Dr. Holdren. Without the consent of the Congress, that is
absolutely correct.
Mr. Culberson. NASA can't use one nickel of the money
appropriated from this Subcommittee to change, alter, or in any
way the Man Space Program.

NASA--AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

And I would say I share everyone's concern on this
Committee that we--you are proposing surrendering Little Round
Top. You are surrendering the high ground to the Chinese, to
India, to our friends and foe alike, and it is something
America has never done in its history, and I am frankly
embarrassed.
Dr. Holdren. Well, I don't agree with that
characterization, sir, with all respect. We do not intend to
surrender leadership.
Mr. Culberson. I am mortified. Embarrassing and mortifying
that America would--our American President would voluntarily
surrender leadership of the world in science and space
exploration and surrender the high ground to our enemies is
mortifying, embarrassing, and unacceptable.
Dr. Holdren. Sir, that is not what we are proposing to do.
We are proposing to maintain U.S. leadership with what has
always been our strongest suit, which is advanced technology.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I think one thing the statute did say,
it did give the right to modify, I believe. Is that correct? I
just heard that from staff. That is the statute. Mike, do you
have any questions? We have 332 who have not voted.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we leave and come
back I will reclaim my time when we get back.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.

NASA--COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. Honda. The question I have is I guess the choice
between going commercial, privatization of space exploration
versus the government doing it in terms of advancing technology
and looking at new technologies.
When we are looking at turning over the task of space
exploration in lower orbit, open it to commercialization or
commercial efforts are we giving up our position on creating
new technologies? Or what role do we play in terms of
developing new technologies?
Dr. Holdren. Well first of all the proposed plan greatly
increases the investments we are making in NASA in developing
new technologies. New technologies for heavy lift, new
technologies for propulsion in deep space, new technologies for
refueling in orbit. We think we need a range of new
technologies to make human exploration of deep space practical,
and it is our intention to develop those.
The increased role of the commercial sector in this plan is
confined to an increased role in lifting cargo and astronauts
into low Earth orbit, and we think for that task that the
rapidly developing commercial space flight sector can make a
very important contribution.
Mr. Honda. So you are saying that we are dividing our
responsibilities that we will do the things that they need to
have in order to put their payload up.
Dr. Holdren. Well again, they already have rockets, they
are designing additional ones.
Mr. Honda. I understand that.
Dr. Holdren. They have already been building rockets for
our program.
Mr. Honda. I am not trying to argue with you.
Dr. Holdren. No, I know, I am trying to answer your
question.
Mr. Honda. Saying that we are going to be developing the
technology for them to use to put their payload up.
Dr. Holdren. We have already done some of that. They
already have some of the technologies they need. It is an
ongoing interaction. It is going to be a partnership. It always
has been.
Mr. Honda. Will the partnerships increase in terms of them
having a greater role----
Dr. Holdren. Yes.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. And bear the expense of putting up
the payload?
Dr. Holdren. And they are expected to be willing to do that
because they will have customers other than the U.S.
government. As again they already do in putting up
communication satellites and so on.
Mr. Honda. For us to recoup the investment we make, what
responsibilities will with they to pay back into the coffers?
Dr. Holdren. You are now exceeding my competence. I am not
an expert in the kinds of contracts that will be developed for
this purpose.
Mr. Honda. No, but there has got to be some sort of a basic
concept of we invest the money, they take advantage of it and
make money, and where does that enrichment go to in terms of--
--
Dr. Holdren. Well part of the enrichment goes to
maintaining U.S. leadership in space, because it frees up----
Mr. Honda. Well if you look at--I understand that, you
know, we did that with technology in terms of IT and----
Dr. Holdren. Sure, we do it across the board.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. Other areas, but very little of
that money that we put into it comes back to public education,
postgraduate work where we lead in that. And if we are going to
continue to lead that and if we have that confidence that we
are going to be able to do that we have to find other ways to
be able to, you know, sustain that in the long term.
Our Congress, every time we talk about other countries, we
talk about them as if they were folks who are not going to be
playing as a team. Are we looking at working with Russia and
China and Japan and the other countries who are going to space
as partners?
Dr. Holdren. We do that already, sir, to a very substantial
extent. We have up there the International Space Station which
we are extending to 2020.
Mr. Honda. Yeah, but we----
Dr. Holdren. We have got Russians up there, we have
Japanese, we have Europeans. They are helping to provision the
station. Their launchers are taking cargo to the Space Station
regularly. That will continue to happen. There are lots of
respects in which we do partner with other countries to the
Space Station regularly. That will continue to happen. There
are lots of respects in which we do partner with other
countries to get these tasks done in concert.
Mr. Honda. And we do that and then we withdraw our
partnerships at times don't we? And so----
Dr. Holdren. Well, I think----
Mr. Honda [continuing]. My concern is being consistent in
our partnership and our commitment, but also being consistent
and--I am trying to say it way that I am not going to offend my
colleagues--but we seem to criticize or put them out there as
if, you know, they are going to be or constant enemies, and our
congressional move the past few years where we disallowed our
companies to work overseas to do the launching, we lost of lot
of market share in the world. And so you know, we either do it
right and be consistent, and you know, if Congress went off on
one end or the other, that somebody's got to say, you know, let
us just be consistent about this thing. You know, we are very
schizophrenic about our global relationships, and I think that
we need to do some work in that area too.
Dr. Holdren. I would agree with that. There is obviously a
longstanding tension between competition and cooperation in a
lot of these domains, and you have to decide when you are going
to cooperate and when you are going to compete. We are doing a
lot of cooperation in space.
Mr. Honda. Right. And I don't think that we have a problem
understanding that because we do that in Texas, we do that in
California in terms of, you know, the technologies. Is we have
to be able to do that with come confidence with other
countries, and at the same time they have a problem with us too
I am sure, because they have a history from their point of
view, and using a minimum of understanding that we deal up
right now just in the area of global warning, we end up sharing
the IPs and not fight over it.
I guess the other thing we need to do if we are going to
move into this arena is to start looking at how we talk about
and how we treat our relationships as we move forward in the
technology.
Dr. Holdren. No, I agree that is important. I do think we
made our partners very happy by extending our commitment to the
space station rather than saying for reasons of our budget we
have to crash it into the ocean in 2016.
Mr. Honda. Real quick question.
Mr. Ruppersberger. We are going to have to adjourn the
meeting temporarily--we will come back. There are three votes,
two after this, then we will come back.
Dr. Holdren. Okay.
Mr. Ruppersberger. It will probably be about 20 minutes.

NASA--SATELLITES

Mr. Honda. So let me just finish my question though. At
Lockheed, which is one of the contracts, they are developing
some satellites for our Constellation Program, correct?
Mr. Ruppersberger. We have ten more votes.
Mr. Honda. And my understanding is that they are going to
have to stop at a certain point, but we will have approximately
four satellites up there to continue our mediums to put up
satellites so that we have an increased efficiency and geo
positioning and controlling kinds of things that we control
with these satellites both commercial and military.
Dr. Holdren. Right, those aren't part of the Constellation
Program.
Mr. Honda. They are not?
Dr. Holdren. They are not
Mr. Honda. Then why is TSAT, I understand that TSAT is
going to be set aside or we are not going to be funding it
beyond a certain date, and they are already working along
those----
Dr. Holdren. I am not sure what the connection is between
the satellites you are talking about and Constellation Program.
Mr. Honda. Does anybody else know?
Dr. Holdren. Those are separate. The Constellation Program
consists of the Ares 1 rocket for lifting crew and cargo into
low Earth orbit; the Ares 5, which is a heavier rocket; the
Orion Crew Capsule; and the Altair Lander, which was intended
ultimately to land on the moon. But there are no satellites in
the Constellation Program.
There are a whole variety of satellite programs that are
very important that we are continuing to fund.
Mr. Honda. So TSAT has nothing to do with this then?
Dr. Holdren. Yeah.
Mr. Honda. Then can you help me understand why the future
funding of that is going to be on hold where the next
generation they are looking at to be able to produce the system
that we have out there and increase our dominance and control
of the technology and satellite and geo positioning? And maybe
I can get a response back in writing.
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, this is a military satellite, but I
would have to get back to you on the details. I am not familiar
with the TSAT Program or what's happened to its budget. So I
would have to look into that, sir, and we could get back to
you.
Mr. Honda. Okay.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Aderholt?
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman, we have two, five-minute votes
after this, and my question is going to take a little longer.
Could we just recess for just for about five or ten minutes and
then----
Mr. Schiff. Well, if you don't mind, Mr. Aderholt, I have
got a short question. Maybe I can get that in now.
Mr. Aderholt. Well then I just defer. Go right ahead.
Mr. Schiff. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. I will go vote and then I will come back.
Okay.

NASA--PLANETARY SCIENCE PROGRAM

Mr. Schiff. Super. Mr. Holdren, I wanted to ask you about
the Planetary Science Program. The President's budget does a
great job of funding earth science missions and continues
funding for current planetary science missions, but it doesn't
do much to move future planetary science missions into the
formulation stage, in particular the outer planets flag ship
mission to Europa is not moved into the formulation phase. The
budget mentions that NASA is waiting for the results of the
Planetary Science Decadal Survey before formulating the
mission, but this mission was recommended in the last decadal
and has been ready to begin development for several years, so
that seems just another delay, another excuse for delay.
Those of us that have been strong supporters, but don't
understand why we continually--it gets approved by one decadal
and we got to wait for another decadal, and why isn't NASA
funding the development of an outer planets mission in 2011?
Dr. Holdren. I don't have the answer to that off the top of
my head, it is another one I will look into and get back to
you. I am not sure what the answer is.
Mr. Schiff. Okay, I appreciate if you would get back to us
on that. That was the only short question I had.
Let me start with the next one and we will see how far we
can get.

NASA--HEAVY LIFT CAPABILITY

The new budget discusses heavy lift, but not with a lot of
detail. The only time line mentioned is a vague statement that
we should have a new heavy lift first stage engine by 2020,
developing a vehicle will then take many more years leaving us
without a heavy lift capability until 2025 or 2030. All though
the commercial space flight companies are making great progress
they don't have plans for heavy lift.
What would be necessary to get us a heavy lift vehicle by
2020 to move up the timetable, and can the technologies
outlined for development using funds currently devoted to
Constellation reduce the size of the heavy lift launcher we
might need?
Dr. Holdren. Let me take the last question first. Certainly
some of the technologies that are going to be explored under
the new plan can reduce the need for heavy lift. For example,
if you can develop and demonstrate in-orbit refueling then the
need for how much mass you have to put up at one shot can be
reduced and you can have a smaller heavy lift capacity than you
would otherwise need.
There are a variety of other advanced technologies that can
effect that. For example, if you get advanced space propulsion
that doesn't need as much chemical fuel to go where you are
going you can again reduce the amount of mass you have to put
up there.
There is no very specific timetable beyond the general goal
you mentioned in part because we don't know until we start
reinvesting in technology how fast we can make progress and
what the most attractive possibilities will be that could be
converted into real operational systems. So obviously this is
something that is going to be revisited continuously after the
research that we have been neglecting for so long gets back
under way. Obviously the sooner the better from the standpoint
of our capacities to explore deep space.
But you know, I have to remind everybody that we wouldn't
have really had the Ares 5 ready to go, according to the
Augustine Committee, until the late 2020's in any case. I mean,
we were looking at a shortfall in heavy lift capability under
the old program, not just under the new.

NASA--VISION

Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you a broader question in terms of
the vision behind the NASA Human Exploration Program. In
particular the moon, while it was somewhere we had gone before
was still a goal that caught the imagination of the American
people and the plan to get there had goals and time lines. The
President has not been explicit about the long-term goal of all
the research that is set out, the research and development work
that is going to Mars, and that is a serious concern.
Is this plan the faster way to get us to Mars? And if so,
why hasn't the President made that case?
Dr. Holdren. I think we will be hearing from the President
on this. I can't give you a date, but it has been the
President's intention to speak up on this topic. As you know he
has had his hands pretty full on some other topics, and I think
they don't want to put too many out there at once, but we will
be hearing from the President on space policy and what his
vision is.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I think that is really vital. There is a
lot of concern here, as you can tell, with the direction of the
Space Program and with, you know, the loss--the potential loss
of our leadership in this area that has been the source of
great pride for the country and innovation and technology, and
if there is a good case to be made for why this advances those
goals it really will need to be made very forcefully.
I mean, I represent an area that is very heavily involved
in robotic exploration----
Dr. Holdren. Right.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. And the budget is very kind to
robotic exploration, but I also have a great support of the Man
Space Program and share the concerns about the degree and
length of time in which we will be reliant of the Russians or
anyone else for that matter, the degree to which turning our
Space Program into an international program will result in--
potentially result in delays and loss of American leadership in
this area, and I think we would really benefit if we made
clearly articulated vision about where our Space Program is
going and how this is the best direction to get there.
I mean, I am obviously mindful of the budget realities and
have lamented over the last several years that our aspirations
and our policies far out stripped our capacity to pay for them,
so I have never envied the task of reconciling those two, and I
know if you had your way you would have the President focused
on this all the time, but he obviously has a lot else on his
plate as you mentioned.
I am going to head down, and we probably won't have other
members back before this series, so we will recess then until
the conclusion of these votes.
Dr. Holdren. Good. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ruppersberger. Good afternoon.

NASA--CONSTELLATION

Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Dr. Holdren for being here today
and for your testimony. And no one envies your job that you
have and certainly we all appreciate it, it is a very difficult
job that you have and what you are doing.
I would want to mention a little bit about just the
overall, and from in recent years the entire discretionary
budget requested average just under $1 trillion. President
Obama's budget request average over $3 trillion of course that
is not counting the stimulus. Our hope was that NASA's request
would include realist dollar amounts for human exploration.
The Augustine Commission suggested two to three billion per
year for any of the human space flight options to be realistic.
The current plan that is before us flushes away $9 billion
invested in the Constellation, commits U.S. taxpayer to at
least two billion more dollars to shut down these programs, and
provides a top line increase of slightly more than $1 billion
per year for five years. It terminates the only launch and
capsule program which have been guided by NASA's safety
criteria to the level of being human rated by NASA. This plan
abandons any open of astronauts actually going anywhere beyond
the station for at least 20 years.
I am aware of the OMB statement of NASA's mission, I am
getting ready to go to Mars, but these science projects should
be worked on at the same time as the launch systems like
Constellation which will actually get us somewhere.
My first question is regard to the speed that NASA is
shutting down the Constellation, even though the commercial
options for human space flights are not ready at this point.
Fixed costs of launching Ares 1 would be about $1.2 billion a
year, any launch system is going to have that high of cost or
higher. The marginal costs are costs per rocket would be about
120 million for Ares 1, plus about 50 million for Orion
Capsule. The latest estimate for the Completed falcon 9 is
about $130 million.
Meanwhile we should note that the original March 2006
contracts NASA sign would the two companies which won COTTS
contract called for three demonstration flights by the fall of
2008 showing the ability to deliver cargo to the International
Space Station, almost four years later we are still waiting on
that first flight.
The transfer of human space flight missions to commercial
companies only goes against number one, 2005 and 2008 Space Act
bills, 2008 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reports, 2009
Aerospace Safety Panel report, and even the Augustine
Commission, which I know you referred to earlier, has
recommended a back-up launch plan.
The intent of Congress was clearly that NASA would continue
these programs until Congress made a decision on the
President's proposal.
Isn't it a big risk for our Space Program for NASA to be
aggressively canceling and freezing all Constellation contracts
which were on schedule to be awarded this year?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, Congressman, I believe we
are talking about the fiscal year 2011 budget here. This is the
President's proposal for what he would like to do in 2011,
which obviously is going to be before this Committee and other
committees of the Congress.
As I understand it, and I read your letter to the NASA
administrator and I read the response from NASA. As I
understand it, NASA is not terminating these contracts at this
point, it is not in violation of the statute to which you refer
here, and it is not NASA's intention, certainly not the
Administration's intention, to violate the statute.
We know we need to work with Congress if we are going to
execute this change in approach in NASA's Human Space Flight
Program and we would plan to do that. There is no intention to
violate the law and I don't believe the law is being violated.
Mr. Aderholt. So it is your position then that they are not
canceling or freezing any of the contracts?
Dr. Holdren. My understanding is the understanding embodied
in Administrator Bolton's response to your letter. I don't know
anything that would contradict that at this point. I must say
that contract law and contract management is not my field of
expertise----
Mr. Aderholt. Uh-huh.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. And so I am relying here on what
I read in these materials and what the administrator and his
staff tell me, which is that they believe they are in
compliance with the law. And the intention is to work with the
Congress to implement the change-in-direction for the Human
Space Flight Program, putting a heavier emphasis on the
development of new technologies, as has been outlined in the
Administration's fiscal 2011 budget.
Mr. Aderholt. So based on the knowledge you have been given
and if they were to ask your advice on it you would advise them
not to cancel or freeze any contacts?
Dr. Holdren. My advice first of all would be to comply with
the law.

NASA--COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Okay. The two Space Act bills passed by
Congress in 2005 and 2008 supported some commercial space
flight development, but never to the point of eliminating our
primary launching capsule plans. NASA has spent $500 million on
the COTTS Program. NASA's budget adds another $312 million,
which is an additional 60 percent on top of the 500, and then
another 500 on top of that in fiscal year 2011 for the
commercial crew, and then billions more.
Was there a market study which showed that multiple rocket
companies can survive without continued taxpayer support? And
can you tell us just how many jobs are created in the first two
years and how many jobs are lost?
Dr. Holdren. It is my impression that there have been a
number of market studies, presumably some of them done by these
companies or by their investors about what the prospects for
commercial space industry are. I am not personally familiar
with those studies, and I can't tell you what particular
studies say about the number of jobs. I have seen an estimate
that something like 1700 jobs could be associated with the
early phase of the growth of a commercial space industry as
envisioned in the President's proposal, but again, this is
not--I have to tell you, not my domain of expertise. The
economic assessment and the jobs assessments, there are other
folks who have looked at that much more closely than I have.
Mr. Aderholt. So you are not real sure about whether there
has been any studies?
Dr. Holdren. I am sure there have been market studies. I
mean, these folks aren't crazy, they are not investing their
own money, as many of them are, without having done some
studies to determine that there is a market.
Mr. Aderholt. You are just not aware of any that you
yourself----
Dr. Holdren. But I am not personally--I haven't read those
studies, I am not familiar with them in detail.
Mr. Aderholt. All right.
Dr. Holdren. But I would be happy to get back to you on----
Mr. Aderholt. Sure.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. What exists.
Mr. Aderholt. If you could that would be very helpful if
you could check into that and find out and let me know all
about that.
Dr. Holdren. Yeah.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I guess we will start another round, so
I guess I will start the round. We won't have any votes that is
for sure.

NASA--INTELLIGENCE

I asked you when we had a conversation at the White House
if you had seen or heard of this report that the Select
Committee on Intelligence had done about the Space Program.
We've had a lot of failures, and for one year the Technical
Tactical Committee of the Intelligence Committee did a year
investigation, hearings with all the majors, commercial NRO,
the DNI really was our partner, and then we wrote a report, and
I assume you haven't seen the report. And the only reason I----
Dr. Holdren. This one.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well you see it now. But why I want to
raise this, because--and I said how we were caught by surprise,
and a lot of what happens in relationships between
administrations and Congress is because a lack of communication
and not the right person knowing who where is doing what. But
here you have a report that deals on a lot of the issues that
you are talking about, more on defense and Intel, but because
of the failures we had, and yet the transition team of course
would sit down and go over it and most of that information
doesn't go where it needs to do.
But you know, I think that that is why when you have people
that--like a Committee or an Appropriations Committee that we
do NASA's budget, and in Intel you have an authorizing
Committee and you do all the research and development.
It is important I think that you or your staff at least
read these kind of reports or see if they are out there when
you are dealing with Congress, because we really understand the
problem I think where you are going, but now the issue is do we
agree on how you fix it?
Dr. Holdren. Uh-huh.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And again, you started out this hearing
about money, we know we have to deal with the issue of money.
There is not enough money around to take care of DoD, Intel,
and NASA, and NOAA all together, so there has to be some
changes.
Your concept clearly of research and development is where
we need to go, but don't think Russia and China aren't out
there also. I mean last year China graduated 606,000
mathematicians, engineers, and scientists. We are about 66,000.
The good news, and I want to ask you this question, I have
been told our curriculum is still superior, but it is not----
Dr. Holdren. It is, but the gap is narrower.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The gap is clearly narrowing. And I
think the anxiety you hear from my friends on the other side of
the aisle too, and I have the same anxiety, when we in fact
make a really--a bold move, when we take almost like a drastic
move in saying all of a sudden we are going to do away with a
lot of these programs, you have a lot of industrial base that
have jobs there and a lot of minds that need to be--make sure
that they are corrected to other areas. I am just concerned
that it is going too quick. We want to do what is best, but I
am concerned it is going too quick. I think commercial, as I
said before is very positive and we need to do a lot more of
it, but you know, I am not sure on how much we can do to get
where we need, and if we step back and we allow Russia or China
to control the skies I think we have problems.

NASA--SATELLITES

I want to get into two other areas. The one area that I
want to discuss is the--and I think this is your field by the
way, or you have a lot of say over this, and that is the
restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial satellites.
You know ITAR, and by the way in this report we talk about
ITAR, how we before ITAR we controlled 73 percent of the space
industry, we are at 27 percent now, and it is slipping, and we
got it passed in the House, now we have to get something done
in the Senate, and hopefully we can do something with respect
to ITAR. But I see the same analogy here that we are so
restrictive on imagery resolution for commercial satellites.
And France, Germany, Spain, and Italy are all building
satellites that have current resolution capabilities that we
can't do it because we won't let our people. And I would hope
that you would look at this so that we can be competitive.
Congress passes way too many laws, and a lot of these laws
have unintended consequences, and I think this is exactly what
happened in ITAR, and I think it is happening here.
So could you give me a commitment that you will evaluate
our restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial
satellites?
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Have you looked at it already?
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely. We have started to look at that.
The Administration is looking very carefully at the whole ITAR
and the larger export restrictions domain. We know we have
problems there, and my own view is that it is possible to make
some considerable improvements that will benefit both our
security and our economy.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And of course you have to balance the
security. But you know, ITAR has taken ten years just to get
something out of the House, and we did it in a bipartisan way,
now the Senate is sitting on it.
Dr. Holdren. I mean, you know----
Mr. Ruppersberger. We need the Administration to step up
for ITAR right now.
Dr. Holdren. And I think you are going to see that.
But on the specific question you raise about the resolution
of commercial imagery, yes, we are looking at that. We know
there is an active global market in imagery, we monitor those
developments closely, we understand their issues related to
what our government will allow that are problematic in that
domain, and we expect to be reviewing and updating the
Administration's position on that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is probably going to be soon?
Dr. Holdren. Yes. I have no problem giving you the
assurance you want, Congressman, that yes, we are looking at
it, we will be looking at it, and sooner rather than later. We
are already looking at it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. The other issue is weather
satellites. Now we know probably you need usually one boss,
that is a problem when we had the DoD and I think----
Dr. Holdren. NASA, NOAA, and DoD.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, not any real boss and you need
one boss, you need a plan, whatever, I mean that is just basic
management. And then I think you all made a decision to give
the weather satellites over to NOAA and then they canceled the
satellites. And even though we know we have two satellites in
the barn, so to speak, they are older satellites.
But my concern about the cancellation of the satellites,
again, something happening rather quickly, there is a lot of
research and development and there is a lot of technology that
exists right now that is almost ready to go, because this
project has been out there for a while, and with NOAA coming in
and saying well we are canceling the project that we were
working on, that I am afraid we are going to lose millions, if
not billions of dollars, a lot of research and development that
has been there, and it is a move that I am concerned about.
Dr. Holdren. We are not canceling things there. We are
splitting the responsibility for acquisition between the
morning and the afternoon orbits in these polar orbiting
environmental satellite systems so that the DoD is responsible
for acquisition for the morning orbit, and NASA and NOAA
responsible for acquisition for the afternoon orbit, but we are
not terminating the work that has been going on on the
instruments, we are not losing that investment. Those
instruments are going to fly, they are going to continue
coordination of the data streams and the ground station.
A lot of the problems with that program have been in the
acquisition stage, and we think we've got an approach----
Mr. Ruppersberger. By the way, that falls to space too, is
that true?
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Sorry.
Dr. Holdren. We think we've got an improved approach to
that. It is a tough problem in which one is looking in a way
for the least bad solution because there is no ideal one. They
all have some liabilities, but we are certainly not terminating
these capabilities, we are not terminating the instruments. We
are going to finish those instruments, we are going to fly
them.
Mr. Ruppersberger. In preparation for this hearing today we
just got this information, but I would like to know what is our
plan for future satellites? Are we going to rely on your
opinions more? Where are we going? The two that we have in the
barn are I believe rather old, I mean they don't work at least.
Dr. Holdren. Well those are the ones that DoD has in the
barn.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Right, okay. Now where is our plan for
weather satellites? Do you have a plan for that down the road?
Dr. Holdren. Well in short yes, we do have a plan for
weather satellites. And again, the origin of this program was
the realization that the needs of the DoD and the needs of NOAA
in terms of weather satellites overlap quite a lot, and the
theory was that since these needs overlap so much why not
combine them into a single joint operation which would meet the
needs of the civil sector and the military sector at the same
time? Now that turned out in practice to be a lot harder to
execute I think than anybody imagined when it was thought up in
the '90s, in part because of the different acquisition models
of these agencies, their different degrees of risk tolerance,
and differences in their missions----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Uh-huh.
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Which were greater I think than
folks were imagining when they put this together.
But the fact that we are separating now part of these
particular missions doesn't have any implication for conceding
leadership in weather satellites and earth observation
satellites to other countries.
We are for these particular polar orbiting satellites
relying on the Europeans for what's called the mid-morning
orbit. We have been for a long time, we will continue to do
that because they are making the observations and making the
data available that we need. But you know, we have a robust
program of weather and climate monitoring satellites and we are
going to keep one.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Okay, who is--Frank are you next?
Mr. Wolf. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think I am going to ask really many questions, but
I think there is a degree of secrecy or urgency that has been
connected with this decision.
I just saw this press release here and it says, ``Attorney
General Eric Holder didn't consult the Department of Homeland
Security before he made plans to try alleged September 11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York city, Homeland
Security Secretary,'' Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.
I think the same thing is really happening here. I voted
against the stimulus package, but there were some members, and
I thought it made some sense that asked the Administration,
particularly with some of the funding that went into areas that
then create jobs to have taken some money out of the stimulus.
I believe there were some members of Congress, I don't know how
many, that sent a letter down. Perhaps some voted for the
stimulus, perhaps didn't vote for the stimulus, and I know that
the Administration has been critical of people who--and I have
gone to for ribbon cuttings for any stimulus money because I
didn't vote for it, and I would never go to a ribbon cutting.
But there apparently were a number that said you ought to
consider it.

NASA VISION

Secondly there is really a concern that there really isn't
a goal, there really isn't a vision, there isn't anything that
kind of captures your imagination the way that President
Kennedy did about putting a man on the Moon.
I have a whole series of questions that I will submit, but
it doesn't appear to me that you really have a goal. It doesn't
appear to me that you have a vision that you can capture. And
you were talking as I came in about the STEM grants. You know,
50 percent of the STEM funding last year as laid on the table
was not accessed. We are losing the young people because there
is not that imagination, that interest, and everything else. We
used to be number one on all these test scores and now we are
dropping, we are dropping, we are dropping.
And I think before you do anything, I am going to oppose
what you are trying to do. I have talked to Dr. Griffin, I have
talked to a number of other people, some just call me out of
the blue. To me I think it is an abdication of America's
leadership. The thought of having to abdicate leadership to the
Chinese, and your viewpoint on China and mine are totally
different. The President wouldn't meet with the Dali Lama,
similar to President Ford, wouldn't meet with Solzenitzen, and
you know, but to have the Chinese impact us that way, and I
think what this means is they are probably laughing about this
in Beijing.
But I think you needed a public aspect, you needed to bring
some of the best minds together. Iron sharpens iron. Bring them
together to have a public discussion as to where we go. I am
not going to say everything you have said is right, or
everything you said is wrong, but it was sort of a surprising
decision, and the NASA people have called me.
One of the interesting things about my district, my
district is Northern Virginia out into the Shenandoah Valley.
When the Administration was going to secretly move terrorists
from Guantanamo Bay and put them in Northern Virginia I had
asked Eric Holder about it, they refused. Finally people from
different agencies, three different agencies called and told me
today the Administration are moving the people. So a lot of the
people that work in NASA and even some that maybe work right
where you are, live in my district, some go to my church, so
everyone that is called felt that this was done in a very, very
poor way. And so whatever you do you need to bring people
together of all different viewpoints.
I stipulate you certainly are not a bad person. I mean, I
don't think that you are trying to destroy the program, but
bring everyone in together--and you didn't do that--and as a
result of that there isn't any plan, there aren't any ideas,
and your people are becoming demoralized. I talked to a person
the other day who was down at the space shuttle launch and they
said the administrator in NASA told the people, and now you
have done a great job, you won't be around next year because
you are all going to be gone, but you have really done a great
job. That's, demoralizing. Here you got a person who has been
with NASA, dedicated, working the hours that they work, done
what they have done, maybe have one kid in college, another
kid, you know, getting ready to go into college and you just
tell them you are out, you are gone.
Now this isn't a jobs issue for me. I don't represent
Alabama, I don't represent Texas, I don't represent Florida. I
represent the Northern Virginia area, and so I just think the
way you have gone about it has a degree of arrogance, and I
think you are going to have a problem.
I am going to do everything I can to stop this and to see
if there is a way to kind of look at this thing in a different
way.
With regard to that I am not going to ask you other
questions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. John. John.

NASA VISION

Mr. Abney. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I as a Houstonian
do not physically represent NASA, and my passion and support
for the Space Program stems out of a personal passion for the
sciences. I have been an amateur astronomer, was a nerd in high
school, bought myself a telescope when I graduated from high
school, great passion about my support for the sciences,
medical scientific research, and NASA for the technological
benefits, but as Mr. Wolf has just so eloquently said, NASA
sparks vision and hope and inspiration in young people where no
other government agency can. It is probably the only federal
function other than our military, God bless them, the young men
and women that go into the Armed Forces have a great deal of
zeal in their hearts and excitement for the mission that they
have and it inspires a lot of young people to go in the
military, the work that our men in uniform do.
NASA inspires young people to go into the sciences and
mathematics, and to engineering and is the one agency frankly
among all of the federal government that has a highest level of
public approval, support, and it is a fact no matter what you,
you know, said or how you couch it in terms of you consulted
with NASA administrators or with the center directors about
options. The center directors were not told in advance that the
Administration's number one consideration was to cancel
Constellation. It was done very poorly as Mr. Wolf says, and
these are wonderful good people who I honestly--I don't have--I
have got maybe a few jobs in my district from NASA, I am on the
far west side of Houston, and this is really a personal passion
for me. I feel as the members of this Committee do that our
investment in the sciences and NASA is a viable part of our
strategic.
I support strongly what Mr. Ruppersberger does in his
committee, and how important those intelligent assets are in
orbit, how critical it is that we preserve that lower orbit
capability at an absolute minimum, and if the Administration
were, Dr. Holdren, to succeed in canceling the Constellation
Program, what space vehicle as we sit here today is capable of
carrying humans into space and how soon?
Dr. Holdren. Well first of all, Congressman, let me clarify
a couple of things. The first is I too was a nerd. I have two
MIT degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, my senior class
project at MIT, which I loved, was to design a man to Mars
mission, and we did it. Class of 1965, 300 pages. And so I
understand everything you are saying about the importance of
NASA, its inspirational effect.
I was one of the kids who was inspired by the need to
respond to Sputnik in 1957, I was at the beginning of my high
school years at that time, and so I completely relate to that
set of views.
Nothing about what we are doing is intended to run down
NASA, to retreat from U.S. leadership in space. I understand we
have a disagreement about the right way to do it, but you need
to understand first of all that we think we have an approach
that will help NASA inspire again.
I don't know if you knew about the event last October 7th,
Astronomy for Kids on the White House lawn----
Mr. Abney. But your intention is not what's at issue here.
The point is what the effect of what you are doing is you
have--you are proposing to cancel the Manned Space Program.
There is no other way to look at that. If you cancel
Constellation the only man ready rocket in the U.S. inventory
today is Ares, it just was tested, it will be land ready very
soon, that is the one rocket we've got. Burt Rutan, who is
opposed to what you are doing, succeeded in doing this, only as
Alan Shepard did. He just went up and down very quickly. So----

NASA--MANNED SPACE PROGRAM

Dr. Holdren. I understand that, but----
Mr. Culberson. And other than Ares what other rocket----
Dr. Holdren. Ares----
Mr. Culberson. Please answer my question. Other than Ares,
what rocket as we sit here today is ready within how many years
to carry humans into orbit?
Dr. Holdren. First of all Ares is not ready. Ares would not
be ready until 2017 or 2018 in the judgment of the Augustine
Committee.
Mr. Culberson. I am not asking about that.
Dr. Holdren. Well the point is it is not right to say
``well, we have Ares'' as a bird in the hand and you are only
offering birds in the bush. Ares is out there too. Ares is 2017
or 2018 if everything goes well.
Mr. Culberson. It has been tested successfully and it is
already on path and we've spent $3 billion dollars, Mr.
Ruppersberger, I know we all on this Committee we spent $3
billion getting that rocket ready and it is on track, it is
over budget, and it is a little behind schedule, these things
are complicated. But other than Ares, if we take Ares as you
propose to do, you cancel Ares, what rocket as we sit here
today is ready to carry humans into space and how soon?
Mr. Holdren. None are ready to carry humans into space
today. No U.S. rocket is ready to do that today.
Dr. Culberson. So which one as you sit here today will be
ready?
Dr. Holdren. On that time scale we could have a Space X
rocket, we could have a Boeing rocket, we could have a man
rated Delta 4, we could have a man rated Atlas 5. The short
answer is I don't know which one is going to succeed.
One of the merits of the American system is when you turn
the private sector loose and say we have got this task and you
are going to get to compete for success, we will have a
success.
Mr. Culberson. And I got a little excited last time because
this upsets me, this upsets me a lot. But there it is,
gentlemen, it is speculative. There is no rocket ready to take
the place of Ares. The gap is going to be five years. I wish
there were no gap. And I was appalled when the Bush
Administration's vision turned out to be a press release and
they didn't give this Committee the money we needed, and we
know it, you know how it came about. It was infuriating and it
under funded NASA, short all those wonderful employees with
mortgages as Mr. Wolf so correctly pointed out. I mean you have
got kids in college, you have mortgages, you have worked your
heart out designing a new rocket and you were just told a month
ago by the new administrator we are behind you, the
Administration is behind you, Constellation is full speed
ahead, and then two days before the announcement it is
canceled.
Can you imagine how that rips their heart out of their
chest? What you have done to those wonderful people, those
engineers, God bless them, and scientists and astronauts. Set
those jobs aside, those are vitally important jobs that are
important for America's future, but we have no other rocket
members of the Committee. There is no other rocket ready. There
is not even one on the horizon, it is all speculative. The one
rocket we have that is being tested and is over budget and
behind schedule is Ares, which you are proposing to cancel.
Dr. Holdren. It is way over budget and it is way behind
schedule and we think there are other options.
Mr. Culberson. But you don't even know what that would be.
And we can't afford a gap, we can't afford a gap of one year
much less five years, and then what are you going to do with
the gap?

NASA--CHINA

Let me ask also something I know was mentioned by Mr.
Ruppersberger, I heard you say earlier that the Chinese might
help us get to the International Space Station. And I just read
an article, members, that Mr. Ruppersberger I know as a member
of the Intelligence Committee read, probably the same alarm
that I did, that the Administration is considering inviting the
Chinese to come participate and help us in our Space Program?
Now that has never been done, because the Chinese space program
is a military space program whose primary purpose is designed
how to better target their ICBMs on American cities and take
out our satellites. So I am very concerned.
Would you please tell the Committee what the Administration
is doing to expand the cooperation of the Chinese in our Space
Program, since they have never been allowed before any where
near our facility?
Dr. Holdren. I don't think there are any plans that I know
of. The only thing I know of is that Administrator Bolden did
go to China, and about the same time the President went to
China, he certainly had some conversations with leaders of the
Chinese space program about areas of potential cooperation.
There were no agreements reached. This was a very exploratory
discussion. I wasn't there.
Mr. Culberson. Well certainly for me I know and the members
this Committee----
Mr. Ruppersberger. John, It is already happening. The
Chinese have cyber attacked NASA on a regular basis.
Mr. Culberson. They do and recollects it is a real concern.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Not that we let them do it.
Mr. Culberson. Right. It is a real concern that I share
with my good friend Mr. Ruppersberger from Maryland that
Chinese are not our friends and particularly when it comes to
space, and they are using that technology to better target
their ICBMs and take out our satellites. The high ground today
is low earth orbit in outer space.
And again, it is just not acceptable to me or this
Committee, I am quite confident that we are going to surrender
the high ground of outer space.
Dr. Holdren. We are not going to surrender it, sir.
Dr. Culberson. You have already surrendered it, sir. You
are proposing to cancel Constellation and you just testified
there is no rocket ready to replace Ares.
Mr. Holdren. That doesn't amount to surrendering space. We
have huge capacities in space.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. And we have them in the military sector and in
the civil sector, and we are not going to surrender our
leadership.
Mr. Culberson. And I would like to hear from Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. The arrogant facial expressions of your staff
behind you is unbelievable. You particularly, you. I mean, I
don't care who you work for, but the arrogance of it I have
some pretty tough questions, I am not going to ask them. You
too. I wish I had a camera taking your facial expressions. I
think you really bring a degree of arrogance here that it is
just offensive. I yield back.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, my turn. One of the issues that I
think that we are dealing with here today is we don't have
enough information, it came too quick. You know, those of us
who work a lot in this area just did not--we were just
surprised where we are going, but we want a road map and we
want a plan and then we want it justified.
I think some of the things about this program, and let me
try to--and some of this is classified so I won't get into it.
You know the major program that was canceled about three or
four years ago, it was one of the majors, it was one of our big
satellite programs over budget and whatever, and what happened,
why that was canceled is because it was way over cost, over
budget, and it got to the point you keep putting more money
into it what are you going to get out of it number one? And you
know, some of the things that we wanted to get out of that
program weren't going to happen, so we had to re-evaluate
because there was only a certain amount of money.
Now I assume as you talk about Ares, there is Ares 1, but
then there is the one we are focusing on now that John is
focusing on or whatever. And it is my understanding that the
cost of that, if you move forward the way it is now are in the
billions and billions, and that we still--it might be a black
hole that we are not sure if we can produce.
Wait one second, I will get you. But is that where you are
coming from on your focus on Ares? I mean, changing----
Dr. Holdren. Well that is certainly an important part of
it. Ares which originally was expected to cost four and a half
billion dollars is now expected to cost something like 18.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Right, okay. I didn't know if that was
classified, whatever, it probably isn't, okay. But go ahead,
John, yeah.
Mr. Abney. Very quickly if I could.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
Mr. Abney. The reason the cost gets so high is because you
are trying to go to Moon and Mars, and my focus here is I think
we need as a Committee to stay focused on we have got to
preserve the ability to go to lower earth orbit. That is far
less expensive and far more doable.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would think that we are there more on
the lower orbit, I think the major concern with the Space
Program though, if you were involved with Sputnik, the reason
we are as good as we are now is because we responded to Sputnik
and we actually created rocket science as people who research
and development. And all that we did to get to the Moon helped
us dominate where we are now and we are losing that dominance,
and that is where I am sure--I applaud you for evaluating where
we are and what we are doing, I am just worried that we don't
have enough and that we are not sure. And we want to work with
you, because it is all end game in the end. What's right for
our country, our national security. And I will work with you,
but you know, you have got to work with us.
Dr. Holdren. Oh, we will, and we want to get the leadership
back.
Mr. Ruppersberger. We need a lot more information. You
know, Augustine has one report. There are people on both sides.
And I tell you, I haven't been sold yet today, myself. I am
willing to work with you, but I mean, I just want to get some
experts and hear these different points of view before I decide
where to vote--you know, what to do with this program.
And again, I am worried we are going way too quick when you
are dealing with the national security that is at stake.
Because if it is the wrong decision then we could really put
ourselves in a real bad position. We need to be dominant in
space.
One thing about it, do you have launch? Is that in your
capacity too, the launch issue, launching? The ability to get
the satellites up?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I mean in the Office of Science and
Technology policy we are responsible for advising the President
on every aspect of science and technology that affect----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would like you to look at it, because
in my opinion----
Dr. Holdren [continuing]. His positions.
Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. We are behind France in
launch and maybe another country too, and whenever I hear the
United States is behind and for a lot of different reasons, but
you know, there is a consortium with one group, you have other
issues, there are certain satellites that should have gone up
by now that were canceled because we couldn't deal with it. I
really hope you focus on the issue of launch, because it
bothers me when the United States is not number one in that
arena.
John. Frank.
Mr. Wolf. No, I am fine.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that it, all the members? Okay, well
thank you for being here. I think if anything we learned today
it is the issue of communication.
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, I agree.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And you know, we have got to get some of
our people to advise us and whatever of pulling that together,
because it is a really big issue.
Dr. Holdren. We will try to do better with that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I really understand the cost. You know,
DoD, Intel, NASA all together, we don't have enough money for
everyone. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Meeting adjourned.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

NASA (NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION) FY2011 BUDGET
OVERVIEW

WITNESS

MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NASA

Chairman's Opening Remarks

Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Mr. Wolf is at another hearing and he has asked that we
move forward. And he should be here shortly.
Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011. Today
we will cover the budget status and future direction of the
U.S. Space Program, and our witness is Retired Major General
Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator.
Welcome, General Bolden.
In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked the world by launching
Sputnik and challenged the U.S. with its superior capability.
President Eisenhower responded by forming NASA. And by 1960,
the U.S. had launched the first weather satellite, the first
data relay satellite, and the first navigation satellite. The
first commercial communications satellite, Telstar, was
launched in July of 1962.
Confronting the Cold War challenge of the Soviet Union,
President Kennedy said, ``I believe this nation should commit
itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of
landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. No
single space project in this period will be more impressive to
mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of
space and none will be so difficult or expensive to
accomplish.''
In 1969, NASA delivered on his vision and U.S. superiority
and technology, especially missile technology, was on clear
display for all to see. The cost in today's dollars is almost a
hundred billion dollars.
This amazing era of accomplishment continues to dominate
the vision of NASA both within and without, but hard realities
should be recognized. NASA employment peaked in 1967 and NASA
pioneered reduction in force, RIF, procedures for the federal
government. Over 10,000 people who had worked their hearts out
getting us to the moon were out of job. NASA's budget peaked in
1966 at over 24 billion in today's dollars. Using Apollo
Program capabilities, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz flew. But from
the summer of 1975 until the spring of 1981, the United States
did not, could not fly an astronaut.
In answer to the question of what to do, President Nixon
supported the start of the Space Shuttle Program. By the time
it flew, the first U.S. Space Station had fallen to earth due
to lack of funding and the resulting lack of capability to
boost Skylab's orbit. The money was not made available to build
a new orbiting lab as proposed, so the Shuttle had no orbiting
lab to shuttle to except for the Russian Mir, which it visited
multiple times.
In January of 1984, President Reagan challenged NASA to
achieve a permanent man presence in space and the International
Space Station Program began. The initial cost estimate was $8
billion and no one expected it to be 25 years and $40 billion
before construction was complete.
In 1984, the Shuttles were new. No investment was begun to
replace them until 2004--too late to prevent a gap in U.S.
astronaut launch capability.
Today it is not the early 1960s. Then a trip to the moon
was a science fiction dream. Today Star Wars and Star Trek are
based on a dream of interstellar travel and galaxy-spanning
federations or empires. In Kennedy's time, rocketry was a major
hallmark of national technological achievement. Today U.S.
achievement is evident in creation of the internet, invention
of the iPhone, production of the fastest super computers, and
sequencing of the human genome. The Soviet Union is no more.
Our shooting wars are with those who oppose modernity, not
those who challenge us in a rush to the future. Competition
with China is more a matter of innovation, intellectual
property, manufacturing, and resources.
In this contemporary context, faced with the need to set
the future direction of the Human Spaceflight Program, the
President has formulated a program that shifts from plowing
ahead with new development programs driven by return to the
moon to a focus on government development of new enabling
technologies with the eventual goal of landing astronauts on
Mars.
Exploration beyond low Earth orbit will be vigorous, but
for a time, it will be achieved through the use of robots.
Commercial provision of astronaut transport to the space
station is proposed, and the life of the space station is
extended until at least 2020. At the same time, NASA's programs
in Earth and space science and aeronautics are strengthened.
Education programs are continued, and the Kennedy launch
complex is slated for modernization.
So today we find ourselves at another pivotal point for the
Space Program. Like Presidents Nixon and Reagan, president
Obama is committing the nation to human spaceflight as a
continuing endeavor, but this commitment is part of a balanced
effort within a constrained budget. Frankly, many of us yearn
for the Apollo-like vision of the 1960s, but is that the
approach that best serves our nation's interests?
Mr. Administrator, there is much we need to learn about
this major change in the direction of our Space Program.
Following my remarks, we invite you to summarize your
testimony, which will be made a part of the record.
We just had a vote called. We have 12 minutes and 38
seconds to vote and I am going to invite you to make your
remarks. Administrator Bolden.

Administrator Bolden's Opening Remarks

General Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear today
to discuss the President's FY 2011 budget request for NASA. I
am grateful for the support and guidance of the Subcommittee
and I look forward to working with you on enactment of the
President's bold new direction for our Agency.
I want to say up front that I understand the Committee's
concern that details, such as our justification documents, have
been slow to reach you. I apologize and ask your attention to
the details of this historic change in NASA's direction. Very
soon, we will be announcing program office assignments needed
to carry out the President's vision and challenges to NASA.
Other details will become available in the coming weeks.
Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what
the destination is for human spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit
under the President's plan. NASA's exploration efforts will
focus not just on our moon but also on near-Earth asteroids,
strategies, and the planet Mars and its moons. For me, the
ultimate destination in our solar system at present is Mars.
While we cannot provide a date certain for the first human
visit with Mars, it is a key long-term destination. We can
identify missing capabilities needed for such a mission and use
this to help define many of the goals for our emerging
technology development.
The right investments in technology will allow us to map
out a realistic path to this destination and continues to
inspire generations of school children, just as it inspired me
many years ago. Growing up in Columbia, South Carolina and
watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each week from my
seat in the balcony of a Carolina theater.

PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
$19 billion, including an increase of $276 million over the
enacted 2010 level. Longer term, I am pleased that the budget
commits to an increased investment of $6 billion in NASA's
science, aeronautics, and enabling technologies over the next
five years compared with last year's budget. All of us at NASA
appreciate the President making NASA such a high priority at a
time when budget realities dictate reductions and freezes for
other worthwhile programs.
With the President's new visions, the NASA budget will
invest much more heavily on technology research and development
than recent NASA budgets. This will foster new technological
approaches, standards, and capabilities that are going to
enable the next generation spaceflight, Earth-sensing and
aeronautics capabilities.
These investments will produce additional opportunities for
U.S. industry and spur new businesses such as a recently
announced partnership between NASA and General Motors to build
an advanced dexterous humanoid robot, R2.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM TERMINATION

As the Constellation Program has ended in an orderly
manner, I want to thank all of the NASA employees and
contractors who have worked so hard on the program. Their
commitment has brought great value to the Agency and to our
Nation and they will continue to play a pivotal role in NASA's
future path. Many of the things NASA has learned from the
Constellation Program will be critical as the Agency moves
forward.
However, as the Augustine Committee concluded, the
Constellation Program is on an unsustainable trajectory. To
continue on our current course, at best we will probably not be
able to fly our astronauts to the moon until sometime after
2030. But to accomplish that task, we would have to make even
deeper cuts to other parts of NASA's budget, terminating
support of the International Space Station early, and reducing
our science and aeronautics efforts. Further, we would have had
no funding to advance the state-of-the-art in any of the
technology areas we need to enable us to do the things in
space.
The President's proposal to end Constellation enables us to
present a fiscal year 2011 budget that includes: A flagship
technology development and demonstration program with our
international and commercial partners and other government
entities, to demonstrate critical technologies, automated
rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support systems.
Heavy-lift research and development that will investigate a
broad scope of research and development activities to support
development, test, and ultimately flight of a heavy-lift launch
vehicle sooner than projected for the Constellation Program as
assessed by the Augustine Committee. Robotic precursor missions
to multiple destinations in the solar system in support of
future human exploration, including missions to the Moon, Mars,
and its moons, Lagrange points, and near asteroids. Significant
investments for the development of commercial, crew, and
further cargo capabilities. In concert with our international
partners, extension of the utilization of International Space
Station to 2020 or beyond. Pursuit of cross-cutting space
technology capabilities led by the newly established Office of
the Chief Technologist, to spawn game-changing innovations to
make space travel more affordable and sustainable. Climate
change research and observations, which will enable NASA to
substantially accelerate and expand its Earth science
capabilities, including a replacement for the orbiting carbon
observatory. Aeronautics research and development, including
critical areas of Next Generation Air Transportation System or
NextGen, green aviation and safe integration of unmanned
aircraft systems into the national airspace. Education
initiatives, including the recently announced Summer of
Innovation Pilot Program to inspire middle-school students and
better equip their teachers for improved classroom performance
in STEM-related courses.
We understand that many concerns are being expressed about
the budget, but I believe it is the right vision for NASA. I
look forward to continued discussions with you and our
authorizers about the concerns and how we might solve them.
Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for
inspiration throughout our history--our work gives people an
opportunity to imagine what is barely possible, and we at NASA
get to turn their dreams into real achievements for all
humankind through the missions we execute.
This budget gives NASA a roadmap to even more historic
achievements as it spurs innovation, employs Americans in
exciting jobs, and engages people around the world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of
this Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or other members may have.
[The information follows:]

ASTRONAUT HEALTH RISK

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Administrator Bolden.
Let me let the Subcommittee's members know we are into a
vote where we have five minutes, five and a half minutes left
for the vote, 386 members yet to vote. I intend to begin my
questioning. We will recess during the vote and then come back
and continue.
Thank you.
In testimony last month, you stated that today you could
not in good conscience send astronauts to Mars given available
technology. What health risks confront astronauts as they
venture beyond low Earth orbit?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, the primary health risk is
radiation exposure. Secondarily is just the long duration
spaceflight with less than one G. But the radiation is the long
pole in the tent. It is the one we do not know how to overcome
just yet.
Mr. Mollohan. To what extent do these risks pertain equally
to flights to the moon, to asteroids, to Lagrange points, to
Mars?
General Bolden. To most of the flights in the near Earth
area such as the Moon, the exposure is not as long as it is
going to Mars. The trip to Mars today is about eight months. It
is significantly outside the Earth/Moon system and so the
exposure to radiation is longer and more intense. A trip to the
moon is two, three days, and so we do not find ourselves
confronted by that threat as much.
Mr. Mollohan. What technologies are needed to enable
astronauts to survive missions to asteroids and Mars?
General Bolden. If I had the ability to snap my finger and
do two things, I would develop much more capable in-space
propulsion systems that would cut the travel time, the transit
time from Earth to Mars at least in half and more, if possible.
The second thing I would do would be to find some material that
can sufficiently shield orbiting or transiting crew/members
from the threat of radiation without adding untenable weight to
the vehicle.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

Mr. Mollohan. The President's budget request is predicated
on the cancellation of the Constellation Program. Why is this
drastic step proposed?
General Bolden. Sir, there are a number of reasons for the
cancellation of the Constellation Program and it has nothing to
do with the people in the program who are exceptional
engineers, scientists, and researchers. But it has a lot to do
with the status of the program. When I became the
Administrator, we were severely behind schedule and
significantly over the amount of money that it would take to
complete it. I think by the Augustine Committee's estimate, it
probably would have taken another $45 to $60 billion dollars to
complete it. In order to invest money in research and
development that would enable us to get vehicles to put people
on the surface of the moon or to transit to mars, the
Constellation Program would have pretty much sucked up all of
the funds that we could have used for research and development.
So for a number of different reasons, it was not the right path
for us to take. It was on an unsustainable path.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, billions have been invested in
Constellation.
General Bolden. Sir----
Mr. Mollohan. Is that a waste or are we wasting billions?
General Bolden. Sir, we invested good money in
Constellation and we have received incredible returns. When I
look at some of the technologies that come out of the
Constellation Program, and it is everything from just the way
we process vehicles or the way we would process vehicles, some
of the technologies like the robotics I mentioned, R2, the
dexterous robot, that is a part of the Technology Demonstration
Program that was a part of Constellation.
A lot of the human research that we do today, actually some
of the research that is conducted on the International Space
Station comes from expenditures that were a part of the
Constellation Program trying to help us find better ways for
humans to survive the trips that they were going to have to
make, Rovers that are present that we could use today to go to
the moon which have changed my mind about the need for
permanent habitats. While not a direct part of the
Constellation Program when it started, the funding for the
Rovers and the research actually came out of the exploration
system in the Constellation Program.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, those are some of the benefits coming
out of the Constellation Program.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.

LOST CONSTELLATION PROGRAM BENEFITS

Mr. Mollohan. But there are those who are saying that those
benefits aside, not going forward with Constellation is a waste
because perhaps you are throwing away those benefits, but you
are throwing away a lot of other investments, a lot of other
progress, or is there a waste in going forward or are both
correct?
General Bolden. Sir, as I mentioned before, I would not
call it a waste, but I would say going forward with the
Constellation Program as it exists today, going forward with
the program of record puts us on an unsustainable trajectory
considering the economics of today.
We would probably not get to the moon with a human until
after the 2030s. I am convinced that with the technologies that
we can develop, we will get there much sooner. We could not go
to Mars probably not in my lifetime to be quite honest. I am
convinced that given the opportunity to expend some funds on
research and development, technology development, we can
actually do that.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I am one that totally subscribes to the
idea that President Bush announced a great vision and then did
not fund it. But we are where we are. So why would we not just
stretch it out, keep the investment, stretch out the
investment, and not throw away the accomplishments up to date?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the reasons
that Constellation has grown the way it has is because that was
the technique used. We stretched out the investments. You made
the comment about the cost of the Space Station Program, that
it was envisioned to be, $8 billion when proposed by the NASA
Administration under President Bush or President Reagan and it
ended up costing $40 billion plus.
What was not said in your statement was that the
International Space Station, if I am not mistaken, is the third
or fourth iteration of a space station and that resulted from
stretching the program out and rewicking it looking for a
better way to do it. I just could not in good conscience advise
the President that we should follow that same course with the
Constellation Program. Constellation today, the program of
record today is a lunar-centric program. It has us trying to
get Ares I that would take us to the International Space
Station, take us to low-earth orbit, and then Ares V would come
somewhere along the road. That would be the vehicle that we
would use to go beyond low-earth orbit. The Ares V would get us
to the Moon and it would get us there without a way to get down
to the surface of the Moon. Altair, the landing vehicle, had
not been funded. We were about to do some studies on it, but we
had whittled away at the Constellation Program and had gotten
ourselves in a situation that was essentially unrecoverable.

ARES I

Mr. Mollohan. Well, elaborate on that. Why wouldn't Ares I,
why shouldn't it become the basis for the U.S. astronaut
transport to the space station?
General Bolden. Well, sir, in my opinion, Ares I is a very
costly program that keeps us in the same paradigm that we have
been since the earliest days of human spaceflight here in the
United States with a huge infrastructure. That is in terms of
facilities, people to run those facilities. We think that we
can actually get away from that way of operating by utilizing
the commercial entities that already build the vehicles for us
and already operate the vehicles for us as they do in Shuttle
today.
My vehicles today are commercial vehicles. Every Shuttle is
a commercial vehicle built by a commercial vendor that will
probably participate in the building of the commercial next
generation vehicle. The only difference is the acquisition
strategy used to operate that vehicle.
And today we buy shuttles. Well, we bought at the cost of
about $2 billion a copy. In tomorrow's paradigm, I am not going
to buy a vehicle, but I am going to use the vehicle produced by
an American corporation in terms of, what do you call it, my
idea is that we lease it and then we use it to fly a NASA crew
to the International Space Station to do a mission.
The operation of that vehicle is primarily done just as it
is today by USA with the Space Shuttle. It will be done by the
vendor that owns the vehicle. The mission control center will
be done just as it is today probably with Shuttle and the
International Space Station. The people in the mission control
center will be partially those from the company that built the
vehicle and partially from NASA engineers and flight
controllers.
Again, in my way of thinking, the operational concept,
which has not been developed yet, but I will have a large part
to play in what it ends up being, in my operational concept,
the Flight Director is still a NASA person, the one NASA person
that you can count on being in the control center.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are not suggesting that Ares costs any
less or any more than developing the technology and doing it
commercially? You are suggesting, I think I am hearing you
suggest that the savings is in the operations; is that correct?
General Bolden. I am suggesting that the production----
Mr. Mollohan. Do we have a comparable development cost----
General Bolden. I do not----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Going commercial versus Ares?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I actually think the
development costs, which we pay in part through the amount that
we pay for seats, I think the development costs will actually
be somewhat less than Ares I. That is something that it is too
early to say, but I do believe that.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, what is the basis of that belief?
General Bolden. The basis of the belief is that the
technology today, you know, it----
Mr. Mollohan. You are pretty far down the road with Ares.
General Bolden. With Ares?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
General Bolden. Sir, we have quite a way to go. You know,
we just finished the----

COMMERCIAL ORIENTED APPROACH

Mr. Mollohan. Well, does not commercial approach have as
far to go or even further?
General Bolden. They have as far to go in one respect, but
they are getting ready to actually test fly the vehicle here
next year. In fact, we are going to test fly two of those
vehicles.
Another potential source of commercial is the Atlas V and
the Delta IV and those vehicles have been flying for quite some
time. So for cargo to orbit, they are ready right now. If the
companies that own them, if ULA decides that they want to enter
the competition----
Mr. Mollohan. The cargo----
General Bolden [continuing]. That will be another round.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. But cargo transport is not the defining
goal here. It is----
General Bolden. Sir, the defining----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Human transportation.
General Bolden. The defining goal is commercial transport
of crew to orbit. And we are at the same stage of development
whether it is Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Taurus in terms of
certifying them for spaceflight, for human rating. There is an
involved process of human rating that we would have to go
through with any vehicle.
Mr. Mollohan. We are going to have to recess.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I understand.
Mr. Mollohan. We will return afterwards sometime. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume.
I am going to have a couple continuing questions with
regard to costs and timing of these two different approaches.
I believe your testimony up to this point was that you
think the cost of a new commercial oriented approach would be
less than pursuing the Constellation Ares approach; is that
correct?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I do. I went back and thought
about it after you went out. When I last asked my folks how
much it would cost us if we were to try to fly Ares, for
example, Ares I, it turns out that it is about four billion to
four and a half billion a year just for Ares I.
The primary reason for that is there are $600 to $700
million dollars alone just in the infrastructure that is left
over right now from the Shuttle era. We need to phase out all
of that if we are going to gain the cost savings that I
anticipate we can do.
Mr. Mollohan. What about if you used a different upper
stage and a limited capability crew module, one not capable of
transit to the moon? Would that be an acceptable approach and
would that bring the cost comparison in line or would that give
Ares a cost advantage?
General Bolden. Sir, are you asking if--let me make sure
I----
Mr. Mollohan. If you used a different upper stage, would
the cost of Ares be significantly reduced through the use of a
different upper stage and a capability of just going to the
moon?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, the Ares I is----
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry. Station.
General Bolden. Oh, to go to station, the problem there we
found was that in order to design and build a crew vehicle, it
ends up being what some people call an Orion light. I am
certain you get visited by the commercial entities every day
and some of them will tell you that they would like to use a
readily available expendable launch vehicle, an EELV with an
Orion light.
Orion light is a vehicle that carries crew, but we would
not send it anywhere outside of lower-earth orbit. So, you
know, we end up having to design and build different vehicles
for low-earth orbit than you do for the lunar and Mars
missions. And it all----
Mr. Mollohan. How is the commercial approach and the
technologies and capabilities that are going to be developed
there different?
General Bolden. Because the commercial vendors will develop
their own--for example, if I name Space X, for example, their
capsule is Dragon and it has the ability to cargo and crew
with--you look at orbital, theirs is Cygnus. If you talk to
ULA, either of their partners, Boeing or Lockheed Martin, they
would probably use something like an Orion light. So the
vehicle in which you carry the crew is going to vary by who the
vendor is.
One of the things I would like to do is help them use some
of the research and development money that we have to help
build a common crew module that can be interchangeably used on
a number of launch vehicles. We cannot do that today. Today
everything is tailored. Everything is individual.
One of the reasons that it costs so much or when we talk
about the 21st century range, that concept, it is because
everything is unique today. I cannot put an Orion vehicle on an
Atlas or a Delta or a Space X vehicle, and I would like to help
the commercial entities design a single crew module because it
is good for us to train in.
We do not have to train crews for multiple crew modules.
That can be used interchangeably on any launch vehicle. We can
not do that today or we have not done that today. But those are
the kinds of things that you would be allowed to do with the
President's budget when we talk about research and development.

HUMAN LAUNCH CAPABILITY TIMING

Mr. Mollohan. Moving from cost to timing, what is the
fastest path to restoring U.S.'s human launch capability, Ares,
commercial?
General Bolden. It is my belief right now, Mr. Chairman,
that the fastest path is the one that I helped the President
propose and that is to go to the commercial entities to allow
them just to qualify their vehicles first for cargo to low-
earth orbit, to the International Space Station.
Mr. Mollohan. All right. You are describing in your
testimony a kind of faster, better, cheaper.
General Bolden. No, no. I----
Mr. Mollohan. Not in----
General Bolden. You will never, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Mollohan. Not in the way that has been understood.
General Bolden. You will never hear me say faster, better,
cheaper.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, it sounds like it is going to be
faster. It is going to be a better way of doing it and it is
going to cost less when they say it like that.
General Bolden. Well----
Mr. Mollohan. That is what you are describing.
General Bolden [continuing]. If it works out that way, that
would be----
Mr. Mollohan. Well----
General Bolden [continuing]. that would be incredible.
But----
Mr. Mollohan. And that is my question. What is your feeling
testifying here today about it working out that way?

COST OF ASTRONAUT FLIGHTS TO LOW EARTH ORBIT

General Bolden. My feeling is that it will be cheaper for
NASA to get to low Earth orbit on a commercial vehicle. Also, I
do believe that we will get to the International Space Station
quicker than we could with Ares I just because of where I found
the program when I came in.
In terms of getting to the Moon, which is really NASA's
ultimate goal, it is getting to the Moon and Mars, we cannot do
that right now if we continue to march with the Constellation
Program. That is my concern.
I really want to get NASA back into the exploration
business and free us up from the day-to-day responsibility for
operations of activities in low Earth orbit. That is critical
and we will have oversight of that. But there is a big
difference between oversight and day-to-day operations. And I
want to get us----
Mr. Mollohan. And that is where you see the savings, the
cost savings----
General Bolden. I see the cost savings----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Managing these systems, the----
General Bolden [continuing]. In managing the systems and
getting away from having to maintain the infrastructure, the
things that we have to do today.

OBJECTIONS TO THE BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Mollohan. The Financial Times, the March 18th issue,
there is a, and I know you read this, feature story, the Pull
of Gravity. You are smiling already. And some of those who are
expressing concerns about this program. I have a couple quotes
here I would like you to respond to.
The President's proposal, opponents of the President's
proposal from, and now I am quoting, from both political
parties say the decision to turn from Constellation to the
approach reflected in your budget jeopardizes national
security, prestige, and commercial interests at a time when
other countries are boosting their own space programs.
What is your response to that?
General Bolden. Sir, I disagree with that. I do not think
it jeopardizes our national security. In fact, in my
conversations with the national security representative if it
is all the way from Secretary Donnelly, the Secretary of the
Air Force, to General Kehler, to General Carlson, we all agree
that going the commercial route is the best thing for the
country. I think if you talk to any of us, we will tell you
that. Is it risky? Yes, it is. But it is risky to go to space.

U.S. LEADERSHIP

Mr. Mollohan. Further in the article, I would like you to
respond to this, the article makes the point that NASA would
pursue new technologies that could eventually take astronauts
beyond earth orbit to places that humans have never visited
such as asteroids or the moons of Mars, your argument, but
there is no clear headline destination and no timetable for
going further than the hundred billion dollar space station
which has been assembled over the past 15 years as a
collaborative venture group among the U.S. and its partners.
Is that the problem here, that you are not really
articulating a vision that inspires or you are rolling it out
piecemeal or why is this not grabbing a lot of people?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, my attempt to articulate a
vision was to answer the question that everybody said. If you
are not going anywhere, you are not going anywhere. We are
going to Mars eventually. That is the destination.
As I have told everybody, I wish I could tell you the date
certain, but I do not have the capability of getting there just
yet. That is what I need time to put into place, the
capabilities that will allow us to get there.
It is very important for people to understand we are still
going to be, Americans are still going to be very active aboard
the International Space Station for another ten years, thanks
to the budget that has been proposed by President Obama.
In the article, it talked about national security and
leadership. It is really important for people to understand
that the International Space Station today is what allows us to
lay claim, uncontested claim to international leadership in the
world in human spaceflight.
I Chair something that is called the International Space
Station Heads of Agency. It is an organization of five people
who represent the five partners in the International Space
Station, Russia, Japan, Canada, the European Space Agency,
which is 15 nations that Mr. Dordan has responsibility for, and
the United States. The Chairperson of the Heads of Agency is
the United States. It is not questioned by anyone.
In our last meeting a little bit more than a week ago in
Tokyo where we all endorsed extension of the utilization of the
International Space Station, the statement was made by the
Russian counterpart that the leadership of the United States is
greatly appreciated and they hope that that would remain the
case.
It is because we are the acknowledged leader. Everybody
realizes that the International Space Station would not even
exist today had it not been for us. Everybody wants to partner
with us. That is something that our international partners make
very clear every time I talk to them.
So it is very important that we not shrink from that, but
that we also, as the President himself says, we have to take
bold steps. We are a bold nation. Sometimes people confuse
bigness with boldness. I am sorry. Sometimes you lead not by
being out front where you are very visible, but you lead by
being influential and being able to get people to do the things
that you need to do. We do that every single day on the
International Space Station.
When there is an issue, whether it is in a Russian module
or a Japanese module or the European module, everybody comes to
us. We pull the teams together in Houston whether it is by
internet, by telecon or by video telecon or whatever, and the
solution is made right in Houston.
So I cannot give a better example of leadership than that.
I wish I could vocalize it better. We are the acknowledged
leader in the world in human spaceflight. Unless we choose to
say we are, that is not going to change.

GENERAL BOLDEN'S EXPERIENCE

Mr. Mollohan. General, how long were you in the Astronaut
Corps?
General Bolden. Sir, I was there for 14 years right in the
middle of my 34 years in the Marine Corps.
Mr. Mollohan. How many Shuttle flights did you participate
in?
General Bolden. I flew four and my first flight ended ten
days before we lost Challenger. And my next three came in the
wake or in the aftermath of Challenger when I realized that it
was so important that we do what we do that I remain a part of
the program.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACTS

Mr. Mollohan. That would suggest you had some insights into
these issues.
A final question here. In our report last year, we included
this provision ``provided, none of the funds provided herein
and from prior years, shall be available for the termination or
elimination of any program, project, or activity of the
architecture for the Constellation Program, nor shall such
funds be available to create or initiate a new program,
project, or activity unless such program termination,
elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent
appropriation Acts.''
There is some concern that or some question about whether
that provision is being strictly complied to. Can you speak to
that question?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that provision is being
strictly complied to. We have not terminated nor cancelled any
contracts in the Constellation Program. We have not directed
the slowdown of anything in the Constellation Program. I have
authorized the cessation of procurement activities, five
different activities that were in the process of going through
competition to become contracts and I have explained that to
members of Congress before. They were decisions that I felt
were prudent because they had to do with downstream
Constellation type projects.
One of them was construction of the processing platforms at
the Kennedy Space Center. We would not have gotten to that in
2010 anyway. So, I just stopped the procurement activity that
would have gotten that contract.
Another one was for what we call an Eagle contract. It is
the ground support. It is all the engineering and everything at
the Kennedy Space Center. I on the recommendation of Bob
Cabana, the Center Director at the Kennedy Space Center,
terminated the efforts on that because his advice to me was, if
we compete this contract and it is won and we do not have a
budget that funds a follow-on program, I am going to have
people out of work because they will be working under a
contract that is not funded.
And there are three others that I could mention that we
stopped because it----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, with regard to that one, could anybody
fairly consider that to be a termination?
General Bolden. No, sir. That was not a termination because
we did not have a contract. So all of the existing
Constellation contracts their work is still being fulfilled.
I did ask people please do not expand the scope of any
work, please do not go out and begin any new work because I am
not authorized to do that.
Mr. Mollohan. In regard to the decisions that you have
referenced here in answer to my previous question or with
regard to any decisions you might have made that could be
construed as being covered by my question, have you consulted
lawyers in making those decisions?
General Bolden. Sir, I consult my Office of General Counsel
before every decision and frequently we consult lawyers from
other organizations which I have learned is not always, and I
do not say this meaning any slight about attorneys, but----
Mr. Mollohan. Of course.
General Bolden [continuing]. As a general rule when I ask
for multiple opinions from multiple organizations' attorneys,
then I get multiple answers. So I do count on my General
Counsel who I consider to be an incredible attorney and his
team. So the advice was that I was not in violation of the 2010
Joint Appropriations Act and I do not believe I have done any
of that.
Mr. Mollohan. So based on your----
General Bolden. In fact, the GAO is about to undertake or
has already initiated an investigation into just those things.
It will allow me to have an outside organization assess that I
have not violated the law, that I did not violate the direction
of the Congress.
Mr. Mollohan. So with regard to these questions and those
decisions, you feel, your testimony is here today that you have
made all of them in compliance with the law based upon the
advice of your lawyers?
General Bolden. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.

PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I apologize for not being here at the outset. I was
Chairing a hearing on Human Rights and Religious Freedom in
Vietnam, so hopefully the questions will not repeat.
But I talked to a lot of people about this. There are two
things. One, everyone thinks you are a fine person. So I think
if there were a vote on that, you would win a hundred percent.
The other side of the coin is that not many people that I
have spoken to, some who have interest because of jobs, but
others who just care about the country, do not agree with the
Administration.
Some of the comments. Former NASA Administrator, Mike
Griffin, said I believe this budget request advocates a
strategy that is frankly disastrous for U.S. human spaceflight.
Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo Flight Director and
former Johnson Space Center Director said, ``the U.S. Space
Program is in great peril if the President's budget proposals
are enacted.''
Apollo 7 astronaut, Walter Cunningham, said ``the proposal
accelerates, quote, accelerates America's downward spiral
toward a mediocrity in space exploration.''
Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator, Harrison
Schmidt, wrote this proposal, ``would cede the moon to China,
the American Space Station to Russia, and assign liberty to the
ages. Other nations would accrue the benefits, psychological,
political, economic, and scientific, that the United States has
harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success 40 years ago.
This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic
competitors.''
Apollo 16 astronaut, Charlie Duke, said we cannot afford to
lose our leadership in space.
Then it goes on. I will not go through them all? I will
just ask unanimous consent to submit them for the record.
[Clerk's note.--Letters can be found following QFR
responses.]
I have a series of question. The first is, the President's
proposal for space exploration has not been embraced by many
members of Congress. There are some that have. But overall, it
has not.
I made an effort to solicit the views, positive or
negative, of space exploration experts, former astronauts, and
former Administrators. And I have done it in a very
intellectually honest basis. I would call them and say just
tell me, and I could off the record sit down with you and tell
you who, what do you actually think. Some were astronauts, but
some were not. Some were in the program. Almost no one has an
involvement with regard to jobs.
And one of the most frequently heard criticisms is that
there is no set mission goal. And what are the goals of the new
program and what time table will these goals be achieved?
General Bolden. Sir, the primary goal for NASA with the
President's new program is to be able to put humans on Mars in
the foreseeable future. As I have explained before, the
difficulty in doing that and the reason that I cannot give you
a time certain is because we lack certain technological
capabilities to do that. That is what is the basis for the
technological development programs that I would like to put in
place, so that we can develop those technologies and the
capabilities that will allow us to do that.
The reference you made to the group, and I did look at the
document and I appreciate your giving me that before, they are
very learned people, but I contend that the paradigm that they
use is the paradigm of the Cold War when we had a defined
enemy. So it was a matter of defeating the Soviet Union in the
Cold War.
We did not do anything in partnerships at that time. It was
the United States against if we need to. That is not the
paradigm under which I have grown up, in my 34 years in the
Marine Corps. Today we do international partnerships and we
will not be able to go to Mars, we will not be able to go back
to the Moon unless we are able to team with our international
partners.
The International Space Station which right now is the
focus of any hope to be able to go beyond lowearth orbit. That
is an international effort. So, I think they remember the way
it was when we had a defined enemy and you could state that,
okay, we are going to beat that enemy to a certain finish line,
if you will.
People talk about losing out on the race to the Moon to
China. That is impossible. We already won the race. There is no
race to the Moon. We won it. Whenever any other nation gets to
the Moon, they will find six flags and all six flags will bear
the colors of this nation. They will have a different number of
stars depending on when they were there, but, they will be
United States flags.
As I tell people all the time, they will probably, because
the moon surface does not get disturbed like ours, they will
probably walk in some footsteps. Those footsteps will be the
footsteps of the 12 American astronauts who first set foot on
the Moon. So there is no race. We have won that race.
Mr. Wolf. A lot of the----
General Bolden. There is no backup leadership. We are the
designated leader.
Mr. Wolf. A lot of the individuals I am referencing, and I
will send you the letters, too, are not in that category. They
are younger people, younger than you, some of the best minds in
the country, a vast array of people. And they say basically the
same thing. And I am going to share everything I have with you
so that there is no surprises.

WORKFORCE CONCERNS

The Shuttle Program is being closed down at the end of this
year. NASA was already faced with the difficult task of
transitioning the Shuttle workforce into the Constellation
Program. Now you are proposing to terminate the Constellation
Program at the same time.
What do you anticipate are the impacts of this decision on
the workforce, both Civil Service and contractors? How many
jobs will be lost and what measures do you plan to take to
minimize the impact of job losses and the negative impact on
the industrial base?
General Bolden. Sir, as I think everybody knows, the Obama
Administration is not the Administration that brought about the
closeout of the Shuttle Program. We have been working on that
since 2004.
While I was sad to see it come, it was time. We have
learned a lot of lessons in going through the Shuttle
transition process. So, we think we know how to transition as
we close down a program.
So, while we were going to be able to transition a portion
of the Shuttle workforce to the Constellation Program and this
has exacerbated that somewhat, we think we know how to
transition a workforce to a new program. And as I mentioned
earlier, it is my hope that we will be able to announce the
programs that we would have as follow-on under the President's
proposed budget.

CENTER JOB LOSSES

Mr. Wolf. Well, how many jobs do you foresee being lost?
General Bolden. Sir, I will get that information for you
for the record because I do not want to--you know, we know that
in the Kennedy Space Center area from the Shuttle Program, it
was probably going to be in the neighborhood of 5,000, but then
we were going to get some that we would transition to
Constellation. But I will get the definitive numbers for you
for the record for each of the centers affected.

Workforce Transition

NASA is assessing the workforce implications of the FY 2011 budget
request. While more precise workforce projections are not likely to be
available before the submission of the FY 2012 budget request, the
Agency believes it will be able to support delivery of the next
Workforce Transition Strategy update--with updated, by-Center estimates
for the Space Shuttle and Constellation programs and parametric
estimates for new work, reflecting the President's proposed budget--by
this August. In May, the Agency plans to deliver an update on its
workforce transition efforts that will focus on employee assistance and
related activities. While the May document will not include workforce
projections, it will reflect the significant ongoing transition
activity that has occurred since the July 2009 edition of the Workforce
Transition Strategy as NASA has continued to work towards the
retirement of the Space Shuttle, and will set the stage for the August
edition of that report.

LEADERSHIP IN HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

Mr. Wolf. Okay. Many have characterized this proposal of
ceding leadership in manned spaceflight to other nations.
Charles Krauthammer wrote that decades from now, there may be a
robust private space industry, but ``in the interim, space will
be owned by Russia and then China.''
What are the implications of this, because we also have
seen that the Chinese are very aggressive? And you say that we
have won and we have, but the opportunities for ceding that
leadership, because once you are ahead in the race and fall
behind and somebody comes up, what are the implications if
China gets back to the moon--gets to the moon before we return?
Do you see any implications?
General Bolden. Sir, I do see implications to it, but they
are not necessarily bad. You know, if the Chinese choose to go
to the moon while we are trying to go to Mars and we are able
to develop the technology necessary to do that and we reach
both destinations simultaneously, which we could, you know, it
depends on how long it takes them to get there, then I would
say once again----

CHINA AND THE MOON

Mr. Wolf. But you were mentioning going back, you said, to
the moon and then to Mars. Assuming you are going back to the
moon and China is going to the moon, who gets there first the
next time?
General Bolden. Oh, the next time?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
General Bolden. Sir, I do not intend, it will sound
trivial, but I do not think it matters who gets there.
Mr. Wolf. Well, it does to me. It does to me. And I think
it matters, with all respect to a lot of Americans. I mean, it
may not with you. And, believe me, I admire your service, so I
want to make that clear. But it does to me. And I think it does
to a lot of young people. We are trying to increase math and
science and physics and chemistry and get excitement. And
people do not sign up to get the autographs of the Land Rover.
They line up to get the autographs of the astronauts. So I
think it does.
Somebody said the other day astronauts are the only people
that people stand in line not knowing who they are just to get
the names, the autographs of people they do not even know. They
do not do that with other people. So it matters to me and I
think it matters to a lot of others.
But based on that question, who do you think gets there
first the next time? Do we get back to the moon before China or
does China get to the moon before we get back to the moon?
General Bolden. Sir, because of where we are
technologically in comparison to them, I think we get back
first. If I am allowed to carry out the vision of President
Obama and as supported by the 2011 budget, I think we stand a
pretty good chance of getting to the Moon much quicker than we
would have with the Constellation Program.

PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL

Mr. Wolf. The President's proposal seemed to take NASA
workforce by surprise. To what extent was this new plan
developed and vetted and refined by the NASA scientists,
engineers, and managers who represent the country's best
qualified experts in space exploration?
General Bolden. Congressman, for months prior to the budget
being announced, I had worked with my senior staff. But
development as a general rule happens at the--is an iterative
process. When we prepared our inputs, then there were
participation among all my senior staff in providing the input
for the budget.
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is not completely what we hear when we
talk to someone.
General Bolden. Congressman Wolf, if I may----
Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir
General Bolden [continuing]. The data that we put together
for submission for a budget does not mean that, it is like any
budget. Everybody puts in what they want and then you go
negotiate and you get out maybe not everything that you asked
for.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I understand. For five years, I worked for
a Cabinet Secretary, former Congressman Roger C.B. Morton. And
when big decisions were made in a particular area, if it dealt
with national parks, the National Park Director would come in,
the park superintendents would come in. It was an in-depth kind
of consultation before the Secretary just rolled something out.
And the centers most impacted by this decision, Kennedy,
Johnson, and Marshall. So I guess directly were the Directors
of those centers part of the team making the decisions on the
new proposals and, if not, why not?
General Bolden. Sir, all Center Directors as well as all of
my Mission Directorate Associate Administrators were involved
in all the deliberations that we made prior to my going in and
meeting with the President and working on the budget with him.
But as I said again, everything that you propose does not
always come out the other end. I think the budget that we got
is the best budget for the nation and the best budget for NASA.
It essentially represents what I recommended to the President.

REVIEW OF THE NEW PROPOSAL

Mr. Wolf. Okay. I just will have one other on this round,
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
After talking to a number of these people, and I appreciate
the conversation I have had with you, in light of the
widespread opposition, and I think you would acknowledge there
has been some fairly widespread opposition, on March 11, I and
several other members wrote to you asking you to assemble a
team of NASA experts to conduct a 30-day review of the new
proposal tested for ground truth and suggest possible
alternatives and modifications within the current proposed
budget. Will you be conducting this review?
General Bolden. Congressman Wolf, we are constantly
reviewing everything that we do. And I think you will find when
I respond to your letter, that we have looked long and hard at
ways to--for example, the one question you asked about,
ensuring continuous American access to low-earth orbit, we
continue to look at that in hopes that we would be able to find
a way to do that. We are unable to do that. So that will be a
response that I will give to you. I am working on your
response.
Mr. Wolf. So are you looking then? Or have you looked and
decided not to? The request was to take 30 days because the
President is going to go down to Cape Canaveral on April 15th.
When something is rolled out then, then you are going to have
kind of a fairly significant complication.
Is there an effort to develop, and I do not know if the
word is compromise, but is there an effort to look at this
thing again and compromise?
General Bolden. Congressman, my intention is to continue to
work with the Congress. I know that the President is going to
work with the Congress.
But I think in your letter, if I remember, you asked if I
were looking to develop a plan B and there is no alternative
plan. There is no alternative budget. I stick by the budget
that I helped the President develop. So if the question is am I
developing a plan B, there is no plan B.
Mr. Wolf. And what if it is rejected by the Congress?
General Bolden. Sir, it is my intent to work diligently to
find a solution to the differences that we have on the
different parts of the budget. I think, and I hope I am not
being presumptive, but I think with the exception of the
portion of the budget that deals with the cancellation of the
Constellation Program, we are probably in unanimous agreement
that we have an incredible budget. So my intent is to focus on
work with the Congress and I know that that is the President's
intent.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I guess I could take that as a, yes, we are
going to try to accommodate and work or I could take it as it
is and I am uncertain.
It troubles me, as you know, I do not support what you are
doing, some parts are positive, but I am already getting calls
and hearing that some of the companies and our lobbyists
downtown, former members of Congress, people who really are
working on this not necessarily for America but to make a
profit. And that is, I guess, the way this process works in
this town.
But are you open to other ideas or is it just the way it
came out?
General Bolden. Congressman, personally I am open to any
ideas that come through my organization. I constantly challenge
my Center Directors and all of my employees to help us
determine better ways that we can do what we do.
We have a budget that has been proposed by the President.
As I said before, I think it is an incredible budget. I think
it gives us great opportunities. And I think within the
constraints of the budget, we are going to find a way to get
America to mars in due course and we are going to develop the
technologies utilizing the funds that hopefully will be
appropriated in that budget to get us there quicker than we
would have been able to do under the program of record, under
the present Constellation Program.
So that is my focus. And I really want to work with this
body to make sure that we are able to do that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Ruppersberger.

U.S. SPACE PROGRAM

Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, first I know that your position as
Administrator, you have the President's budget and, you know,
there are issues there. Once he puts out the budget you are
going to have to defend that budget. I want to say I respect
your role as Administrator. And one of the reasons is because
you were an astronaut and you understand the business, and that
is important.
My concern is that if you look at the history of our
country, and how we evolved to be number one in space, it all
started really I think with Sputnik. And when the Russians came
out with Sputnik we were concerned they were going to control
the skies. And we got together as a country, our American
ingenuity, our education, and we put a man on the moon in
twelve years.
Since that time, though, we have had a lot of failures in
the space program. We have lost billions of dollars and we have
had to cancel other programs. And the issue of canceling a
program is very serious when you have had a lot in it but you
cannot keep throwing bad money, and you have to have, if you
are a leader you have to make certain decisions and prioritize.
My concern is the way this was done, because I think it has
happened way too quick. When you read about it in the paper,
and those of us who deal in space and deal with, whether it is
military intelligence or NASA. And I am concerned that we do
not have the road map. That we all of a sudden have a plan, and
because of the fact that we have 25,000 jobs at stake, we are
competing with Russia and China, I think it could put us at a
disadvantage.
So I want to ask you a couple of questions. The first
thing, you have said that you feel that clearly we are number
one in space at this point. But I think you also, do you feel
that there are a lot of challenges that we have ahead of us?
General Bolden. Sir, I think there are definite challenges
that we have ahead of us and they would be there if we had no
competition.

HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. One of the challenges that I
am concerned about is launch. It is my understanding that we
have not, are not where we need to be with respect to launch,
that probably Russia and China are ahead of us as far as launch
capability. And I think this is something we really have to
focus on. And I hope that you have certain priorities that you
are focusing on the launch issue. There is a lot, whether it is
resources, whether it is management, but it is something I
think that we have to deal with it. We have had too many
cancellations that seem to we are going down the wrong road on
launch. Do you have an opinion on that?
General Bolden. Congressman, you and I have talked about
this in the past, as I have with several other members. This is
an area of concern for all of us who are involved in the
national security arena or space access arena. Just as recently
as last week I was involved in a video teleconference with the
space related agencies in our government, led by Secretary
Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force, and General Kehler,
General Carlson and me. The issues that we discussed included
the need for a broad national launch system that will put us
back where we need to be. We are too reliant right now on old
systems, and that is one of the reasons that I try to
reemphasize the importance of President Obama's budget. Because
in that he has challenged me to find state-of-the-art
propulsion systems, both for leaving the planet but most
importantly for in space propulsion. So that we can get to the
places like Mars, and asteroids, and the Moon, much quicker
than we can do today.

NASA'S BUDGET

Mr. Ruppersberger. All right, I understand that. I want to
get back to the President's budget again. I think that when you
have such a large program, so many jobs at stake, our national
security at stake, you really have to focus on where your
priorities are. But you have to work with the group. And what I
mean by the group, the DOD. You have to work with intelligence.
You have, with NASA where you are. You also have to work with
Congress. And I feel that there needs to be more of a balance
that has not occurred yet. I think by moving so quickly, and
having to be here to defend, I think that we ought to really
take a couple of steps back and evaluate where our priorities
are going to be as far as jobs, as far as money.
And I agree with you on the commercial issue. We have not,
because we had more money than anybody, that is one of the
reasons why we are superior in space. Europe is doing very well
with commercial. They are getting a lot of the same pictures
that we are getting. They are getting a lot of same information
that we are getting. So we have to make sure, if we can have
four satellites to one, that we really explore commercial. But
commercial will not get us to the Moon, commercial will not get
us to Mars. And this is why I am concerned that based on the
President's budget at this point, that if we, if we are taking
man, we are really not focusing on space involving the ability
to get a man to the Moon or to Mars, it is almost as if we are
having a mile race to China and we are giving them a half-mile
head start.
We know the money that China is putting into their space
program. And I think if we are going to collaborate, and we are
going to work with these other countries, that we have to be
stronger so we have the leverage to work with them. And I would
like your opinion on if you feel there is a way of flexibility
to work with us, to make sure that we can reevaluate and we can
help you put together a plan so that we have all of the
entities, American entities, whether it is military, intel,
that is coming together. Because I think right now you are
going to spend a lot of time defending a budget when maybe we
should spend more time on how we can be successful in the
future in our space program.
General Bolden. Congressman, I appreciate that and that is
exactly what I intend to do. I want to go forward, and I do not
want to stop, retrench, go back and look at something. Mistakes
that I have made, I have made, I cannot correct that. If I were
to go through the budget roll out again I would not do it the
way I did it. I would listen to some of these people sitting
behind me who advised me that this is the way we usually do it.
I thought I was smarter, and I have apologized for that before.

HEAVY LIFT PROPULSION R&D

Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me give you an example of what I
would mean, though, why we have to reevaluate. Heavy lifting
propulsion R and D. Fiscal year 2011 budget for heavy lifting
propulsion R and D, it looks like you are spending $5 billion
over the next five years. Now, your budget proposes $3 billion
over the next five years for a heavy lift vehicle. This is not
adequate funding for a heavy lift vehicle development program
and will require a top line increase in NASA's budget. Now, in
those five years are we going to build, test, or fly anything?
And with these funds it looks like we are only going to study.
We have, we have done a lot of study and research, and we need
to do the testing and the research. But there comes a time when
we have to make a move. Now, I am going to ask the question. In
those five years are we going to build, test, or fly anything?
General Bolden. Sir, it is my hope that we will build,
test, and fly things in this coming period.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What will that be, then? That we are
going to test?
General Bolden. Well sir, the reason----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Based on this budget? I do not see that.
General Bolden. Well the reason that I have asked that we
be allowed to take an opportunity to look at what is available
in current technology and where we think we can go is so that
we build smartly. We design and we develop smartly. I think
there are better capabilities than we presently have today, and
I want to make sure that when we build and test a rocket that
it is the best we can do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. No question.
General Bolden. I think we can get there within the
constraints of the present budget, and then, we will certainly
be required when we get ready to really start going to Mars----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Getting back to my question, though, if
Constellation is canceled, and I hope we can look and
reevaluate that. Maybe there are a lot of things that need to
be canceled within that program, but the whole program being
canceled I believe is too quick. But let me ask this. And I do
not know where my time is, Mr. Chairman. But with Constellation
being canceled, should we not be looking to make sure we are
pressing forward with good heavy lift capabilities? I do not
see it with a $3 billion over five years. I do not think we can
get there with that.
General Bolden. Sir, I have asked my, one of the things
that we are doing with the teams that I know everybody is not
happy with, but one of those teams is a heavy lift launch
vehicle team. They are assessing what will be required for us
to, as speedily as possible, develop a new heavy lift launch
vehicle that will get us where we want to go. So I think when
we finish that work we will be ready to proceed to develop what
the nation can be proud of.

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. Ruppersberger. My time is up? Oh, I have got to get
into cyber, too. Because that is another area that we have to
deal with. And we know, and it is not classified, that we have
had, that NASA has had a lot of cyber attacks, especially from
China, throughout the years. And, you know, a lot of what we do
in space deals with a lot of issues, some that we cannot talk
about. But, you know, how we, commercially, our national
security, and whatever. Where is NASA now as far as the focus
on cybersecurity? Are you working with NSA, since NSA has
jurisdiction over the .mil. What is your plan for
cybersecurity?
General Bolden. Sir, I brought in a new Chief Information
Officer shortly after taking over as the NASA Administrator.
And she knows that that is probably her number one focus. We
have actually begun to work with other agencies and other
organizations that have had perhaps not as many hits as we have
had but more severe intrusions. We are trying to learn lessons
from them so that we can restructure ourselves.
One of the things we could not do, or did not choose to do
before I became the Administrator, was devote the funds
necessary to strengthen our cybersecurity----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you working with NSA to protect
these networks?
General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you for the record.

Cyber security

The NASA Chief Information Officer is working closely with members
of the intelligence community and Department of Human Services on
matters related to cyber security.

Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, well then you do not have to----
General Bolden [continuing]. Do not want to say
specifically the agency that we are working with. Not that I do
not want to, I do not want to tell you that we are working
specifically with NSA if I do not, and I do not know that we
are working specifically with which organizations. But I will
get that information to you.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, the final question is about
Constellation being canceled. You talked about going to Mars
maybe in twenty years, and maybe that, we are not sure where
our priorities are. It seems to me that is a long way off, and
that we need to maybe refocus our priorities and our goals. But
I think at this point if we just, one year Constellation is
there, the next year maybe a loss of 25,000 jobs, that if we do
not reevaluate where and what we can take out of Constellation,
if it is going to be canceled, where we are going to put these
jobs, where we are going to get the best. You know, China and
Russia are Communist countries. They can order the smartest
people in that area to work wherever they make them work. We
cannot. So I really would hope that you would reevaluate that
twenty years, because I cannot see a goal twenty years out with
canceling Constellation. I think we have to work up to that.
So I am just saying we are going to work with you. You are
going to get a lot of accusations, and there is emotion just
like the healthcare emotion and, you know, everything else. But
this is so serious to our country and our national security.
And I think you are the right person in the right place, by the
way.
General Bolden. Congressman, if I may? I share your concern
about having a target that is twenty years away, and trying to
tell the American public that, ``Just wait twenty years.'' That
does not get it, and I say that. What I have told my leadership
team, and everyone in the NASA workforce, all 18,000-plus of
them, is that if we cannot do something that gets people's
attention preferably every year, but every other year, then we
are going to be lost. I really believe that.
And what the President's budget allows me to do is to
launch smaller test flights of technology. I do not have to
have a specific vehicle to launch a technology test. I can use
anything. I can put something on one of these commercial
vehicles that is going to the International Space Station. I
can fly it on a commercial vehicle that is doing their own
thing, taking tourists around the planet. I can fly it on a
suborbital vehicle. I can, that is the way we do things today.
We put more than one payload on a satellite. Or we put a
payload on somebody else's launch vehicle that has nothing to
do with what we are trying to do. That is what the money for
technology development is going to allow me to do. Because we
cannot, we cannot just fly, twenty years from now. We have got
to be doing things that are causing us, or allowing us, to get
incrementally to where we want to go. And that is exactly what
I want to do.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Visclosky.

HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE CAPACITY

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
thank you very much for your time. And in many ways you have
answered the question I am going to ask you and that is about
lift capacity. I serve on a Defense Subcommittee as well and we
are very concerned as far as launch capabilities. You had
mentioned your meetings with the Air Force, and you had talked
about crew modules, and cargo. As you are looking ahead, is it
your anticipation that you are going to use something along the
lines of the evolved expendable launch vehicle? Or will there
be a new system in place as far as launch capabilities?
General Bolden. Sir, if I understand your question
correctly, for a heavy lift launch vehicle my intention would
be that that would be a newly developed system. We can use the
EELVs for any number of things. We can use them for getting to
low Earth orbit. We can use them for getting satellites to
orbit. But that would not be my vision, that we would use that
as the nation's heavy lift launch vehicle to try to get us to
Mars. And that is simply because in the----
Mr. Visclosky. I am not talking, I am sorry, I am not
talking about Mars. I am talking about just this country's base
launch abilities. And are you as you pursue new launch
capabilities for NASA, you mentioned Air Force----
General Bolden. Yes, sir----
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. Are you working----
General Bolden. My desire is to----
Mr. Visclosky. Put out of your mind human space flight.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I understand.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
General Bolden. There are needs for a heavy lift launch
vehicle for national security purposes. So, my intention is to
develop in coordination and consultation with the other space
agencies that need that capability, so that we build a
nationally usable heavy lift launch vehicle. The same thing
with propulsion systems. I want to be able to develop the first
stage engines that can not only lift a NASA crew and cargo that
is going to go to Mars, but will be able to lift something for
the national security apparatus. Or even the commercial
entities can use it on a vehicle should some business
entrepreneur decide that he or she wants to fly something to
the Moon.
Mr. Visclosky. And you are hopeful you would see that
flight within five years? If I understood your answer to the
gentleman from Maryland?
General Bolden. Sir, I do not think I said we would have a
heavy lift launch vehicle in five years, no sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Do you have an estimated time?
General Bolden. My desire would be to get us on a
trajectory where we can realize a heavy lift capability by,
within the next ten years or so. That is what we show on most
of our forecasts if we are able to expend the funds the way----
Mr. Visclosky. And you are in consultation with DOD?
General Bolden. I am in consultation with DOD and the
intelligence communities also.
Mr. Visclosky. And you believe you have enough money in the
2011 budget to pursue that?
General Bolden. I have enough money in the 2011 budget to
begin the pursuit, yes sir.

ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. Visclosky. A more philosophical question if I could.
And this is the first time I have had a NASA hearing. I believe
the agency does an incredible amount of good work with unmanned
exploration of space. Do you have a list at NASA of projects
and proposals for unmanned exploration that we simply do not
have money on because of the cost of keeping a human being
alive in space, that are being unmet?
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I could give you----
Mr. Visclosky. I would take, I guess, an approach different
from colleagues----
General Bolden. I could give you a long list of those that
existed while we were trying to sustain the Constellation
program. As I have said before this panel, before this
Committee and others, Constellation itself was on an
unsustainable trajectory to getting where we wanted to go in
human space flight. While doing so it was sucking all the
oxygen out of the room in terms of support to aeronautics
research, science research, and the like. That is no fault of
the people involved. That is just a fall out of the funding
that went to the program over the last ten years. I just do not
know how to explain it any better.
But in the 2011 budget I think you will see, I would love
for us to be able to talk about the ninety-some odd percent of
the 2011 budget that is really, really good. And it is the
increase in spending on Earth science, climate science,
planetary science, pulling missions forward that we, that came
out of the decadal surveys by as much as a year to two years.
When we start flying these missions in, I think, 2013, 2014,
there is going to be a string of missions that we could not
honestly say we would be able to pull off----

Human Exploration and Robotics

NASA is continuously engaged in the study of potential future
missions and projects. The Agency is guided in this process by national
needs and priorities as well as by scientific priorities as established
by the National Academies of Sciences. The sets of meritorious and
exciting robotic missions identified by the National Academies
inevitably exceeds the available resources. NASA considers a balanced
program that includes both human exploration and robotic exploration to
be essential to America's future in space exploration. Robotic and
human exploration are mutually supportive and interdependent. NASA's FY
2011 budget request reflects an appropriate balance between these two
critical activities.

FY 2011 PROPOSALS

Mr. Visclosky. And let me ask you one final question,
setting aside human space flight and setting aside Earth
science, what are some of the things you would, under the
proposed 2011 bill, be able to do that you would not have been
able to do?
General Bolden. Under the 2011 bill in the field of
aeronautics we are going to do, I think there was recently the
FAA authorization bill passed that put a significant plus up in
the FAA budget for Next Generation Air Transportation Systems.
We are vital cogs in the wheel in producing that system. I
would like to be able to get to the 2011 budget because it has
a significant amount of money that we are going to be able to
put into the NASA portion of the development of next year. When
you look at green aviation, or when you look at other types of
things in the field of aeronautics, that is all covered in the
2011 budget where the aeronautics budget had pretty much shrunk
to about half of what it used to be over the last eight or ten
years.
Those are the things that I am very excited about----

PLANETARY SCIENCE

Mr. Visclosky. Any additional programs in planetary
science?
General Bolden. I beg your pardon, sir?
Mr. Visclosky. Any additional programs in astrophysics or
planetary science?
General Bolden. We have some that we are now hopeful that
we can fly that were doubtful before. The one that I like,
because it goes to a place called Europa, where we think that
it is an ice-covered moon of Jupiter that we think has a huge
ocean beneath it. Where there is an ocean there is a
possibility of some type of life. So for a planetary scientist,
or a life scientist, that is exciting.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

NASA'S ROLE

Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you
for your service to the country and your leadership at NASA. We
all admire you immensely and just continue to hear great good
things about you. I especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, I
think your line of questioning was right on target, Mr. Wolf's.
And particularly I want to follow up on Mr. Ruppersberger's and
Mr. Visclosky's line of questioning. I think the questions they
asked are right on target.
The concern we all have as part of our job as members of
this Committee, as members of Congress, is to protect the
nation's national security interests and NASA's role in
preserving America's national security is vital. That ability
to have a heavy lift vehicle, the manned space program, there
is just no substitute for it.

HUBBLE REPAIR

Hubble could not have been repaired, the initial problem
with the mirrors, the final, the other two repairs. I think you
actually flew on one of the, did you fly on one of the repair
missions?
General Bolden. I put the flawed telescope into orbit.
Mr. Culberson. You were on the first one, then, that fixed
the spherical aberration problem with the mirrors?
General Bolden. I, when I left it we did not know it. But a
couple of weeks later when we started to check out we
discovered we had what was called a spherical aberration. And
that is all I am going to say, because somebody told me that
but I cannot describe it.
Mr. Culberson. That is right, you were on that. And I do
not think a robot could have done that, could they?
General Bolden. I also worked on the National Academy of
Science Committee to save Hubble. And we thought we could
support NASA's intent to develop a robotic mission to Hubble.
When I talk about the necessity of technology development, at
that time in 2003, 2004, when I met, although it was our firm
intent to find a robotic method to go and service Hubble the
technology was not there at the time.
Mr. Culberson. Right, it had to be a manned mission.
General Bolden. It had to be a manned mission. And----
Mr. Culberson. And so many other ways.
General Bolden [continuing]. We were able to convince the
incoming NASA Administrator Mike Griffin that it was worth the
risk.

THE HIGH GROUND

Mr. Culberson. Right. The problems you encounter in space,
whether it be the deployment of a solar panel, or whatever has
happened before, you have just got to have human beings in
space. And that is an absolutely essential part of America's
national security. And space is the high ground today, is it
not? That is the high ground.
General Bolden. It is the absolute high ground. Going back
to your point, robots can do almost everything. But today they
do not reason, they cannot. Although they are very good, we
build dexterous robots. I think you and Congressman Wolf
hopefully saw R2 in a recent visit to the Johnson Space Center?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
General Bolden. R2 can do amazing things, but R2 cannot
think.

EUROPA MISSION

Mr. Culberson. Right. Well your, and I was glad to hear the
Europa mission. Mr. Visclosky is right, how important that is
that NASA also maintain world leadership in exploring the outer
planets. And those are now of necessity robotic missions. The
Europa mission in particular, the highest priority of the
decadal survey, because Europa has more liquid salt water than
the Earth even. And we know it has got heat, there is almost
certainly volcanic vents and life. Very exciting mission, look
forward to seeing that blossom and develop and fly.

HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH AND HUMAN CAPSULE VEHICLE

But Mr. Ruppersberger asked and Mr. Visclosky a very, very
important question, and I cannot see it either, they are all as
concerned as I am, about the heavy lift capability of NASA that
we just do not see it in the budget. And I would say to Mr.
Visclosky and Mr. Ruppersberger, the letter that Mr. Wolf sent
you in asking how within the existing budget can we preserve
the ability to have a manned capsule and heavy lift vehicle
within the existing budget? That question we asked I think
would give us the fall back, if you do not want to use the word
compromise, position that we are all looking for. So you will
be able to answer that question within the thirty days?
General Bolden. Congressman, it is my intent to get your
response, a response to Congressman Wolf in the very near
future.
Mr. Culberson. So within the timeframe Mr. Wolf gave you?
General Bolden. In that timeframe Mr. Wolf----

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

Mr. Culberson. Super. That is critical. Because, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Ruppersberger, I know members of the Committee,
members of Congress, and I, we have only been able to find one
member of the House that supports the President's budget
proposal. And we need to make sure we will as a nation preserve
America's leadership in manned space exploration. And the key
is to find a reasonable middle ground, and that letter will
help us do that. How many----
General Bolden. Congressman, may I make one, please?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
General Bolden. Because the tone of your comment, I want to
make sure that everyone understands, I am not developing a Plan
B. There is no Plan B. There is no alternative budget. But I am
trying to answer the Congressman's letter----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. That is right. We will do that.
General Bolden [continuing]. Within the constraints----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
General Bolden [continuing]. Of the President's proposed
budget.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. The President----
General Bolden. As long as everybody understands that.
Mr. Culberson. The President has made a proposal and we
will, yes sir. I wanted to ask you, General Bolden, the
President's budget was announced on February 1st. How many days
before that did you first hear that the Constellation program
was going to be canceled?
General Bolden. Sir, that particular piece is what they
call pre-decisional. I am not, I think it would be
inappropriate for me to talk about the date on which the
President, I was notified----
Mr. Culberson. Well what I am really driving at, though, is
that the, the decision to cancel Constellation was a surprise?
General Bolden. Sir, because of the way that I chose to
roll out the NASA budget, and I did not go through the normal
process of getting with members of this Committee, or other
members of Congress several days before the budget was
announced, then it was a surprise to the world.
Mr. Culberson. It was a surprise to you?
General Bolden. Oh, no sir.
Mr. Culberson. And a surprise to, certainly a surprise to
the center directors. And Mr. Wolf is right. We, Mr. Wolf has
talked with all of them. I have talked extensively with Mike
Coats, who I just admire. He is a national treasure, take good
care of that man.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. It was a surprise to everybody. Because the
Augustine Commission said that the Constellation program was
unsustainable because of inadequate funding. And the reason we
are in the box ring today is because of inadequate funding from
the Bush administration Office of Management and Budget and
failure to fully fund the vision that was laid out prior to the
election in 2004. So that is the dilemma. It is not that there
are any inherent flaws in the Constellation program. The
Constellation program is, was on track, had a successful test
flight? Right? It was on track? It was inadequately funded.
General Bolden. Congressman----
Mr. Culberson. That is the problem with Constellation.
General Bolden. I wish I, I honestly wish I could say that
it was a singular problem of funding. Funding was the principal
driver in causing the Constellation program to be
unsustainable. But the Constellation program as it is had been
downgraded to the extent that it, as I mentioned earlier, it
had denigrated to, or degraded to a lunar program. And it was a
lunar program without a lander.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
General Bolden. Those decisions, while they had to be made
because of insufficient funding, they put us in a situation
where we almost could not recover.

COMMERCIAL ASTRONAUT LAUNCH

Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you. And if I could, Mr.
Chairman, I will be as brief as I can because I understand they
have called a couple of votes, you said earlier, General
Bolden, in your testimony at the beginning that essentially
what you envision, and I tried to write this down accurately.
What you are envisioning is that NASA will, you will no longer
buy vehicles, NASA will lease them. And the operation will be
by the vendor who owns the vehicle, correct?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. And ``lease'' is my term.
Mr. Culberson. I understand.
General Bolden. The acquisition strategy has not been
decided yet.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, yeah----
General Bolden. But that is the closest thing I can, lease
it as opposed to getting it as a taxi. I differentiate it
between the taxi service and getting the vehicle that becomes
mind for a period of time.
Mr. Culberson. Right. The analogy, the concern that I think
we all have as members of Congress is, can you imagine the
United States government having to lease the USS Harry Truman
from Northrup Grumman? If Northrup, imagine if Northrup Grumman
owned the Harry Truman, and we had to lease it, or ask
permission to take it to the Persian Gulf. That is really what
you are talking about.
General Bolden. Sir, I do not, I appreciate the analogy.
Mr. Culberson. Or the nuclear subs. You know, General
Dynamics. Imagine if we had Mr. Visclosky go to the General
Dynamics and lease a USS Texas, for example. That is really
near and dear to my heart. There is a big problem there.

SPEECH BY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR GARVER

And then finally Mr. Chairman, let me point this out
because I know time is short, but the, and I do not know if the
Committee is familiar with this, and I am going share this with
you. Lori Garver gave a speech on March 10th to the American
Astronautical Society. And I, this was dumbfounding to me. The
statute creating NASA, Congress' direction to NASA, and the
nation's direction, is that NASA's job is, ``to pioneer the
future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research.'' Lori Garver told the American
Astronautical Society that NASA's priority are to fight
poverty, promote world peace and societal advancement, and
protect the environment. I, this is, I think, she says and I
will quote it directly. She says, ``The President's budget will
enable NASA to align with the priorities of the nation, and
these key national priorities that I am referring to are
economic development, poverty, hunger and jobs, international
leadership and geopolitics, world peace, education, society
advancement, environment, future of the planet, and humanity.''
And I would suggest to you that Ms. Garver has completely lost
sight of the core mission of NASA, which is to preserve and
protect America's leadership in manned space, manned and
robotic space exploration to pioneer the future in space
exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. To
go where no one has gone before and explore new world. And that
is NASA's mission. It is, NASA's mission is not fighting
poverty, world peace, and protecting the environment. Those may
be subsets or spinoffs. But I, you know, Ms. Garver's, I will
make sure my colleagues see this. This is very disturbing. Were
you aware of this?
General Bolden. Congressman, I----
Mr. Culberson. Is your vision of NASA that NASA's number
one job is to fight poverty and world peace? Surely not.
General Bolden. Congressman I, know Lori incredibly well
and I know that Lori knows what the mission of NASA is.
Mr. Culberson. Well, this is what she told the astronomers
at----
General Bolden. I do not think she questions whatsoever
what our charge is and what our mission is under the National
Space Act and the subsequent appropriations acts.
Mr. Culberson. Would you please talk to her and get, I
mean, this needs to be retracted. This is not acceptable.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. You do not agree with this, do you?
General Bolden. NASA's mission as established by the
National Space Act has not changed. NASA's mission, is still
what it is.
Mr. Culberson. So you disagree with Ms. Garver? You
disagree with this speech?
General Bolden. Congressman, that is the first I have seen
that.
Mr. Culberson. I will share it with you, make sure you see
it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Was Ms. Garver asserting that that was the
sole mission of NASA? Was she asserting that was the sole
mission of NASA?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. The speech was to the----
Mr. Mollohan. No, I'm not asking you, was she asserting
that was the sole mission of NASA?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. Yeah, these are their national,
these are NASA's, aligning with the priorities of the nation,
and here are the priorities.
Mr. Mollohan. I did not hear that was the mission of NASA.
My question is, was she asserting that was the sole mission of
NASA?
Mr. Culberson. She lists all the other things they are
doing as spinoffs. Yes, sir. This is their lead role. This is
their lead mission.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are saying she said in that speech
that those are the sole missions of NASA?
Mr. Culberson. The sole mission? This is NASA's mission.
Yes, sir, this is NASA's mission.
Mr. Mollohan. You----
Mr. Culberson. The word mission is not, but it is clear
that is what she is saying. I mean, it----
Mr. Mollohan. Ah, thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you very much. Just to gentlelady Garver,
I guess there are a lot of visions that we have of projects
that we get involved in. And it is probably her vision that
ultimately all the things that we do scientifically and
socially, it is for ultimately world peace, and getting along
with each other, and creating international cooperation. Not
unlike the Spaceship Enterprise, hm?
General Bolden. Congressman, I think if we are allowed to
take her speech in context I think it would be the same thing
that I do. Anybody that has heard me speak knows that the most
passionate part about anything I say is about education.
Mr. Honda. Yeah.
General Bolden. That is not NASA's primary mission. And I
am criticized by some of my predecessors and some of my
contemporaries because I focus, I put big focus on education
because I think it is critical for this nation. I think that
NASA has a responsibility to partner with the President in
trying to pull our nation out of its, now if you want to talk
about leadership, we are twenty-something in the world in math
and science. We have got to be the leader there. And I think
while that is nowhere in NASA's mission statement from the
National Space Act, I do not think, it is incredibly critical
that we play a role in that. I just think we need to look at
Lori's comments in context.
Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me just one minute, would the
gentleman suspend for a minute? We have six minutes to finish
this vote, which means we have some more minutes. I plan to go
past the voting time. And we have three members, including Mr.
Honda who is now questioning, and then any second rounds. If we
cannot finish before, which is perfectly fine, I intend, if the
Administrator is able, to return after the vote for further
questions. I just wanted to let the members know that.

NASA'S MISSIONS

Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
continued comments regarding science. Because I, you know, one
of the things that would, we could think about reestablishing
is a independent office, like the old Office of Biological and
Physical Research. But I think in the last few years that I
have been here we have been trying to keep the A and the S in
NASA, you know aeronautics and space. So I think after the
shuttle disaster things got a little bit disarrayed and
confused. And then I think that the way NASA was being
administered in terms of its mission, its budget, and
everything else like that, it seemed like we sort of tried to
find out why. I think that it caused a lot of confusion. We
lost a lot of good scientists and good contractors on that way.
It feels like the administration, it feels like the
administration is trying to refocus and capture what we have,
what we inherited. And it seems like the piece that the
Constellation, that is left over from the Constellation is that
piece of the heavy lift portion. And I heard you say that you
did not cancel any contracts, you just said, ``Let us stop and
figure out where we are going to go from here.'' And it feels
like that, that might be part of the piece that the Augustine
Commission was looking at when they said that you all ought to
look at some of the different options we put out there. And
some of them are, I guess it was suggesting a flexible plan so
that you have options and in using some of the different
options you might be able to catch up and recapture the lead in
the space exploration.
You stated very clearly that the vision was not necessarily
staying at the Moon but going to Mars. And in order to do that
we have to probably bring back the issues around human biology
in space and the other things that were cut out. And a lot of
things were cut out, I think, to support the old Constellation
program. And I think we lost a lot of pieces in there. And I
think, it feels like you are trying to look at how do we piece
it back together so that we have a coherent program so that we
can move forward? Would you like to comment on that?
General Bolden. I would be happy to comment on that. NASA
can walk and chew gum, and we can keep many balls in the air.
As you said, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the aeronautics have suffered. Through no fault of any of my
predecessors, but we just did not have the funding to support a
robust aeronautics program. President Obama in the 2011 budget
proposal is giving us significant amounts of money to rebuild
our aeronautics program, to put money into colleges and
universities so that we can get researchers who will want to do
research in aeronautics and basic science in any number of
things.
We talk about inspiring kids, and Congressman Wolf have
talked about this a lot because he does it with a school in
this area. Kids have got to have someone to whom they look up.
While I agree they will stand in line to get the autograph of
an astronaut they have never heard of, but they make decisions
about what areas of study they are going to go into based on
the professors and what they are doing when they get to
college. Today in colleges and universities across the country
we are not putting sufficient money in for research and
development. President Obama's proposal for 2011 will allow me
to put money back onto college and university campuses. I think
professors are going to be doing robust research and
development that is going to help us do the things that we have
talked about, help us get a better heavy lift launch vehicle,
and kids are going to want to be with them.
Some of them, hopefully some few, will want to be
astronauts. But most of them are going to decide that they want
to go to graduate school, and that they want to become a
professor. That is just not happening today in the fields of
science and engineering. Most of our students are turning to
business. Not that it is bad, but we need scientists and
engineers if we are going to continue to lead the world in
technology.

RETAINING CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE

Mr. Honda. Just very quickly, given what you said, and I
think that is the right direction, and the uncertainty that we
are faced with right now, what is it that we are going to be
able to do to hold the contractors and the experts that we have
currently and not lost them because of the uncertainty? What is
it that we can provide them so that they hang in there until
things become more clear?
General Bolden. Congressman, I have a two-headed workforce.
I have civil servants and then contractors. And it is the
second head of my workforce, it is the contractors that I am
concerned about. Because in going away, in phasing out the
shuttle program, we were going to lose some of those jobs. We
were trying to find ways to help them transition either into
another program in NASA or to the civilian workforce in the
fields of science and technology. We have another challenge now
in that we have decided that it is best to cancel the
Constellation program and move on to something that will enable
us to do the things we want to do much sooner. So it is
incumbent upon me to work with the contractors and help them
find ways that we can transition as many members of the
workforce as possible to our follow on programs. But we will
not be able to place everyone. So it is incumbent upon me to
work with them to find transition programs where we can try to
get them into other jobs in the high technology community.
Because that is the way the nation has to go, if we are going
to remain the leader. I pledge to all of them, I meet with the
CEOs and the leaders of these companies on a regular basis, and
I have asked them and told them, I want to be a partner with
them in finding ways that we can find employment for their
people. That is not going to be easy. But I am not the only
aspect of American society that is going through that right
now.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. General, we are going to recess. Are you able
to stay past 4:00?
General Bolden. Sir, I am able to stay until you are ready
to go home. This is my day today.
Mr. Mollohan. There are several other members that have
questions. Mr. Wolf may have some more.
General Bolden. Sir, I can stay as long as you all can
stay.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
General Bolden. I can stay longer. I am a Marine.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we will see.
General Bolden. Thank you, sir.
[Recess]

HEAVY-LIFT TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume. I am going to ask a
few questions before we get some other members back. General,
you had some questions with regard to heavy lift. Let me ask,
what are the challenges in heavy lift technology, and to what
extent are the technology requirements dependent upon the
ultimate mission?
General Bolden. Sir, the principal challenge in any launch
vehicle is mass. My exploration systems associate administrator
has shown me a chart that he has that shows you historically as
we have progressed in space exploration we have been able to
get the mass of the vehicles down. So that is one of them. That
may be just in the material that we use to construct the
rocket. We now have something called ``friction stir weld.'' It
is a means by which we put components together that makes them
much stronger, but it is much less weight than in the old
method where you applied molten metal to a joint. Friction stir
weld just takes two pieces of material together and it uses
pressure and heat, and it bonds the material from its own
composition instead of adding something to it. So they tend to
be much lighter weight. We use it quite a bit now in the
external tank and in some of the other, and it was actually
developed for the dome of one of the Constellation modules, but
that is just a technique that came about from Constellation.
So propulsion is the big challenge. And I was having a
discussion over here, whereas I am not, to be quite honest I am
not real confident that we are going to find any revolutionary
type of propulsion to leave the planet. You can take much less
weight with you if you are able to develop propulsion systems
that can be refueled on orbit, or if you go to Mars, you can
dramatically reduce the amount of weight you have to take to
the planet if you have a way to get in situ material, material
that is there, like methane. So, if you develop a LOX-methane
engine that can be refueled on the Martian surface because you
have developed a method to take methane from the planet, then
you reduce the amount of weight required for a heavy-lift
launch vehicle.
Mr. Mollohan. Which speaks to the last half of my
questions. The rocket is the substantial part depending upon
the mission, and the design of it?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION COSTS

Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here, Mr. Administrator. You have a very tough job. And in many
respects I think the job your predecessors had was easier
because we had the vision, we did not have the resources, but
we were content to suspend belief. But we have to come to grips
with the financial realities.
There are three things I would like to ask you about. One
is, I know one of your colleagues testified, the President's
Science Advisor, that he was not sure what the cost would be of
canceling Constellation. That it was a very substantial sum,
the attorneys were still trying to figure that out. Are the
contracts written in such a way that the taxpayers can get, if
there is a major change of direction like this, taxpayers can
get their money's worth in the sense that the contractors can
be redirected to do the R and D, or other work, that will be
useful in building the program and the launch capability, even
if it is not building Constellation? Doing the R and D? Do we
have the flexibility to do that so that we are not just paying
liquidated damages?
General Bolden. Congressman, that is one of the things that
I have asked each of the tiger teams or the teams that are
looking into the Constellation program. One of the things that
we do want to determine is, are there contracts either in
existence or contracts that we were considering that can be
transitioned to a new program so that you do not go through
termination liability, you do not go through a lot of the other
things that, where you incur cost because you are completely
doing away with a program. We are not there yet. I wish I could
tell you today that we have answers in all these regards. But
that is one of the things that we are looking at. How can we
take advantage of what we have in Constellation that we may
want to use as a part of another system? And just transition
that over to the other system? There are methods to do it, but
I would really mislead you if I tried to describe them because
I am neither informed nor educated on them.

ARES V AND HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

Mr. Schiff. Well I would think that it would have three
benefits. The first is making good use of the taxpayer dollars,
not just paying damages. The second is you maintain a lot of
those jobs. And then the third is that you maintain the skilled
workforce. So I would hope that we would maximize the degree to
which we do not pay damages but rather put the contractors to
work in a new direction, if that is the course we head in.
What kind of a budget would you have needed to have to go
forward with let us say the Ares V, to go forward with the
heavy lift capability? And let me give you the context of my
question, which is it would be, I am sure, very advantageous to
the Defense Department, to our intelligence agencies, to have
access to our satellites. If we have a malfunction in a
satellite, or we have aging components in a satellite, it would
be of a great, you know, probably ascertainable value to DOD
and intel to be able to say, ``Okay, we have the proprietary
capability to get to that satellite to make repairs.'' And we
could probably project that into the distance, however long it
would take us to develop that capability. So to the degree
that, you know, we may not be able to redirect the workforce
that is working on Constellation, and have to pay damages, if
you take that sum and you invest it in a proprietary
capability, let us say an Ares V kind of capability, if you
take a DOD investment, or an intel investment, and what it
would save them from seeing satellites that malfunctioned or
aged out, and have the capability to be repaired, does that get
you close to the budget that you would need to go forward with
the proprietary capability? And how much time does that shave
off of the current plan that you have developed for heavy lift?
General Bolden. Congressman, I asked about this because I
thought it would be much less if we kind of picked and chose.
Just to do Ares I would be in the neighborhood of $4 billion to
$4.5 billion a year, on top of the President's budget proposal.
Say we wanted to do that and do all the science and technology
development, the aeronautics increase, and everything else. The
Constellation program in 2011 had it, were it to go on, you are
probably talking up to $5.9 billion over and above. I cannot
really say that we would be able to get where we want to go any
faster, even having spent that amount of, if we were to spend--
--
Mr. Schiff. How is that, though? I mean, if we decide that,
you know, Ares V is the design we want to use, and we just
start the development of Ares V, how can that possibly take
longer than doing R ` D on other potential lift technologies,
settling on a new technology, developing that new technology,
how could that possibly be quicker than developing Ares V?
General Bolden. Congressman, I think the biggest thing
would just be the fact that we would not be able to--let me ask
a question here because I want to make sure I understand your
question. You are saying if we decided that we were going to
put the money into Constellation to develop Ares V, and not add
any, just take money the way we could find it? If that is the
question you asked, without putting an additional $5.9 billion
on top of the program, what we would find would be that we
would have a heavy-lift launch vehicle with no capability of
putting people on the surface of the Moon or on Mars or
anywhere else because we would have expended all the money on
the vehicle itself. We would find that we are back in this
conundrum that the Augustine Committee found us, where money
was really not the only problem. It was a significant problem.
But it was not the only problem because we had allowed the
program to deteriorate to the point that if you threw all this
money down here, it was not that we had things waiting to be
built.
For example, one of the procurements that I stopped was a
study for the Altair, the lander. The Constellation had not
been allowed to go that far because of the shortage of funds.
So, we would have found ourselves having to go from scratch to
do the studies on development, and design and development of a
lander for them.

EUROPA MISSION

Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you about one other subject matter
area. The budget does do a great job of funding Earth science
missions, and continues funding for current planetary science
missions. It does not, however, move future planetary science
into the formulation stage. In particular, the outer planets
flagship mission to Europa is not moved forward. The budget
mentions NASA is awaiting the results of the upcoming planetary
science decadal survey before finalizing the mission, or
formulating the mission. But this mission was recommended in
the last decadal. My understanding was that NASA had also
endorsed Europa, and to be followed at some later time by
Titan. So why are we kicking this can down the road again? I
mean, how many decadals do we have to have recommend Europa?
And if this was ready to begin development, why are we not
moving forward? Why the delay?
General Bolden. Congressman, I will have to get back to you
with the details. But as I think you had discussion with Ed
Weiler, with my Science Mission Directorate Associate
Administrator. I went back and talked with him after I
consulted with you, and I think it is a matter of making it a
priority of the agency when the decadal comes out, and list it
where we think it is going to be listed in terms of priorities.
I think you are familiar with the tier system that they use. I
do not know why it did not rank high enough in a previous
decadal, but I will go back and ask the question.
Mr. Schiff. Well I mean it has always, I mean, it did rank
very highly in the last decadal. And Mr. Culberson is not
present at the moment, another big advocate of Europa. But last
year, and I think the year before, we went through kind of a
similar permutation. And NASA finally kind of made a decision,
let us do Europa, let us do Titan next. Now it seems we are
stepping back from that. And if you could get back to me I
would like to----
General Bolden. I will do that.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. I would like to see this----
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Us move forward with this, and
not, you know, punt it again, and go through another kind of
soul searching about it, that it enjoys such support in the
scientific community.
General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you. Because I got
excited about it after having talked to you and Ed Weiler, and
again, because I am just a Marine I did not realize that Europa
had what it has. And that is pretty exciting, as I said to
somebody.

Europa

As you noted, NASA takes its priorities for its science missions
from the National Academy of Science's decadal surveys. These surveys
involve the broad scientific community and peer review to delineate the
highest priorities for future missions and research targets for the
next decade. The Europa-Jupiter System Mission was identified by
National Academy in the 2003 Planetary Science Decadal Survey as the
highest priority flagship planetary mission. Because of this, NASA
recently initiated discussions with the European Space Agency (ESA) to
significantly increase the potential science return from this mission
as a possible joint mission. NASA's budget over the past several years
was fully subscribed by the Planetary Science missions in development,
and did not afford the initiation of any flagship missions.
NASA FY 2011 budget request does not include funding for the
Europa-Jupiter System (EJSM) mission, as NASA is awaiting results of
the NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey before setting a budget
priority and pace for this future Outer Planets mission, vis-a-vis
other Planetary Science programs. However, funding is included in the
FY 2011 budget request to continue to invest in technologies to
mitigate several key mission risks that a Europa mission would
encounter, such as technologies for radiation-hardened science
instruments and components necessary to survive the harsh radiation
environment in which this mission will operate. NASA and ESA have
cosponsored three instrument workshops, with a fourth and final
workshop scheduled for July 2010 to help prepare the science community
to design these radiation-hardened science instruments. NASA will fund
the conceptual study and preliminary analysis for this mission and
initiate a two-step instrument selection process, all of which would
significantly reduce the cost risk for this future mission.
NASA's ability to move forward with any major Outer Planets mission
is also dependent on the availability of Pu-238 needed to power this
mission. Pu-238 has provided power for 26 different missions that NASA
has flown over the years, most of which would not have been possible
without the radioisotope power sources that require this particular
fuel. Both the Department of Energy and NASA requested $15 million in
their FY 2011 budget request to restart the nation's ability to produce
this critical isotope.

ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY (OCO)

Mr. Schiff. Last item is OCO. I am glad the decision has
been made to do OCO again. Do you know what the planned launch
date is for OCO?
General Bolden. Sir, we are looking at 2012, I think. And I
will get back, I will make sure that I enter it into the
record, the official launch. But I, as my memory serves me, I
was hoping we would be able to turn it around real quickly, but
I think it is 2012.

MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY (MSL)

Mr. Schiff. And finally, any progress report on MSL, on the
Mars program?
General Bolden. Sir, the reports on MSL are all good. You
are very well aware of the fact that we were in the doldrums a
couple of months ago because we had problems with titanium,
which is almost everything on the vehicle. We had problems with
actuators that we did not know whether they would even last.
According to what I have been briefed, all of the actuators
have now been cleared, the titanium has been cleared, and I
think we are on target for a 2011 launch date for MSL. We even
have, as you may or may not know, there is always a good side
to every bad thing that happens to you. The delay has actually
allowed famed director James Cameron, who is actually a
scientist of a sort. He has a 3-D camera system that is going
to allow us to bring down real time images of Mars unheard of
before. The development of the camera just did not come along
to make the original launch date, because of the delay they
have been able to do it, and we can really swap out the camera
now. So, instead of having two mono cameras we are going to
have a real 3-D camera.
Mr. Schiff. I hope you get a cameo out of it. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden. And I just got something that says the
projected launch date of OCO is February of 2013, so I was in
error.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt.

COST ESTIMATE OF ARES I AND ARES V

Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you for
your service and as has already been said by several members on
this Subcommittee you have a fine reputation and everyone
agrees that you are certainly someone that people hold in very
high regard. I know sometimes we may disagree with some of the
things, so you know, do not take any of this personally. It is
all, we just sometimes have different opinions on some of these
issues.

AUGUSTINE COMMISSION COST ESTIMATES

There is a strong reason to question the dollar figures
that were produced by the Augustine Commission. Can you provide
the Committee the Ares I and the Ares V cost estimate NASA had
last spring, they had estimated last spring? And also provide
the Committee with a written, detailed explanation from NASA as
to how operating Ares I would cost $4 billion a year?
General Bolden. Sir, I can provide that for the record. I
will be glad to do that.

Ares I and Ares V Cost Estimates

Ares I operational costs, if the systems were completed, would be
an estimated $3.6-4B per year, which equates to the estimated annual
operational costs for two crewed flights to the ISS following
successful completion of the IOC, currently targeted for March 2015.
However, this estimate assumes that NASA has received full funding to
fully complete development of the Ares, Orion and associated support
elements prior to IOC. (Note: NASA does not currently believe an IOC of
2015 would be achievable, given the impact of several FY 2010
appropriations actions, including the FY 2010 Continuing Resolution.)
NASA recognizes that there is often confusion with regard to
publicized flight cost estimates associated with the Ares projects,
largely because those estimates often include different assumptions.
One key point of confusion, for example, comes from the fact that the
Ares I and Ares V share significant fixed costs for vendor production
base and sustaining engineering, since both vehicles would use similar
solid rocket boosters, upper stage engines and avionics. Therefore,
there are two ways to consider the cost of an Ares I flight--one, where
the Ares I fixed costs are lower because it is assumed that certain
fixed operational costs would be shared with the Ares V, and another,
where the Ares I fixed costs are higher because the current shared-cost
scenario is not assumed.
In general, NASA does not budget by flight, but rather by fixed and
marginal costs expected on an annual basis. The fixed cost (i.e. prime
and non-prime support labor, costs of facilities) would be the cost
that must be incurred whether one rocket or multiple rockets are built.
In other words, the fixed cost is absorbed by the first annual flight
and is not counted again that year. The marginal costs, on the other
hand, are those costs that can be cleanly attributed to the production
of one unit, and that cost is generally the same, unit by unit. So for
each subsequent annual flight, NASA adds on only the marginal cost,
given that the fixed cost has already been absorbed into the first. It
is important to note, however, that NASA's formula of calculating the
cost of an Ares I flight (or subsequent annual flights) does not
include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as
ground operations, mission operations, EVA and program integration.
Those costs would be book kept under their respective project lines.
With regard to the cost per flight, NASA currently estimates that
both Ares I and Orion account for $69M each in marginal costs for a
flight unit, thus totaling $138M in marginal costs for each flight
since each flight would be assumed to have a capsule and a rocket.
However, the fixed cost per flight would vary based on whether Ares I
and Ares V shared operational costs were assumed.
For example, the FY 2010 budget request assumed that Ares I and
Ares V would share some operational costs--approximately $700M per
year, which would, in turn, equate to lower fixed costs for the Ares I.
Therefore, under that scenario--which was provided to Congressman
Aderholt's staff in November 2009--the total cost for the first flight
would be $919M ($781M in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs) with
each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal costs, as
outlined in the chart below:

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
ORION WITH ARES I AND ARES V SHARING OPERATIONAL COSTS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion)............................. * 781
Marginal Cost for 1st flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for first flight................................ 919
Marginal Cost for 2nd flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for 2 flts per year............................. 1,057
Marginal Cost for 3rd flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for 3 flts per year............................. 1,195
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also
excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

However, if the assumption is that Ares I and Ares V would not
share operational costs, it is equally true to say that the cost of an
Ares I flight is nearly
$1.6B--. Under this scenario, all operational costs would be carried by
Ares I--which would account for an approximate $700M increase in the
fixed cost for Ares I. Thus, under this scenario, the total cost for
the first flight would be $1.461B in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal
costs, with each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal
costs, as outlined in the chart below:

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
ORION WITH ARES I CARRYING ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion)............................. * 1,461
Marginal Cost for 1st flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for first flight................................ 1,599
Marginal Cost for 2nd flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for 2 flts per year............................. 1,737
Marginal Cost for 3rd flight............................... 138
------------
Total cost for 3 flts per year............................. 1,875
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also
excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

NASA is unsure about the source of the number cited since there are
similar figures often used, albeit with different assumptions included
in each. However, judging by the hearing exchange, it seems the
question derived from a discussion about how much it would cost to keep
the Ares project running in FY 2011. If that is indeed the question,
then, in order to understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is
important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program.
Based on the FY 2010 budget request, NASA estimates it would cost $5.4B
in FY 2011 to continue the full Constellation Program, including Ares I
and Orion development and testing, and all supporting elements (ground
processing facilities, mission control, program integration etc.) which
together would lead to an Initial Operational Capability for two crewed
flights to the International Space Station per year. Of the $5.4B
figure, the Ares I project was estimated to cost $2.1B, with Orion
costing $1.8B, and other Constellation supporting elements equating to
about $1.5B.
The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation
Program. Therefore, under this assumption, if NASA were required to
continue only the Ares I project, the cost to do so would be about $4-
4.5B in FY 2011--which would pay for the project elements and also
include the full cost of all supporting elements outlined in the FY
2010 budget request, such as ground processing facilities, mission
control, program integration etc. Without these supporting elements,
the Ares I could not fly. This scenario also assumes that Orion would
be cancelled, so close-out costs for Orion were factored into this
estimate. (Note: Without an Orion, this scenario would not provide an
IOC capability.) Additionally, it is important to remember that under
the FY 2010 budget request and its five-year runout, the Constellation
Program as a whole was expected to begin ramping up work in FY 2011,
and in doing so, was expected to also begin assuming additional Shuttle
infrastructure and workforce costs in addition to increased development
costs, currently estimated to be $600-700M. Therefore, those costs are
factored into the continuation cost estimate.

Mr. Aderholt. And the reason I mention that was because
the, you know, my staff was given the numbers of Ares I, the
operation cost at $1.3 billion.
General Bolden. That is per flight.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. So you are saying----
General Bolden. I do know that, I do know that the $1.3
billion, $1.6 billion, and when I talk about things that
shocked me, because, I wanted to use an Ares type vehicle as a
test vehicle. And when I asked the question how much would it
cost me to fly, not an Ares I but that kind of vehicle, then
the number given me at the time was $1.6 billion per flight. It
seems like an extreme number to me, and I am still looking. So
I will be glad to provide you with the information for the
basis for that number.
Mr. Aderholt. Well the reason I say that is because this is
the response from NASA and it says total cost for three flights
in a year is $1.1 billion.
General Bolden. I will go back and double check my numbers,
and then get back to you for the record, sir.

ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

Mr. Aderholt. If you could, yeah, give us some explanation
on that. Because there is some difference, a big difference in
the amount of money that is in there. It is, it has been
rumored that NASA is about the send the prime contractors of
the Constellation program letters which remind them of the
Antideficiency Act, and telling them that NASA is under no
obligation to cover termination costs beyond appropriated
funds. I just wanted to, is that correct? Or----
General Bolden. Congressman, I think most of the
contractors are fully aware of what is in their contract. They
realize that they are obligated by their contract to reserve
funds that would be needed for termination liability. One of
the things that I have asked be done is that we go out and get
estimates from the contractors as to what their estimate on
termination liability will be. And then that will determine
what type of action that we take. I do not think we have seen
more than a couple of the contractors that have said they have
a significant problem. And in that case, it may be necessary
for us to have the contracting officers talk with them about
their obligation under the contract as opposed to ours.
Mr. Aderholt. So you are saying there is no, no letter is
about to go out like that?
General Bolden. There probably are letters going out to
some of the contractors who say that they thought it was our
responsibility. There probably are.
Mr. Aderholt. Was this the direction of OMB?
General Bolden. No, sir, that was my direction, because
under the Antideficiency Act, I hope I am wrong, but I am
legally liable if I allow a company to spend more than I have
to pay them, I go to jail. So, I am very serious about wanting
to be around for my three granddaughters. So on advice of
counsel, it was felt that we should at least remind people of
what is in their contract. And you would think that that would
not be necessary. But in some cases, it may be necessary.
Mr. Aderholt. Certainly I can appreciate the going to jail
aspect of that. So what do you think the contractors will do in
response?
General Bolden. Sir, I don't even want to conjecture on
that. But, I hope that they will take it as, responsible
direction.
Mr. Aderholt. Is there similar letters that are going out
to contractors about the shuttle program?
General Bolden. To my knowledge, we have no letters that
are going to any of the shuttle contractors, because as I
mentioned before, we have a very well developed transition plan
for shuttle that covers termination costs and everything. That
is pretty well known.
So I will get back to you if I find that I am incorrect.
But I think shuttle is in pretty good shape in terms of
termination.

Termination Liability

Termination liability letters are not being sent to Space Shuttle
Program contractors. The Shuttle contracts are not being terminated--
they are being concluded as the fleet flies out the remaining manifest.
Plans for the safe fly-out and retirement of the Space Shuttle have
been underway for several years, and were initially developed in 2004.
Space Shuttle contractors have, therefore, had sufficient time to plan
for contract closeout activities.

Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could get back on it, it would
be great.
General Bolden. And it is not--I don't even know if it is
termination. I will get back to you, because I don't think it
is termination in the case of shuttle. That was an orderly
phase out from 2004 to 2010 agreed upon by everyone.
So I will get back to you to make sure that I am not giving
you misinformation. But, I am certain that is not a termination
activity, so we don't run into the same problem.

ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Aderholt. The Antideficiency Act in itself, predecessor
statutes have been in existence for about 120 years, do you
know how many people have been prosecuted under it?
General Bolden. Sir, I do not. But I was told that there
have been some. And that if I did not want to be among the few,
then I should take it seriously. I can find out for you, sir.
And I will make----

Antideficiency Act

NASA does not have specific information as to prosecutions under
the Antideficiency Act. NASA is required to and intends to comply with
all laws, including the referenced provision of the FY 2010
Appropriations Act.

Mr. Aderholt. We were told that there is none that have
been----
General Bolden. Under Antideficiency Act?
Mr. Aderholt. That is what we have been told. Now, again,
we will--maybe you need to check the record on that. That is
according to a book, The Antideficiency Act Answer Book that
was published back in 2009, that--a book by William G. Arnold.
But, again, we----
General Bolden. If that is the case, there are two of us I
know in NASA who would be--although as Congressman Wolf
mentioned, we could be the first. But Doug Cooke, my
Exploration Systems Mission Director, and me, we would be very
relieved to find that nobody uses that Act. I am told that it
has been around.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, we will certainly need to verify that.
Of course, like I said, this is--this was something that was
written. And, of course, as you know anything that always is
published is not always true.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Congress has not specifically told NASA not
to terminate those programs. And yet in the case of
Constellation you can hardly be blamed for the Antideficiency
Act's actions since Congress has specifically told you not to
terminate these programs.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

The rumor was that the head of contracting at NASA was in
the process of explicitly inserting a clause in the
Constellation contract to advise the contractors that NASA
would cover termination costs but was told to stop last fall.
Is there any validity to that?
General Bolden. Sir, I will have to get back to you on
that. I do not know the answer.
Mr. Aderholt. But you could check that and let me know?
General Bolden. I can find out.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
General Bolden. And so I make sure that I understand the
question, did the contract manager--did the COTaR issue a
letter advising them----
Mr. Aderholt. Explicitly, yes, sir, in a clause in the
Constellation contracts by the contractors that NASA would
cover contract termination costs but was told to stop.
General Bolden. I will get back and get that information
for the record.

Constellation--Antideficiency Act

That is not correct. There was no direction to stop processing this
clause in the fall of 2009. In fact, this clause was inserted in the
Boeing Avionics and Upper Stage contracts on January 21, 2010, and
January 25, 2010, respectively. Upon learning that the President's
proposed FY 2011 budget request on February 1, 2010, proposes to cancel
the Constellation Program, the Head of Procurement at NASA determined
that NASA would not pursue adding this clause to other NASA contracts.
The activity that was ongoing relative to a termination liability
clause during this time period was the investigation by NASA personnel
as to whether to incorporate into NASA procurement regulations a
special termination liability cost clause similar to the one utilized
by the Department of Defense. These types of special termination
liability cost clauses generally delineate that potential termination
liability costs will not be funded on the contract; the identification
of funds to cover potential termination costs; and the maximum amount
of termination liability under the contract. Incorporation of such a
clause into NASA procurement regulations is not imminent.

ARES V COST

Mr. Aderholt. Okay. We have heard a lot about inflated
numbers, about how much it will cost to complete the
Constellation Program, including the heavy lift of Ares V,
which I mentioned.
My understanding is that NASA's estimate in the spring of
last year for developing Ares V was about--that by 2020 through
the first part of Ares V, the cost of development plus
production costs, would be $16.5 billion.
If Ares I is not completed, which means we could not
benefit from the way the two programs were designed to use some
of the same technology, then the fact would result in a cost of
Ares V of about $27 billion.
Our staff were told last Friday by the CFO that the cost of
developing a heavy lift rocket would be $30 to $50 billion.
What engineering data would you--have you obtained since the
spring of 2009, which leads to the incredibly inflated figure
of $50 billion?
General Bolden. Congressman, I will have to get back to you
for entry into the record. I was not aware of that figure.

Heavy-lift Capability

NASA has not established a formal cost estimate for Ares V, nor has
NASA established a formal cost estimate for a similar heavy-lift
capability. Additionally, no additional engineering data has been
obtained to influence these cost estimates. However, the Agency has
developed rough, preliminary estimates for Ares V costs--estimates that
vary based depending on which assumptions (i.e. schedule, budget year,
shared costs etc.) are included in an estimate. Therefore, comparing
one cost estimate against another can lead to a misunderstanding if the
assumptions are not standardized or fully understood.
With regard to the $30-50B figure cited by NASA's Chief Financial
Officer, NASA would like to clarify that those numbers are most closely
related to the Ares V project and are rough cost estimates, based on
varying assumptions. Based on preliminary Agency estimates, NASA
anticipates that the Ares V project costs, through 2020, including
development and early production, would be $27B--similar to the $30B
ballpark figure cited at hearing. The $50B estimate cited is comparable
to Ares V costs, including development and early production through
2025--again, if Ares I were cancelled. However, none of the
aforementioned estimates include any of the supporting elements
required for launch, such as ground facilities, mission control, and
program integration, or any payload. Those costs would be additional.
(Note: Ares I and V share substantial development and fixed costs such
as shared hardware, which must be considered in any estimate for one
vehicle without the other. Therefore, if Ares I were continued, Ares V
project costs through 2020, including development and early production
would be around $16.5B.
With regard to cost estimates for heavy-lift, it is difficult to
provide an accurate estimate given that this estimate would depend on
type of vehicle chosen and its capabilities, among many other things.
Such an estimate also would depend greatly on the phasing of funds
available. However, NASA believes that cost savings could be realized
by developing a heavy-lift vehicle that could be used by multiple users
(EELV, commercial, other Government agencies.) As such, multiple users
of the same vehicle would likely lower the overall lifecycle cost
through higher production rates.

Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That is all I have for right now.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah.

NASA BUDGET INCREASE

Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bolden, I am very pleased to have you before
the Committee, and your extraordinary record of achievement,
and leadership now of one of the finest agencies in the
government. I think that NASA brings a great deal of
inspiration to Americans because of the work that is being done
and that has been done.
I just want to walk through a couple of things. You know,
we have a major deficit in the government now and a national
debt that is growing. There is a lot of discussions about cuts
in programs.
But in terms of NASA, it is true for the record, that this
is an increase. This request is an increase in your budget. Is
that accurate?
General Bolden. That's correct, sir.

ASTROPHYSICS

Mr. Fattah. Now one of the areas that I have some interest
in is in astrophysics, your observatory program, because it
really I think is kind of like at the vanguard of creating the
dynamics under which further exploration, even human
exploration, could go forward under.
So you have a request for over the allowance in
astrophysics. Is that for your existing 14 observatories and
what else?
General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you for the record
with what the funds are specifically identified for.
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
General Bolden. There is a number of different projects and
programs. And I will get that to you for the record.

Astrophysics

In Astrophysics, NASA is discovering how the universe works,
exploring how the universe began and developed into its present form,
and searching for Earth-like planets. The Agency's Astrophysics Theme
has an integrated strategy, supported by the 14 operating missions
noted, plus a robust research program, and 10 flight projects in
various stages of planning and development.
The overall increase in the FY 2011 NASA budget request for
Astrophysics (as compared to the FY 2010 request) is due primarily to
the selection of the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS) Explorer
mission, funded with a transfer from the Heliophysics budget to the
Astrophysics budget. The Explorer Program is shared by the Heliophysics
and Astrophysics Themes, and the Heliophysics Theme transfers budget to
the Astrophysics Division when an Astrophysics Explorer mission is
selected. The FY 2011 and FY 2010 budget request and runout for
Astrophysics is below.

[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 NASA Budget Request.............................. 1,076.3 1,109.3 1,149.1 1,158.7 1,131.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2010 NASA Budget Request.............................. 1,120.9 1,074.1 1,042.7 1,126.3 1,139.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,076.3M for
Astrophysics. The golden age of Astrophysics from space continues, with
14 observatories in operation. Astrophysics research, technology
investments, and missions aim to understand how the universe works, how
galaxies, stars and planets originated and developed over cosmic time,
and whether Earth-like planets--and possibly life--exist elsewhere in
the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five exoplanets,
ranging in size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter, demonstrating that
the telescope is functioning as intended; additional discoveries are
anticipated in the coming months and years. NASA's newest space
observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has captured its
first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in infrared light has
begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17 millisecond pulsars in our
galaxy by studying unknown high-energy sources detected by the Fermi
Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance
thanks to the very successful servicing mission last year by the STS-
125 crew. The Herschel and Planck missions, led by the European Space
Agency with NASA as a partner, were launched in 2009 and are returning
remarkable scientific results. In FY 2011, NASA will complete most of
the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for launch. NASA
will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS)
mission recently selected in the Explorer small satellite program. The
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to make good progress in
development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware for the many JWST
subsystems is being designed, manufactured and tested, including the 18
segments of its 6.5-meter primary mirror; and the mission-level
Critical Design Review for JWST will occur this spring. The SOFIA
airborne observatory successfully conducted its first open-door flight
test in December 2009--a major milestone toward the beginning of early
science operations this year.
The NRC is conducting a new Decadal Survey in astronomy and
astrophysics, which will set priorities among future mission concepts
across the full spectrum of Astrophysics, including dark energy,
gravity wave, and planet-finding missions. The ``Astro2010'' Decadal
Survey is expected by September.

MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION EFFORTS

Mr. Fattah. Okay. And I also want to commend you for the
requests related to the education efforts in middle school and
the budget is $445 million.
The Chairman has been quite supportive of NASA. And the
Subcommittee always follows his lead. So I am sure that you
will have, after a detailed examination, a very favorable
consideration for your request.

SPACE SUMMIT

And I want to thank you for your great leadership. Now the
President is coming to host a summit of sorts, a space
exploration process. Is there anything you can tell the
Committee about what is expected?
General Bolden. Sir, it is still in the works. It is in the
early stage of planning. It is intended to be a space
conference to be held in Florida where the President and
members of Congress will participate.
The primary purpose for the President, is to allow him to
provide his vision to the nation and the world actually. Also
to allow him to have an opportunity, which he has not so far,
to at least see some of the facilities at the Kennedy Space
Center and hopefully talk to some of the workers and the like.
Mr. Fattah. Has there been an occasion on which this has
happened in the past to your knowledge that----
General Bolden. There have been visits to the Kennedy Space
Center----
Mr. Fattah. Walk-throughs, right?
General Bolden [continuing]. By past Presidents. I don't
know that there has ever been a President who has taken the
opportunity to travel there to have a conference on space. I
know there has never been a President who has had the challenge
of trying to promote exploration and human space flight at a
time that is more challenging fiscally.
Mr. Fattah. Well the fiscal challenge is obvious. And that
is why the Administration really ought to be commended inasmuch
as making a submission that would call for an increase in
exploration.
So I want to commend you, and OMB, and the Administration
for seeing the importance of exploration. And, again, I am
interested in the details on the astrophysics program.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I will get that for you and get
it to you personally. And then make it an entry for the record.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Wolf, do you have any questions?

HEAVY-LIFT CONTRACT

Mr. Wolf. I do, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When do you see NASA issuing a contract for heavy-lift
system?
General Bolden. Congressman, I don't have a date, because I
have a heavy lift launch vehicle team that is looking at the
path that we should take to get there. I can tell you that we
are probably years away from identifying a specific
architecture, because the architecture on which we settle will
be greatly dependent upon what we learn from the technology
development efforts that we are going to do using the
International Space Station, using other vehicles, and using
some of our research. So the architecture itself won't be
defined until we find out what capabilities or what
technological capabilities we have today, which are different
from what we had when the Constellation Program was originally
envisioned.

SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION STRATEGY REPORT

Mr. Wolf. Fiscal year 2008 Appropriation Bill requires NASA
to issue a report on shuttle workforce loss every six months.
NASA has not updated this report for nearly a year. When will
that be updated?
General Bolden. Sir, we are going to actually provide a
preliminary report this coming May that will not be the full
workforce report as required. We hope to have that one
completed by August.
And, again, I must take the blame, because that particular
report, as you all asked for, is supposed to give a detailed
estimate in terms of numbers of people and the like and how we
plan to transition them.
When I came in to my position, things were in flux, and we
just did not feel that we had enough facts about where the
workforce was going to be down the road given the questions
about NASA's direction. That is why we did not provide one
recently. But hopefully it will be available in August.
Mr. Wolf. I don't think there is a criminal penalty for
that one I don't think. But the Chairman's done a lot of good
work on prison reform. Well, if you could, I think it is
important.
General Bolden. If there had been a criminal penalty for
that, I probably would have had to suffer the penalty, because
I just did not have the information to adequately put together
the report, and we are working diligently to try to do that in
August.
Mr. Wolf. How long has it been since there has been a
report? When was the last report?
General Bolden. I think the last one, when I looked a
couple of days ago, I will get back to you for sure. But it
was--we did one in 2009 I think. I will look and try to find
it.

PRIMACY IN SPOKE

And, sir, may I offer an apology to you. It has bothered
me. When I responded to your question on China in the moment,
it does make a difference to me who is first. And I think in my
exuberance I said something that I didn't mean. You know, it is
important that we be first all the time. I am extremely
competitive. And so I apologize to you for making what was a
flip statement to be quite honest.
Mr. Wolf. Well let me ask unanimous consent that your
apology be taken and you go back and we take out what was said
the first time, Mr. Chairman, if we can.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, I think we should do that.
General Bolden. I appreciate that. But I should have
spoken----
Mr. Wolf. Sure. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that
the first comment be taken out. And you give me your position
for the record. You submit it for the record.

Moon--United States Versus China

The United States is and should be proud of being the first and
only nation to land a human on the Moon and should we choose to go to
the Moon on a priority basis, because of where we are technologically
in comparison to China, I think that the United States would get back
there first. However, the President's vision for space exploration
enables a set of stepping stones that I believe will take us further
and faster into space, allowing us to reach a range of destinations
including lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, the moons
of Mars and eventually Mars itself.

Mr. Mollohan. We will look at that carefully and excise it
as appropriate.

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTINUITY

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If part or all the
Constellation Program ends up being restored by Congress, can
we be assured that the actions you are taking this year will
not unnecessarily hamper or delay the continuity of the
program?
Mr. Mollohan. Pardon me for yielding. I have a 5:15
meeting, which I have to attend. Mr. Wolf, I would like to
extend my appreciation for the General testifying here today,
for his hard work and that of all his employees. And we look
forward to working with you.
I will leave you to the tender mercies of Mr. Wolf. And I
will yield the Chair to my good friend and colleague Mr.
Fattah. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Mr. Wolf,
thank you for yielding.
Mr. Wolf. To repeat, if part or all the Constellation
Program ended up being restored by Congress, can we be assured
that the actions you are taking this year will not
unnecessarily hamper or delay the continuity of the program?
General Bolden. Well, sir, I can assure you of that. In
fact, the only action that we have taken that I mentioned
earlier in stopping procurement activities that would have
brought us to a contract competition, those are all procurement
activities that can be restarted at any time. So there would be
no break.

CONSTELLATION CLOSEOUT COST

Mr. Wolf. Okay. Your budget describes tiger teams that will
assess workforce procurement and other closeout issues over the
coming months. If these issues have not yet been fully
assessed, what confidence do you have that 2.5 billion is an
accurate estimate of closeout costs?
General Bolden. Sir, that is the best estimate that we
could come up with. And as always, you are hoping that you have
made a very conservative estimate and that it won't be anywhere
close to that.
We looked at past program closeouts and we looked at what
was in the Constellation Program. There are other factors that
were taken into consideration that I don't remember. But I can
get that back to you. But I am hoping that that is a
conservative number.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. Sir, you asked about the Workforce
Transition Strategy Report.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
General Bolden. The last time we sent one was in July of
2009.

PLUTONIUM-238 PRODUCTION

Mr. Wolf. July of 2009. I recently talked with Steve
Squyres, the lead scientist on the Mars Rover Program. He had
serious concerns about the President's new plan. But also
raised another area of concern with solar system science and
exploration. And that is the availability of plutonium-238 to
power a spacecraft.
I understand that the fiscal year 2011 budget includes
funding to restart plutonium-238 production. Can you describe
the need for this, how much money is in the budget, and whether
other alternatives exist, and what the plan is for restarting
the production?
General Bolden. Sir, we have as recently as this past week
been involved in discussions with OMB, the Department of
Energy, on what is the actual future need for plutonium-238. We
have agreed that we will pay a portion of whatever the cost for
that production is. We really are just interested in getting
the production restarted.
And I think the other question you asked was when would we
start and how much would we pay.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
General Bolden. And those answers I will get for the
record.

Plutonium-238 Production

NASA has always worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) to
acquire the plutonium-238 we need to fuel the radioisotope power
systems that enable many of our most demanding planetary missions. DOE
and its predecessor agencies have the legislative mandate to ensure the
national needs for Pu-238 are met and they have been producing
radioisotope power systems for nearly fifty years. Radioisotope power
systems uniquely enable missions that require a long-term, unattended
source of heat and/or supply of electrical power in harsh and remote
environments. These systems are reliable, maintenance free, and capable
of producing heat or electricity for decades. The plutonium-238 in
these units serves as the source for generating heat and electricity.
In the past, Pu-238 was produced at DOE's Savannah River Site in
South Carolina, using reactors that are no longer operating. The last
operating reactor was shut down in 1996. After DOE stopped producing
Pu-238, DOE made use of its limited, existing Pu-238 inventory to
supply power systems to user agencies. Beginning in 1992, this
inventory was augmented by Pu-238 purchased from Russia for peaceful
applications to fuel power sources that provide heat and electricity
for NASA missions. However, the agreement to purchase this Russian
material was recently defaulted upon by the Russian government.
Although DOE is pursuing a new agreement under new terms with the
Russians for this material, such an arrangement will always be a risk
to NASA missions. DOE plans to return to Russia in May 2010 to attempt
to negotiate a resumption of planned purchases from Russia to continue
to fill the gap until U.S. domestic production can be restored at a
rate that will meet our future national needs.
It is imperative that the funding requested in the President's FY
2011 budget request for restarting domestic production of Pu-238 be
approved by Congress. Specifically, $30M is included in the President's
request, evenly divided with $15M in the DOE's budget request, and $15M
in NASA's budget request. It is planned that DOE and NASA will share in
the capital cost of reestablishing a domestic production capability.
Although NASA is expected to be a primary user of Pu-238 produced in
the near future, this capability will also be available to support
future national security applications, if needed. DOE's share in the
capital costs is consistent with the Department's mission to maintain a
national capability for a range of potential Federal users.
In short, a new Pu-238 production capability is required to
maintain Radioisotope Power Systems as an important national
capability. Because of dwindling stockpile of existing Pu-238, and the
long lead-time associated with reestablishing a domestic production
capability (as much as 6-8 years), DOE is working, in coordination with
user agencies, to reestablish Pu-238 production at a rate sufficient to
support both NASA and potentially other missions. Based upon NASA's
requirements, we believe that a production rate of 1 to 2 kg per year
is sufficient for the foreseeable future. This rate can be accomplished
using known technology and similar existing National Laboratory
capabilities to produce and separate Pu-238.
This approach minimizes the necessary startup investment, and
provides the most rapid initial production of Pu-238, which is
necessary to meet NASA's mission requirements.
DOE and NASA are preparing a restart plan that will provide
additional details. We expect to provide that restart plan to the
Subcommittee in the near future.
DOE and NASA are also working together to ensure needed purchases
from Russia are completed to ensure an adequate supply of Pu-238 to
avoid delaying future NASA missions, including a major Outer Planets
Mission. This additional plutonium is necessary to retire any mission
risk due to the schedule of re-establishing U.S. production capability
in meeting mission requirements. There are no other alternative
materials or energy sources appropriate for deep space missions other
than purchasing Pu-238 from Russia or restarting domestic production.
The potential impact on future missions from delay in restarting
domestic production is, NASA believes, what Dr. Squyres may have been
referring to.
NASA has requested FY 2011 appropriations language that instructs
NASA to partially fund restart of DOE production infrastructure and
direct all the necessary NASA to DOE funds transfers. NASA recommends
that Congress provide this direction in the FY 2011 appropriation and
has submitted as part of its FY 2011 budget request proposed
appropriations language that would accomplish this. This inclusion will
avoid inadvertently creating additional National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) review requirements and/or litigation risk by
requiring a discretionary NASA funding decision to support this
project. Formal arrangements to be established under an existing DOE/
NASA memorandum of understanding (MOU) would also need to be consistent
with this approach. If approved, NASA will work closely with DOE to
ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to ensure a timely restart
of domestic Pu-238 production.

Mr. Wolf. And whether other alternatives exist.
General Bolden. Sir, one of the alternatives that we are
trying to avoid is buying it from Russia.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Yes, I would agree with that.
On education, I congratulate you on identifying education
as important. Well, let me go back to the Squyres issue too.
Have you spoken to Steve Squyres since
General Bolden. Sir, I have not, and I was not aware of his
concern, but that has not been an issue with us. We understand
what amount of plutonium-238 is necessary for us, and that we
have looked at our programs and future projects, and what we
have stated we need is sufficient for the programs that we have
on the books. I was surprised that someone feels that we need
more.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, he had some serious concerns. I would also
suggest there are about four, or five, or six people, which I
am not going to give you. I can give you off the record. But I
really think it would be helpful for you just to call. I mean,
you know, everyone has--you know, when I try to make a tough
decision on something, I try to call people who don't
necessarily agree with me. But I just want to kind of honestly
get their best wisdom. The Bible talks about wisdom and the
judgment of wise men.
I had a conversation with him. He is someone I think you
ought to talk to about this and about the overall program. But
I learned a lot from him.
I know you are busy. But I think just to have a
conversation with him on the phone or the next time he is
Washington. You know, he comes in here periodically. Just to
sit down and just to get four or five people like that
together.
But about the plutonium-238, because he expressed some deep
concerns.
General Bolden. Sir, I will go back and review it with my
directorates, and also talk to Mr. Squyres, and then get back
to you, because I was not aware. I am not aware of any shortage
that we anticipate.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And we wanted to give you a letter but
maybe we won't. We will just wait to hear from you.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.

EDUCATION BUDGET

Mr. Wolf. On the education, I appreciate your identifying
education as an important priority for NASA. Shortly after you
came aboard, you came to talk to me about your Summer
Innovation Initiative. And I think one of the greatest benefits
of NASA to our society is the inspiration and excitement it
provides for young people.
Yet the budget request for education is actually a
reduction of almost $40 million to 21 percent from the current
level.
General Bolden. Sir, in the budget that I received, we had
a $20 million annual plus-up. You are the second person that
has said I have a reduction in my budget. I will go back and
check for the record. But I think someone may have been looking
at grants from the Department of Education.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. English said that it went from 180 to 140,
which was actually a reduction.
General Bolden. I will go back and double check and then
get back to you for the record.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. If we could do that and then let us know.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two other questions. We
will submit the others.
Mr. Fattah. Will the gentlemen yield for a second? We have
an answer on the education budget.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Fattah. It is an increase over the request that was
made from last year. And it is down from what we actually
appropriated last year.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So there are a number of plus-ups.
Mr. Fattah. No. These are not--they are separate. They made
a request last year.
Mr. Wolf. The overall level was plus-up.
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. That is the answer I just----
Mr. Wolf. Well he is from Philadelphia.
Mr. Fattah. And so is my Ranking Member.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. And the former Chair of this Committee and also
a big booster of NASA.

BUYING RUSSIAN LAUNCH SERVICES

Mr. Wolf. After the retirement of the shuttle, you will
need to buy flights from Russia to deliver the crew to the
station. Have you secured the necessary agreements with the
Russians? And to combine the next question, what are the costs,
and how do the costs compare with those in previous agreements
with Russia? Do you have an agreement, and what are the costs,
and how do the costs compare?
General Bolden. Sir, the existing contract right now I
think it is $51 million, which includes training and
transportation. It is a lot of different things. I will have to
get back to you for the record as to what it was on the
previous contract.

Russian Support to NASA

NASA purchases comprehensive Soyuz support from Russia, including
all necessary training and preparation for launch, crew rescue and
landing for an entire long-duration mission. This support includes
training and Soyuz seat certification, individual equipment, medical
checks, supplies, on-orbit consumables, and search and rescue services.
NASA does not purchase launches or Soyuz spacecraft themselves, but
rather round trip ``seats'' or crew rotations, which incorporate all
the associated services outlined above. For the contract extension
signed between NASA and Roscosmos on April 2, 2010, these services
amount to an average of $55.8 million for each crew member rotation
purchased in 2013-2014. For the previous contract extension signed
between NASA and Roscosmos on May 28, 2009, these services amounted to
an average of $51M for each crew member rotation purchased.

The question was not asked. But I feel compelled to say
that the primary means of getting humans to the International
Space Station, the expedition crews for a number of years by
agreement among the international partners has been Soyuz. So
while it will seem that we are doing something different,
because we don't have shuttles anymore, we use shuttles to get
equipment and components, large components back and forth. But
not as the primary means of getting crew there.
Before I came, the agreement among the international
partners was that we would use Soyuz as the primary means to
get crews there and the primary means to get them back. And
that is the only rescue vehicle that we have ever had from the
beginning of the International Space Station Program, because
back then we as a nation decided that we did not want to follow
through on the production of a crew rescue vehicle.
So the international partners again came together and
decided if the United States is not going to provide it, then
the next best thing is a Russian Soyuz. So today, two Soyuz,
well one, because we only have a slight crew there, but
whenever there is a full crew there, there are two Soyuz
spacecraft that are there to bring the crews back in the event
of an emergency.
Mr. Wolf. What are the costs now? And do you have any
agreement as to what the costs will be?
General Bolden. I was saying the cost now is I think $51
million.
Mr. Wolf. Fifty one million and do you expect that to
increase?
General Bolden. Sir, I do not. In fact, I do not expect it
to increase significantly. We are in negotiations right now for
a follow-on contract. If everything works out really well and
one of the commercial entities that says they can get us to the
International Space Station by 2013, it would not be necessary
for me to renew the contract. But at the Heads of Agency
meeting, the Russians said that they did not foresee a
significant increase in the cost.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. They talked about it in terms of inflation.

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW CAPABILITIES

Mr. Wolf. Well the last question leads to just really where
you were. The COTS Program is your attempt to develop and
procure private sector capabilities, SpaceX and Orbital, to
resupply the International Space Station.
The fiscal year 2011 puts an additional $6 billion over
five years. What is the current status of these efforts? And
what is the earliest that the commercial cargo and crew
capabilities to this space station could be operational?
General Bolden. Congressman, under the current schedule,
they are planning to take crew to the International Space
Station by 2015. Both intend to fly their first COTS missions
from--I think SpaceX is February of 2011 and then Orbital, May
of 2011. I will add that was just the first round of commercial
vendors. We are about to enter into another competition where
we are hoping to increase the number of potential providers of
commercial transportation. And among those, we expect that
there will be some of the very well known providers of launch
services to this date. While it is too early for me to announce
something for a ULA, the information is that they or their
partners do intend to bid in the next round.

RANKING MEMBER CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Wolf. I would end just to say since there is strong
opposition, I do worry about a series of lobbyists rolling in
here who, you know, plan on making a lot of money without
worrying about where we are vis-a-vis the Nation.
I think it would be helpful to--and I know no one wants to
back down. No one wants to get into these things. But I did
work for a Cabinet Secretary. And I think sometimes when you
have something like this, this is very important. I mean, this
is one area that we are ahead of everyone else. This is an area
that has the imagination. I hear the President talking about
getting young people involved.
We just had the gentleman yesterday, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Have you spoken to him recently?
General Bolden. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. How recently have you spoken to him?
General Bolden. I think the last time was about two weeks
ago. It was at the last shuttle.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, yes.
General Bolden. And he is an incredible human being.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. And so I think it would be helpful to get a
group of people like him, and Squyres, and some of the others,
which we can give you the names, and just bring them in and
sort of say, you know, where do we go from here? There are some
good things in there.
But I really worry at times that--and I know the President
has got a lot on his mind. He has got other things going on. We
have a budget deficit. We got a war in Afghanistan. We got a
war in Iraq. And there are a lot of things going on.
But I think it would be helpful with the spirit of
reconciliation, not to use the reconciliation that you are
talking about in the Congress, but reconciliation from a
biblical sense, if you will.
Bring a group of people in and take a day or two to sit
around and really think about this, because the decisions that
are made are going to have so many impacts, whether it be with
foreign nations, whether it be with stimulating that young kid
at Patterson Elementary that is going to want to know if he
gets into science. I mean, this is really important.
And I do worry a little bit about every administration that
puts something out there. They really almost consider it a
challenge to them if anyone wants to kind of change anything.
And I know being a Cabinet Secretary, as you are a Cabinet
Secretary, your obligation is to advocate for the
Administration for a proposal. If you don't, then, you know,
you should leave and let someone else do it. But I think within
the confines of that.
So I would encourage you, we will give you some names, to
pull together some of these people and take a good period to
see if we can come up with something whereby we resolve a lot
of the issues, that you understand certainly better than I
understand, that are out there. And so if you would do that, I
would----
General Bolden. I appreciate that recommendation. We will
do that. I will tell you, the President needs no defense. But
he is engaged in space policy. I spent a half hour this
morning, not with him but with the Deputy Chief of Staff,
because he is engaged. He has promised that we are going to
find a solution to this problem. He has stated that, or through
his Deputy Chief of Staff, he has stated that we are going to
find a way to come together, because it is important for the
nation. I agree with you, and the President does also.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
General Bolden. I don't think it is a matter of anybody
backing down. I think it is a matter of us trying to find
common ground in what is an incredible budget. But what may be
just differences of opinion that people have. I am confident
that we are going to find a solution that will be good, because
no one will be happy.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONGRESSMAN FATTAH CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Fattah. Let me thank my colleague who is also from
Philadelphia. Now we are going to wrap up. And it has been an
honor to have you present to the Committee. And the Chairman
made his--made the point that he had an appointment that he had
to go to.
But we appreciate your leadership. And I think the country
will be excited to witness the Space Exploration Meeting that
the President is coming to lead and to listen. And we are going
to learn a lot more about the vision. And I think here a host
of views and the choice points that have to be kind of thought
through.
So thank you very much and have a good day.
General Bolden. Congressman, thank you also very much. I
appreciate the time you have given us. And I know you didn't
have to take all this time. But I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010.

NSF (NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION) FY2011 BUDGET OVERVIEW

WITNESS

ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NSF
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.
Welcome to the Fiscal Year 2011 National Science Foundation
Budget Overview Hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and Science.
Today we will cover the budget and operations of the
National Science Foundation and the National Science Board and
also review the status and future needs of U.S. science
activities other than those in human health.

Appreciation of Dr. Bement

Our witness is the director of the National Science
Foundation, Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. Bement, I believe this is
your valedictory appearance before this Subcommittee, and I
want to begin by thanking you for your service to American
science and technology and to the people of the United States.
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I think you are leaving NSF well
staffed with science leaders, you have succeeded in efforts to
bring forward major cross cutting initiatives, achieving
cooperation across the different science dictorates, and
between the education and human resources directorate in the
science, technology, engineering, and the math programs.
And on a personal basis it has been a pleasure working with
you, and I join everybody else who works with you in being
extremely impressed with you as a scientist and as an
administrator and as a person, it has been a real pleasure.
Dr. Bement. And I reciprocate that feeling.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.

DOUBLING THE NSF BUDGET

Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the U.S.
economy in excess of population growth, it is primarily the
result of innovations and new technologies that result from
public and private investments and research and development.
Accordingly, we are in the midst of a ten-year doubling and
funding for NSF contemplated by the America Competes Act. This
doubling was accelerated by $3 billion added to the fiscal year
2009 appropriation for the Foundation as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds have gone to
increase grant funding across all areas of NSF and to various
science infrastructure investments.
The budget request for fiscal year 2011 continues the
planned doubling with a roughly seven percent increase over the
2010 enacted levels.

STEM EDUCATION REFORM

In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase
to NSF education programs focused on hands on, inquiry-based
instruction in grades K through 12 and in K through 12 teacher
preparation.
Last month we heard testimony from those who work in this
area, and they provided examples of successful efforts at
improving science, technology, engineering, and math education.
Those witnesses offered evidence of the benefits that result
from federal investments made through NSF.
NSF has a major role to play in continuing and accelerating
the reform of science education to include inquiry and student
assessments of inquiry skills.

NSF CLIMATE RESEARCH

In addition, NSF plays a growing role in climate
observations and research. Under the Major Research Equipment
and Facilities Construction Account the request to initiate the
National Ecological Observatory Network and to provide major
funding for the Ocean Observatories Initiative should result in
new understanding of how ecosystems and the oceans influence
and respond to climate change.
These research networks, along with the NSF grants for
critical zone observatories, new research in hydrology, and new
super computer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
have the potential to support climate understanding predictions
that are both more accurate and finer in spatial resolution.
These improvements will be needed to assist the private and
public sectors in choosing climate change adaptation strategies
and investments.

BROAD SUPPORT OF RESEARCH

NSF is involved in so many exciting areas of research
including math, genomics, computer science, and engineering. I
could go on, but this breadth of activity is the unique mission
of NSF.
While NSF and the mission agencies support R&D addressing
changing national priorities, it is NSF's unique responsibility
to ensure that the U.S. has continuing expertise across all
areas of science and technology. This provides our Nation with
the ability to address rapidly new challenges as they arise.
Given the critical role of science and technology in the
future prosperity and international leadership of the United
States, we look forward to hearing from you, Dr. Bement, on the
state of U.S. science and technology and its future needs and
prospects.
Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we
will ask you to provide a summary of your written statement
which will be included in the hearing record and then we will
go on the questions from Subcommittee members.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join the Chairman today and welcome you Doctor to the
hearing to testify on the budget, and I am pleased to see the
level of commitment to funding basic science and scientific
research.

Appreciation of Dr. Bement

And I will just have the Director submit for the record. I
just want to thank you for your service and to the country, and
I think it is going to be a loss for our government to see you
leave, but I am curious to see who they appoint.
And as we get into talking, since you are never coming back
here again in the sense that nobody can ever fire you pretty
much, why don't you really tell us how things really are?
Dr. Bement. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. No, no, I mean----
Dr. Bement. No, I understand.
Mr. Wolf. You are a father of how many kids?
Dr. Bement. Eight.
Mr. Wolf. Eight. And you are a grandfather of how many?
Dr. Bement. Thirty.
Mr. Wolf. So you take a different approach to maybe a 28
year old.
Dr. Bement. You could have kept going.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. And how many great grandchildren?
Dr. Bement. Nineteen.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, so I think you have a perspective. So I
would hope when the hearing begins, in your testimony you would
really tell us the truth and just let us know. Because I think
I really worry that the Nation is ready to come into a period
of decline.
I saw Charles Krauthammer's piece about a month and a half
ago, he said, decline is a choice. As individuals we make a
choice whether we want to decline, as great nations we make a
choice.
And so I would just like to hear you really tell us where
we are. There is all this research, going on, you have got the
Board's Foundation, you got this group, you have Arne Duncan
doing this.
Really so when you come and tell us, tell us really where
you think not only as the head of the National Science
Foundation, but as a father, and a grandfather, and a great
grandfather somebody who has a perspective from a biblical
wisdom, if you will, where you think the Nation is and what you
think we have to do.
But I join the Chairman too in thanking you for your
service over the many years. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. We are not suggesting that you had never not
told us the truth though.
Mr. Wolf. No, but I think--well the reality is though when
you work in the Administration--I used to work for a cabinet
secretary who had different views than the White House, and you
would sit in a meeting and you would know how he felt, then you
would come up on the testimony and----
Mr. Mollohan. You wouldn't hear it all?
Mr. Wolf. It would be different, so I want him to tell us
the way it really is.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Dr. Bement, we again welcome you and
invite you to tell it the way it is.
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member
Wolf, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
with you today.

PRESIDENT'S 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

The essence of the President's 2011 budget request for the
National Science Foundation is to reaffirm the agency's roots
as a Nation as well as bring us scientific innovation.
An assessed 2011 request is $7.4 billion, an increase of
eight percent over 2010. This keeps us on the road to the
President's and the America Competes Act goal of doubling NSF's
budget.
But as with any budget this request reflects tough choices
and clear priorities. It recognizes NSF's unique national
responsibility for supporting basic research, our catalytic
role in education, and the ongoing need for investments and
stewardship.
NSF's research and education agenda is both multifaceted
and well rounded. It is designed very deliberately to support
the Administration's plan for making innovation a center piece
of economic strength and future well being.
The main driver for this investment is the National
Innovation Strategy. Nothing speaks more to what NSF is and
does than the Administration's commitment to fundamental
research, and that is emphasized throughout the budget.
You will also see NSF at the forefront of educating the
next generation of 21st Century knowledge and skills. Let me
highlight programs that are central to this goal.
The Advanced Technological Education Program supports new
and enhanced two year college programs that educate technicians
for the high-technology workforce. I might say parenthetically
they also prepare a lot of teachers for STEM education in the
schools.
The Graduate Research Fellowship and Faculty Career
Development Program supports students and early career
investigators to foster the Nation's next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Climate change education addresses learning at all levels
and is designed to stimulate careers in climate science.
NSF programs also support next generation information
technology and secure cyberspace. NSF will support the
interagency networking and information technology R&D program
at $1.17 billion.
Overcoming challenges inherited, today's great scientific
questions will require a new computer revolution to overcome
the physical restrictions of today's silicon chip based
technology.
NSF's Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law is a
multi-disciplinary research program designed to enhance our
Nation's economic competitiveness. The program's name refers to
the proposition that computer processing power based on
semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18
months; however, we are rapidly reaching the physical
limitation of that progress.
NSF must continue to innovate in tackling the large scale
scientific and engineering challenges of our age, including
understanding the Nation's scope of changes in the earth's
climate.
NSF contributes multiple resources to support the U.S.
Global Change Research Program and other interagency
initiatives that are helping us understand and confront the
global challenge of a changing climate.
NSF's contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research
Program is proposed to increase by 16 percent to $370 million.
Also in 2011, NSF will spend $766 million on a portfolio of
activities called Science, Engineering, and Education for
Sustainability. It will seek integrated approaches to increase
U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship,
and reduce energy use and carbon intensity while generating
continued economic growth.
Regaining our Energy, Science, and Engineering Edge, or RE-
ENERGYSE, is a new $19 million program to help the Nation
regain its leadership in science and engineering by attracting
and educating future scientists into the clean energy fields.
NSF will jointly fund RE-ENERGYSE with the Department of
Energy to prepare as many as 8,500 highly trained young
scientists and engineers for clean energy careers by 2015.
Additionally, RE-ENERGYSE will provide training of
technicians for clean energy industries.
NSF's request includes $20 million in its Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account to begin
construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network, or
NEON.
NEON is a multi-faceted project with a total projected
budget of $434 million spread out over the next six fiscal
years.
NEON will collect data on the effects of climate change,
changes in land use, and invasive species on natural resources
and biodiversity.
NEON will be the first observatory network designed to
detect and enable forecasting of ecological change on the
continental scale over multiple decades.
As with any budget the most important information is the
message between the numbers. In 2011 that message is the
Administration's commitment to innovation and economic growth
through science and engineering.
The Foundation is pleased to be playing an important role
in that effect.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wolf, as this will likely
be the last time I testify before you before my June 1st
departure from the Foundation I want to make certain that you
are aware of how deeply appreciative I am of your support over
the past nine years as director of NSF.
And with that I would be happy to answer your questions.
[The information follows:]

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST

Mr. Mollohan. Well over the past nine years several
chairman, several ranking, Mr. Wolf in both positions and
myself on both positions, and Mr. Serrano I think was in there
at a time, Mr. Rogers probably during that time, I know just
talking with all of them offline they all hold you in such high
regard, and so it has been easy to support you over nine years.
Dr. Bement. And I appreciate hearing that.
Mr. Mollohan. Yeah. And so we thank you for your service
again.
Well you suggest that NSF's budget request is eight percent
above the amount appropriated in 2010, I think that was your
testimony, and the research and related activities increase.
What is the research and related activities increase?
Dr. Bement. It is about eight percent.
Mr. Mollohan. See we have it at 7.1. I think we have the
overall at 7.2. I understand the difference in those two
numbers, but what I am curious about is why the education and
human resources increase is only 2.2, or that is the way we are
computing it, but significantly less than the overall increase,
and the increase for total NASA spending on STEM education is
by our reckoning 2.3 percent.
Dr. Bement. I think the primary reason is again the
importance of the National Science Foundation to the National
Innovation Strategy. And clearly the budget was skewed to deal
with economic forces, putting more money into fundamental
research.
Again, major programs that encourage high growth and
innovation enterprise, entrepreneurship. Learning and workforce
development is an important part of that, and there clearly are
three principal objectives in the National Innovation Strategy.
One is to increase the number of graduate research
fellowships, to provide more support for young investigators,
especially through career grants, to----
Mr. Mollohan. So that is all out. So you are explaining to
me why there is only 2.2 percentage increase in education and
human resources and only a 2.3 percent for STEM education. Is
that what you are after?
Dr. Bement. Well that is not the full story.
Mr. Mollohan. That is my question.
Dr. Bement. You are asking a comparative analysis why there
is more money in R&RA than there is in EHR.
Mr. Mollohan. Correct.

LEVERAGING EDUCATION FUNDING ACROSS NSF

Dr. Bement. And I am saying that the NIS priority of the
President, the Administration's priority, skewed more of the
resources into the R&RA account for the reasons that I
mentioned.
On the other hand, I have to say that the EHR account is
very highly leveraged within the Foundation. For example, the
total funding for STEM education is $1.225 billion, which is a
substantial investment. Thirty percent of that investment comes
from the R&RA account, and those investments deal largely with
undergraduate education and graduate education, but a
significant amount also contributes to K to 12 education.
Now that is a conservative estimate. It doesn't include
investments that are made by the individual investigators
themselves through Broader Impacts, and a lot of the innovative
initiatives in developing instructional materials, and also
inquiry-based learning, comes out of the research program
through the Border Impacts account. There is no way to sum that
up very readily, but it is an additional contribution.
I could give you other examples. Another factor is that we
increased the base of several important EHR programs in the
2010 budget. One example is the ATE Program, the Advanced
Technological Education Program, which deals with community
colleges. We increased the base of that program in the 2010
budget by 23 percent primarily because it was a major priority
of the Administration.
By increasing that base in 2010 we also increased the
fraction of the total funding that would be available for new
awards. That flexibility carries over into 2011, so we left it
flat funded in 2011 because we had the additional flexibility.
So just looking at one year numbers doesn't really indicate
what the pattern might be over two or three budget cycles.
Another example is the ARRA funding that went into EHR
primarily for the Noyce Program and the Math and Science
Partnership Program. That was $85 million through ARRA funding.
All that money was put out in standard grants that will be
spent out over a period of three to five years, let us say an
average of four years. If you put that against the base for K
to 12 education, which those two programs support as far as
teacher training, pre-service and in-service training, that is
an addition of about eight percent per year to the budget for K
to 12 education. And then if you add in the R&RA component,
plus the two and a half percent average for EHR, that brings it
up close to 10 to 11 percent effective increase in budget.
We also have to pay attention to sustaining renewals of the
ARRA funding, so we look at it over several budget cycles to
determine what will be the impact in 2012, 2013, and so forth.
So we feel that the 2011 budget for EHR does two things.
Number one, it hits all the priorities of the Administration in
graduate research fellowships, in the ATE Program and a couple
other programs. It also provides funding flexibility for a
number of programs that are very important for teacher
education.
That is what I meant in my opening remarks by saying the
program is balanced. And it is also very highly leveraged.
Mr. Mollohan. So this is your work up, this is your
recommendation to the Administration, the funding increases in
education, human resources, and the spending on STEM?
Dr. Bement. Much of the decision making in terms of which
programs to plus up and which ones to hold constant and the
impacts of the ARRA funding were decisions that I made.
Mr. Mollohan. How to manage that amongst those accounts?
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. What about the absolute request number, is
that your recommendation to OMB or is this a result of push
back and forth?
Dr. Bement. Well the early President's plan for 2011 was a
much smaller number than we ended up with. The EHR component
stayed pretty much the same as was planned, but the R&RA
account was actually substantially enriched as a result of the
National Innovation Strategy. So much more money went into
research.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. But my question was for these accounts
that I am asking you about, this human resources and the STEM
education, did you request more to OMB, and the answer sort of
suggests you did.
Dr. Bement. Well that is a pre-decisional question, of
course.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So I am looking for a pre-decisional
answer.
Dr. Bement. I know I have been in this trap before.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you know, it is not a trap. You know,
it is interesting why that should be a secret. And I am not
sure in this Administration it is, but I guess I will just ask
that question. Has OMB told you not to answer those questions
under this Administration?
Dr. Bement. No, this has been a practice a long time. The
last time I was, as you recall, stymied by that question was
during the Bush Administration, the first term.
Mr. Mollohan. Well then I can understand why you were
stymied in the Bush Administration. I am asking you has that
policy changed in this Administration or is it consistent?
Dr. Bement. Hasn't changed. Hasn't changed.
Mr. Mollohan. So OMB is directing you not to answer these
pre-decisional questions as you call them----
Dr. Bement. That is correct.
Mr. Mollohan. [continuing]. Before the Appropriation's
Committee of the United States Congress? So you won't answer
that?
Dr. Bement. Obviously as a director of an agency I ask for
a lot more money than I actually get, so you can draw your own
conclusions from that.
You know, it is just like the President's budget. The
President proposes and the Congress disposes.
Mr. Mollohan. I have heard that before.
Dr. Bement. Yes, I am sure you have.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well let me ask you this in a more
serious vain. When you look at NSF and its role with regard to
education----
Dr. Bement. Yes.

ROLE OF NSF IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS
EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. STEM education, tell us what is
the role that you think the National Science Foundation, and it
is almost at the philosophy level or certainly at the policy
level, what role do you think the National Science Foundation
can play, should play, and apply its scarce resources to?
Dr. Bement. First of all we invest money in research and
development to develop best practices, but also to innovate . .
. find innovative ways to not only enhance learning, but also
to enhance teaching, and to bring learning and teaching
together.
We try to focus on quality in education, but again, our
focus is on math and science education, and as a federal agency
with limited resources we have to stay focused, and so we
leverage our resources with the Department of Education which
deals with states in their formula grants, and we expect that
once we develop best practice that the Department of Education
will work with us, as they do, in translating that--or
transitioning that to broader use across many school districts
and scaling it up across the country. And that has been the
essence of our partnership as long as I have been in the
Foundation.
Now, I can tell you a story that I think will illuminate
the point. We run the Teacher's Presidential Award Programs for
both math and science teachers at both the elementary and
secondary levels, and every time they come to Washington, I
would say 100 teachers, I ask them a simple question. I have
asked this in front of congressmen and congresswomen, and it is
always a challenge because I never know how they are going to
answer. I ask them how many of you have been impacted by NSF
investment in education? And every hand goes up invariably.
So this time I asked them why we have such an impact
considering the scale of our program? Their answer was that
they work in the trenches every day, and in many cases they
have to struggle within their own social environment within a
school in terms of what to teach and how to teach and how much
latitude they will have to teach.
And almost invariably when that argument ensues if they can
cite evidence, evidence-based results of something the NSF
supported or funded and cite that as a case they almost
invariably win their argument. They appreciate that more than
anyone can say, even though we don't fund them directly. We
fund the universities, but the impact does filter down, and so
that gives me a good feeling. And these are the best of the
best, these are the cream.
So hopefully next time when you have one come to town you
will have a chance to ask that question and see what they say.

COLLABORATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan. I had one visit me this year. I think I do
every year actually, almost every year.
With what office or department or person at the Department
of Education do you interface?
Dr. Bement. Well we interface at every level. First of all
at the highest level I think it is Michael Lach in the
Secretary's office. There is an ongoing dialogue between
Michael Lach and Dr. Marrett. They meet periodically and they
meet for the purpose of identifying areas where there can be
more cooperation.
We also operate at the division level. We have a close
working relationship with the Institute of Education Sciences.
In fact we have two joint programs with them in assessment.
First of all assessing professional development of math
teachers, and then assessing professional development in
science across the board, STEM across the board. But even these
we are always looking for new opportunities.
At the program level we have very close working
relationships. For example, in the Math and Science Partnership
program we sponsor joint workshops, we meet with state
officials. We are part of each other's websites. And more than
that we strategize how to do the transition and also the
scaling at the state level.
So today about 60 to 69 percent of the MSP projects that
are closely linked with state initiatives. These are NSF
projects that are closely linked with statewide initiatives,
which is a pretty high fraction.
So I think that relationship has been effective, it is
getting better all the time, and the reason for that is that
Secretary Duncan and many of his associates in the Department
of Education come from the Chicago school district, and the
Chicago school district is exemplary because they have used NSF
funded programs within their various initiatives to improve
science and mathematics proficiency in the grades from 8th
grade on up to secondary education.
We have a very easy way to communicate since we have a lot
of common ground based on past experience, and so the
relationship is very close.

SCIENCE BOARD SUPPORT FOR THE 2011 NSF REQUEST

Mr. Mollohan. Well good. Doctor, does the Board agree with
the relative priorities for funding between STEM research and
infrastructure and STEM education? Has the National Science
Board, is it their judgment as to relative priorities for
funding between----
Dr. Bement. Well the Board really doesn't differentiate
much in priorities between research and education because the
philosophy of the Foundation is to integrate research with
education, so they have a mutually supportive relationship.
But I would have to say that in reviewing the budget they
did review all of the Administration's priorities and they
approved the budget in its totality before it was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget, so they stand behind the
budget.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Wolf.

STATE OF U.S. INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just looking at this brochure, Key Science and Engineering
Indicators, on page 14 it shows the location and estimate of
worldwide R&D has moved from North America and Europe to Asia.
You said the distribution of R&D expenditures has shifted from
1996 to 2007, Asia's shares has risen to nearly one-third due
to mostly by China's rapid R&D. The average annual growth rated
number researchers you look at that chart B, U.S. is flat, EU,
flat, Russia down, South Korea dramatically up, Taiwan even
more, China much more, and Singapore even much more than that.
With this information and what I asked you at the outset
and knowing that 50 percent of the money that was allocated
last year roughly for STEM was accessed, and looking at where
we are on the math and science scores, where do you think we
are now as a Nation, vis-a-vis, China manufacturing, education?
And you know one of the questions you know I am going to
ask you is on the language that we put in for the study that we
asked you to do. So where do you think we really on now?
At one time you had told me that Europe was making an
effort to bring people back to Europe to work in their
universities. And so just kind of in a couple minutes tell us
where you think we really are at this time.
Dr. Bement. We are going through a period of rapid change
and we are being challenged in terms of our position in science
and technology more so than ever before.
Our world share, even though we are still the dominant
research performer in the world today, and our universities are
ranked very highly and are highly regarded, one has to
recognize that almost every nation in the world recognizes that
in a knowledge economy, economic growth in prosperity, are to a
large extent, dependent on investment in education, investment
in research, and investment in infrastructure. So they have
been investing very highly.
In Europe, Germany, and the UK and other countries are
trying to improve their relative ranking of their universities
because they don't rank as high as they feel they should. The
same thing is happening in the Far East.
For example, KAIST--I was in KAIST just three or four weeks
ago--KAIST is a Korean Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, it is sort of the MIT in South Korea. They have
come from a position way down to a position where they are now
ranked 12th in the world in engineering, and there are only
three institutions in the United States that rank higher than
they do, Cal-Tech, MIT, and Cal-Berkeley, which indicates where
they stand relative to a lot of other universities in the U.S.
as far as international ranking is concerned.
So the world share of research and development of the U.S.
has gone down not so much that the absolute numbers have gone
down, the absolute numbers do continue to go up, it is that
everyone is investing so much more.
For example, our investment rate in federal funding has
been increasing about six percent per year across the board
roughly. In China it has been increasing 20 percent a year. In
most of the other Asian nations it has been increasing at least
ten percent a year. Well those kind of increases over time will
make a difference.
And for example, in China data that go back to even 2007
indicated that the total number of researchers in China equaled
a number of researchers in the U.S., and I am sure today they
have more researchers in China than we have in the U.S.
If you look at advanced technology, we aspire to push
forward clean renewable energy, nuclear energy, bio derived
hydrocarbon fuels, and wind energy. Well guess where the
world's share of the technology, the equipment and the
facilities and the displays and so forth are going to come
from? At the rate we are going, we will be buying our nuclear
reactors from South Korea, we will be buying most of our wind
generators and photovoltaic panels from China. We are already
purchasing some bio derived fields from Brazil.
So that these changes are primarily about national will, it
is not necessarily changes due to capacity or capability, it is
national will. They want to be leaders, they want to set the
standards, they don't want to be dependent on the rest of the
world for standards, and they are succeeding.
So that is going back to your earlier question, that is
what keeps me awake sometimes at night.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Mr. Wolf. Well then I guess to follow the question would be
this: If the trend continues where it is now both here in the
United States and in Asia and other places, what do you foresee
the circumstances if this same question were asked of the
director of the National Science Foundation 20 years from now?
What do you think their answer will be as to where we are? What
impact do you think this will have?
Dr. Bement. Well if I could have the luxury of projecting
myself ahead 20 years and then answer that in retrospect.
I think the point is, and this is why I put so much
emphasis on international collaboration. This is the way of the
world, it is not a ``king of the mountain'' approach anymore,
it is no longer a matter that the U.S. is going to be dominant
in all fields of science anymore in the future. We will be
dominant in some fields, but not every field, not every
important field.
So it is imperative that we develop links, we network, we
have relationships with top scientists throughout the world. We
have to learn how to collaborate in order to compete. We have
to know where the frontier is, and the frontier may look
differently in China and may look differently in France than it
looks in the U.S. They may be seeing different opportunities.
If we are not connected, if we are not networked, and we don't
have frequent exchange, then we are going to get blind sided.
And blind sided means that we won't have an opportunity to move
into fast moving markets as a leader. We will be a fast
follower or maybe even a slow follower, but we will not
necessarily be the leader.
So I put a lot of priority in building up our international
programs and the amount of resources we have for international
collaboration. We are doing a very good job. We have broadband
links with almost every region of the world. Some regions are a
little bit dark, but they will be lighted up in the next five
years.
So science is being done on a 24 by 7 basis throughout the
world, and it is very important that our scientists have an
opportunity to succeed in some of the fast moving fields that
may be emerging somewhere else. And 20 years from now in
retrospect that will be the story.
Mr. Wolf. Well what do you think it is going to be 20 years
from now?
Mr. Bement. Well, you know, that is not just a science and
technology question, that is a political question for the very
reason that with information and communication technology the
world is shrinking faster now than ever before in the past. We
used to think that international travel was a great
democratizer or a shrinker of the world. That is no longer the
case.
We are going to be interconnected with broadband
communication where any person in the world will be able to
talk personally with any one other person in the world before
too long. We can do it now. In fact, I have international
meetings under bilateral agreements with teleconferencing now
on a routine basis, and it works. You don't have to travel, you
don't lose the time, you don't pay the extra expenses, and you
get work done.
We are now entering an era where we can share
instrumentation like never before. We can have a researcher in
the United States actually operating a piece of equipment
somewhere else in the world and getting the data back in real-
time. They don't have to have their own instrument.
An example is the ten meter telescope at the South Pole. No
more remote region of the world than the South Pole. We have a
telescope there that operates during the austral winter, which
is summer here, and that is the best viewing season for doing
astronomical observation. Well that has been automated to an
extent where a researcher, an astronomer here in the U.S. with
a laptop can operate the instrument and get the data. They
don't have to travel all the way to the South Pole. That is
going to be more prevalent.
Furthermore, I think top researchers are going to become
more peripatetic, and they are also going to be virtually
connected with research groups in several parts of the world.
They are very much like orchestra conductors. Orchestra
conductors will conductors a symphony in Washington, the next
day they will be in London, the next day they may be in Moscow,
different orchestras.
I see top scientists doing the same thing with research
groups in different parts of the world where they will have an
influence, and that will all be virtually connected. They can
manage all that in Santa Fe, New Mexico if they wish.

CHINA'S POSITION IN THE WORLD

Mr. Wolf. Well okay. I guess I would comment, you know, I
agree with a lot of what you say, probably all.
When I was the chairman of this Committee we reversed the
decline in the sciences. It keeps me awake. My wife and I we
have five kids, we have 15 grand kids, and I see things taking
place and I think I bring a perspective of concern from outside
to scientific area.
Norm Augustine came to a group that we had where he made a
comment that in the 16th Century Spain was number one, and we
know what happened to Spain. In the 17th Century, it was the
French century. In the 19th Century it was the British century,
you know, the sun never set on the British empire, if you will.
And the 20th Century was the American century. And he made the
comment that he was concerned that the 21st Century could be
the Chinese century.
And I think what troubles me, I get that this institution
doesn't seem very troubled by it, and the previous
administration didn't seem very troubled by it and this
Administration doesn't seem very troubled by it do they? They
just don't seem to care.
But if you look at China and their values; the Chinese
government. I mean the persecution of the Catholic church. I
used to say there were 34 Catholic bishops in jail, I can't say
that anymore because some of them were so old they have died.
But everyone that was in jail was still in jail, the ones that
are out of jail now have died. Nobody says anything, nobody
seems to care. That is a value that is not good for the
country.
Protestant pastors are being rounded up, thrown in prison.
That is bad, that is a value. A government can round up
somebody purely preaching the gospel. That is not good.
What they have done to Tibet. I went to Tibet ten years
ago, I went with a young Buddhist monk, we went in the
monasteries. They have tortured the mild mannered Tibetans.
Nobody cares.
This Administration, the President won't even meet with the
Dalai Lama the first time he came. They are persecuting the
Muslims, the Uighur. The Uighur are going through a very
difficult time. They are spying against us. These are cyber
attacks. I am sure you have had Chinese cyber attacks against
you. They have had cyber attacks against this Congress and they
don't really do anything about it.
And so the values--and if you want to take it down to the
raw what it means for real people, the number one supporter,
the government is China, the genocide in Darfur is Chinese
generated. Chinese generated. They sell the bombers, the
Kalashnikov's, the Soviet helicopters.
So the world will be a different world from a values point.
And so while the Chinese people are wonderful, when they come
here they come through my office, I don't worry about the
Chinese people, but I worry about the Chinese government.
Dr. Bement. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. And since the Bush Administration and this
Administration, China has the worst human rights record than it
did ten years ago.
And we see Google. Very few people want to come to the
defense of Google. You know I admire the leadership of Google
that is willing to speak out.
So the world will be different with China with those values
because then they can use it for bad, for evil, for bad things.
And so it worries me deeply.
Dr. Bement. Well, I don't believe very much at all of what
Lenin said, but he did say one thing that I think applies to
this situation. His statement was ``quantity has a quality of
its own'', and that is what we are facing is quantity.

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE STEM EDUCATION

Mr. Wolf. The question I wanted to ask you. We put language
in asking NSF to convene a panel. We had originally-- we were
going to put in Norm Augustine's name, but we didn't, we didn't
do that. I was a little disappointed that we got a response
back from your people saying we have identified the National
Research Council Board because we wanted some best practices,
and with all the funding they get we believe that you know
understand best practices.
The response we got back said that you are going to
contract it out, the report will require nine months to
complete from the time the award is made, from the time the
award is made. The language called for 180 days. So if you can
use your bill signing ceremony pen just to tell whoever is
responsible we would like to see this kind of pushed up much
faster. The bill passed in what, November?
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. So you have had December, January, February,
March, and now we are almost at April. So if you can expedite
it and try to get something out quickly, I don't think it is a
major B1 Bomber contract, it is something to get the very best
information that is around that and kind of pull it together so
we can get something. Ideally I would like to see you have
something by the beginning of the school year. I think we
missed this upcoming school year, so that superintendents
around the country and other curriculum people can see what
works.
Because you would agree, I assume, that if you lost a young
student by 6th grade, the likelihood of getting them back
interested in math and science and physics and chemistry is
very small; if not impossible. But if we capture them in those
early, early years the better opportunity they will have.
Because this shows that we are falling behind in that area too.
Dr. Bement. I will look into a dual track on this. I think
the approach with the National Research Council is a more
deliberate approach, but it may be that we do a shorter term
approach in parallel. I am going to try and satisfy that.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr.
Bement.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.

INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACROSS GOVERNMENT

Mr. Honda. I read the testimony with a lot of interest, and
permeated throughout the testimony was a discussion around how
we can improve our research and development, the information,
and the knowledge that we have gathered through grant funded
research in the area of STEM, and also the discussion about
innovation and teaching innovation and inventiveness, and all
these things that I think came out in the report that the
National Science Board had put out in 2006.
And in 2007 I introduced a bill. Right now it is H.R. 2710,
but at that time in 2007 when we put out a bill it was H.R.
6104. H.R. 6104 had laid out basically what the report had
asked us to do.
And the other thing that we noticed is that based upon the
report it appeared that there were a lot of silos that were not
talking to each other in terms of STEM research. Agencies,
different agencies had done STEM research. I think the number
was--we spent close to $2 billion with 12 agencies and none of
the information was being shared with each other where there
could be a repository of information and conclusions that could
be shared with the education field and other fields. And we
shared the Board's concern through that report.
And it appears that again we are rehashing what was said in
2006, we tried in 2007, and again we tried to do it this year
under H.R. 2710. We did H.R. 2710 because part of our original
bill is taken up by the Science and Technology Committee, so we
have taken the rest of it.
Our interest in E-STEM, enhancing STEM education was also--
we were also saying that in the Department of Education there
should be an office that would be headed by an assistant deputy
secretary of education, that you also had a National Science
and Technology Council, that within that there should be a full
committee that deals with STEM. None of those things have
happened, but it sounds like this is what you are suggesting in
terms of just out of administrative fiat.
Given that and for sustainability and also assuring this
scientific innovative ecosystem, I think you called it
ecosystem, would it not be beneficial to put this into statute
rather than just have an existing one in the Administration and
then not having it sustained throughout the time?
Dr. Bement. Well, Mr. Honda, the current activity in the
current Administration is to take up this issue based on the
American Competitiveness Council activity in the previous
administration where they identified all the various programs
across the government and to develop a government-wide strategy
for STEM education. So I think it is totally faithful with what
you are trying to accomplish with the bill.
There is within the National Science and Technology Council
a subcommittee on education which is co-chaired.

FIRM DIRECTIVE FOR INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACROSS
SOCIETY

Mr. Honda. Right, I understand that, now I am suggesting it
goes up to level of committee.
Dr. Bement. Well that is up to the director of OSTP.
Mr. Honda. Well would it have more stature and more impact
if you had a committee rather than a subcommittee?
Dr. Bement. I am not sure it would be anymore effective.
You know, they have got a full platter of work at the present
time, and I think they have plenty of support. I am not sure
what the next step would amount to.
Mr. Honda. Well not to be argumentative, they may have a
lot of things on their plate, but if all this discussion about
integrating the research and the development into various parts
of our societies and various parts of our activities in terms
of instruction, pre-K to postgraduate, if that is not part of
the daily discussion, how you doing, how is it going, it will
never get done.
But you know, upon reflection everybody will say that was a
good idea, how come we didn't do it? And we are at that point
again in 2011, this would be a good idea, now we are getting
started, we lost five years. And so putting in a statute where
you have an expectation rather than just only, you know, having
an expectation to statute at least we can have some guidance
and create some benchmarks.
If there were a bill out there like that would that be
something that you could sign onto?
Dr. Bement. Well, I think what I would like to suggest is
that we have people within the Foundation work with your staff
to at least inform you what the current pace is and what the
current activity and schedules are so you have a general idea.
Mr. Honda. We have done that, and we would love to do it
again. But in terms of----
Dr. Bement. But I think what is going on now will have an
impact on the next budget cycle, the 2012 budget.
Mr. Honda. I am sure it will, but I am looking for
sustainability. Part of terminology we use in the green
vernacular is sustainability, and if we are looking for E-STEM
to be imparting enhanced STEM into everything.
The other thing you mention in your report, your testimony,
you are suggesting that there should be an integrated approach
to other areas, because it does have impact, but there is
nothing there----
Dr. Bement. Yes, I fully agree with that.
Mr. Honda. But there is nothing that says thou shalt. There
should be some sort of directive or a very stronger statement
in that, because we could produce engineers.
My son is an aerospace engineer, and he admits that he is
not well rounded, he is kind of lopsided and he can do some of
the other stuff, and all this stuff should be embedded in all
the other activities it seems to me so that we have a citizenry
that at least has the baseline and not be not be, misled by
misinformation to the media that, there is no such thing as
global warming. At least have an argument with yourself that
is, critical and based on some facts.
And I think that is one of the downfalls of our country. We
only see one side, and our side is always right whether it is
empires or----
Dr. Bement. Well, I don't think you could find a better
champion for STEM education than the President.
Mr. Honda. I am not arguing that.
Dr. Bement. He is going on record--gone on record many
times pushing STEM education.
Mr. Honda. Dr. Bement, I am not arguing that point. I am
just asking would it not be sustainable if we had this embedded
in some statute that reflects the President and your--and this
report's sense of direction and importance?
Dr. Bement. Well, I guess I could only say I am not
inimical to it, I just don't--I just can't speak for the
Administration on that issue.
Mr. Honda. Well as an educator it seems to me the public
policy and the kinds of things you are talking about that we
should be able to do this.
I asked Dr. Augustine the question, can innovation be
taught? And he said, well it is very difficult, because it is
in the character of each person. And now we are talking about
being able to teach inventiveness and innovation if we did it
right, and we put something together for NSF to look at that
for funding, and hopefully we can revisit that, because as an
instructor I think we can do that. All you have to do is look
at the walls of a lot of these companies where they have their
engineers and scientists with their patents up there, the ones
with peaks are the ones you want to study I guess.
But I just wanted to lay that out just so we can have a
future discussion with our staffs with your staff.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
joining us today.
I want to take you to one of my favorite recurring
subjects, and that is the observatory in Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Dr. Bement. Yes.

NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONOSPHERE CENTER (ARECIBO)

Mr. Serrano. And I want to first of all, as you know the
plan seems to be to continue to reduce its funding, while they
seem to be to want to close it down in the process, and
continue to reduce its funding, yet I seem to find in my way of
looking at things a contradiction between people who make
budget decisions and the scientific community.
There seems to be more and more statements coming forward
every so often telling us that there is a need for the work
done at the observatory.
Now needless to say in the territory of Puerto Rico this
has caused great alarm for many reasons. For the importance
they feel it has in the scientific community, the importance it
has to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, you know, in so many
ways and we just finished that debate this week, that the
territories get treated differently. In this case having placed
the observatory there was quite a boost years ago to the
relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. There
is an issue of jobs obviously and of tourism where folks go to
see it because they know it is advertised as having been in a
couple of movies. James Bond has a lot of fans throughout the
world and people want to see this observatory.
But any way, first of all, is there a contradiction or is
there at least a difference of opinion between folks who want
to reduce the budget and eventually close it down and people in
the scientific community that say there is an importance and a
need for the observatory?
Dr. Bement. Well let me state my position. First of all, I
have never taken a position of closing it down. The senior
review that looked at all the telescopes and all the assets in
astronomy made the statement that it continued to do valuable
research, and I believe that.
The problem is that it has gotten beyond the capacity or
the capability of the Foundation to be the sole supporter of
the telescope, so we have been looking for partners. One
partner would be NASA, for example. They have the mission of
tracking low earth objects such as asteroids and so forth.
Arecibo is the ideal instrument for doing that, and it does do
so at the present time.
The opportunities in astronomy are still so great in terms
of getting back closer to the Big Bang and understanding how
the universe began and all the aspects of evolution of the
universe. It is still a very compelling topic. So there is
always a need to build new telescopes. And we have at the
present time substantial investment not only in ALMA, but also
a new solar telescope that we wish to build in Hawaii. All
those put pressure on the operation and maintenance expenses of
our existing telescopes.
Now Puerto Rico has done quite a lot and they have
increased investment in Arecibo. So you know the intent is not
to just keep drawing down the budget to zero. The point is to
find how we can continue to operate Arecibo, but not at its
full capability. Other people are going to have to come in and
help.
Mr. Serrano. But there is a recommendation for yet another
decrease I believe of $1.6 million less than last year.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. So there is that intent, and my question to
you is how successful are we in getting NASA or others to share
funding?
Also the projections were made on flat funding for the
Foundation. Well that has not been the case in the last couple
of years, nor do I think it will be the case in future years.
So you see here is the problem. As I tell many people in a
very serious way and half joking for some folks, I represent
two districts. I represent the Bronx and I represent the place
where I was born, Puerto Rico. And you wonder how much of this
has to do with the relationship with the United States. The
territories are always last. I mean, I don't want to drag you
into another discussion, but you should have seen what we went
through in the health care bill just to get the territories
something.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. And it wasn't enough that you were talking
about American citizens. The fact that they don't have two
senators, and you know, in Puerto Rico's case seven members of
Congress makes a big difference.
So it will always, unless we make a special effort to save
it and to keep it open, Arecibo will disappear because it is
not a priority.
In fact when you are telling me you are building a new one
in Hawaii I am all for that, but it doesn't hurt to have a
president in the White House--I was born in Hawaii, so I
suspect that one will do very well.
Dr. Bement. Well that was planned well before the election.
Mr. Serrano. I understand. It just coincides this way, you
know. Just like it coincides on my watch.
Mr. Bement. Let me clarify one of your issues. I simply
needed to bring on additional partners.
Mr. Serrano. Right.

LONG-TERM FUNDING OF THE NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONSPHERE CENTER
(ARECIBO)

Dr. Bement. We are also looking within the Foundation for
additional partners. For example, one of the capabilities at
Arecibo is they're working on atmospheric and geospace
sciences, and I have been there and I have seen the facility
and they do have a good staff and they do make a major
contribution.
So we have got in our Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
Division and they are--in the fiscal year 2010 budget they put
in $2.2 million which brought the total up to $10.6 million,
and as compared with the 2009 budget of $9.6 so that was an
addition of a million over all.
Now the 2011 request it goes back down again, but it is
hovering at around $9 to $10 million a year. I don't see that
that is inconsistent with my statement that we are trying to
maintain.
But I would be more than happy to have another federal
agency come in and become a co-supporter of that facility so
that it would have a much more robust program.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Let me just make two quick points
here, I don't want to take too much time on this, and at the
same time ask you a question.
The original report did recommend closure after 2011 if
significant non-federal sources of funding are not found.
Dr. Bement. That was made by a senior review panel that did
not include officials of the Foundation. I told you my
position.
Mr. Serrano. So officials of the Foundation you are saying
for the record are looking for a comfortable level of funding
that you can afford, but not intending to close it down?
Dr. Bement. That is my position.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. And is that position shared by others
who may be around after you are not there?
Dr. Bement. Well that position was taken in fiscal 2007.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Dr. Bement. It hasn't changed in three budget cycles, I
hope it won't change in the future.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. And lastly, I just want to for the
record, Mr. Chairman, remind folks that this past January the
National Research Council released a report on near earth
asteroids, that is asteroids that have the potential to hit
earth, entitled, Defending Planet Earth Near Earth Object
Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies. The report outlined
the importance of Arecibo, and it says, quote, ``Immediate
action be taken to ensure the continued operation of the
Arecibo observatory at a level sufficient to staff and maintain
the facility and that it should be supported.'' The report in
fairness says NASA and NSF.
Dr. Bement. That is exactly the point I was making earlier.
This is a NASA mission too.
Mr. Serrano. And the point I am trying to make is which you
agree with, that there are folks involved today in scientific
research who claim that Arecibo is necessary.
Dr. Bement. And I agree with that.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan. As I noted, Dr. Bement, in my opening
statement, this Subcommittee held a couple of hearings last
month focusing on STEM education.
From the testimony it is clear that the effectiveness of
the inquiry-based education in STEM education is needed at all
levels, but implementation is woefully lacking.
How many and what percentage of colleges and universities
receiving NSF funding offer courses that are inquiry-based
other than undergraduate research opportunities and graduate
thesis preparation?
Dr. Bement. Our information is that in almost all the
universities that we support there are faculty that effectively
use inquiry-based education or promote inquiry-based education.
As a matter of fact, many of investigators under Broader
Impacts make a significant contribution to inquiry-based
education through the type of research that they are doing. But
that is the good news.
The bad news is it is not being used enough, especially in
undergraduate education. It is being underutilized. We would
like to see a much broader application of inquiry-based
education and we continue to press for that.
We feel that first of all the evidence is compelling that
it not only contributes to understanding concepts, improving
problem solving, but it also aids retention, recruitment, and
also graduation success, because students have become more
interested in the subject if they have an opportunity to either
carry on some type of project work or some type of research as
part of the learning experience.
Even computational application, use of computers, computer
modeling is a good application of inquiry-based learning, and
they get a chance to deal with more complex problems than they
might otherwise do.
That is the reason why we are stressing the Cyberlearning
Transforming Education initiative, the CTE initiative, to bring
on more cyber technology into the classroom for inquiry-based
education.
That is pretty much the situation as it currently extends.
We have made progress, but we have a long way to go.
Mr. Mollohan. At NSF you primarily fund colleges and
universities. How can you increase the use of inquiry in the
teaching of science in our schools?
Dr. Bement. We can build it into our solicitations, and we
do in many respects. A lot of our programs focus on inquiry-
based education, so those are some of the things that we can
do.
Mr. Mollohan. To what extent are you doing that?
Dr. Bement. Well, I will ask Dr. Mundy to answer that
question. This is Joan Ferrini-Mundy who is the Acting
Assistant Director for EHR.
Mr. Mollohan. Well we should have another chair up there if
you want to do that. That was very clever. It is not June yet.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So the question is what are we doing
now? There are lots of strategies for improving the use of
inquiry methods for improving in general teaching of science
that leads to conceptual understanding and that leads to
ability to solve complex problems. And so we have various
programs that address this.
One is to try to get the faculty themselves to become aware
of these methods, to understand them, to try them out in their
teaching, and we do that through our Transforming Undergraduate
Education in STEM program.
Another is to continue the research about these methods so
that we have evidence about their effectiveness, because that
helps in their dissemination too. We have other programs that
do that.
Helping K through 12 practitioners come into contact with
undergraduate faculty is another way to try to spread the word,
and we do that through our GK-12 Program as well as our Math
and Science Partnership Program.
And then finally we invest in the STEM faculty of tomorrow,
during their own graduate preparation, in helping them to
understand these methods.
So we work on multiple strategies and continue to promote
the ideas through several programs.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is through grant funding?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. And give me an example of a college,
university, where that is happening.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So the University of Colorado Boulder is
a place that has a whole program on using undergraduate
learning assists in the teaching of physics, I believe, and so
the physics faculty who are also involved in that teaching are
working together with undergraduate students to try to improve
opportunities for physics learning in the classroom. You have a
mix of undergraduates, folks from the School of Education who
are doing some evaluation and research about the project, and
faculty in the sciences coming together to try to improve the
opportunities to really understand physics as opposed to
learning physics in a rote kind of way.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is at what level? That is at the
college level?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Undergraduate level.
Mr. Mollohan. Undergraduate level.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.

INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K THROUGH 12 CLASSROOMS

Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And so how does that lay a foundation
for migrating inquiry into K through 12?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Sure. First of all you have the faculty
in physics and in the science departments who are those folks
who actually teach the future teachers their subject matter
contents and so they are getting the chance to see this used
and then to try to bring it into their own teaching. And then
hopefully some of these undergraduate learning assistants
ultimately might consider becoming K through 12 teachers.
Mr. Mollohan. When you say hopefully, what does that mean?
Is that what you do once that program is done, then you are
hoping something happens after that?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. No, we actually follow--all of our
programs have very strong evaluations components, and so we are
very interested in particular kinds of outcomes, and a program
like that the main outcome is I suspect about the undergraduate
students learning of physics. But our programs for teacher
preparation are looking at the impacts of our teachers on the
instruction in K through 12 classrooms.
Mr. Mollohan. Do your goals go to migrating this or
inserting it into the K through 12 undergraduate programs that
are inquiry-based?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Mollohan. What initiatives do you have to help
facilitate that?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. One of our major programs is the Math
and Science Partnership Program which involves STEM
undergraduate faculty, as well as K through 12 teachers and
leaders, as well as education faculty at universities and
colleges, and so by using those combinations of leaders you get
the opportunity to really put ideas together that make their
way into teacher education programs.
Mr. Mollohan. How do they make their way into teacher
education programs?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Well the people who are working in say
an MSP project may have as a partial goal for their work to do
some reform of their undergraduate STEM teacher preparation,
they might make new courses or create new opportunities for
internships in schools or opportunities for connections to
industry.
Mr. Mollohan. It doesn't sound very certain, it doesn't
sound like it is a piece of that actual strategy forcing a
prototype experience that was tested out. And is that
occurring, and if so would it be useful, and if not would it be
useful?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. All of our programs have a very strong
research and development focus, so we ask our PI's to come with
a really clear hypothesis about what they are trying to change
and why they are--why they believe it is going to make a
difference based on the literature, based on best practice and
so forth. They implement those ideas and they study them.
The idea is to produce models, which as Dr. Bement has
mentioned, then might be scalable by other organizations by
connections to the Department of Education.
So that is the major focus of much of our work, to try out,
test, refine, and improve models that then are published, are
discussed, are circulated, and are disseminated.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. What I am hearing is that, you know,
you are doing education inquiry-based incentivising--
incentivising inquiry-based as you are instructing at the
undergraduate level research, at the graduate level, that there
is--this may go down into the K through 12 where you have
some----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Well some of our programs are K through
12 focused, and so we do a lot--let us say----
Mr. Mollohan. Who are the grantees? I am sorry.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. The grantees are universities working in
partnership sometimes with school districts or with non-
profits.
Mr. Mollohan. Where is that happening?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. That is the Math and Science Partnership
Program.
Mr. Mollohan. But where, give me an example?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Across the country.
Mr. Mollohan. Colorado? Is the University of Colorado doing
this?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I don't know for sure if there is an MSP
in Colorado, but the University of Georgia has one.

EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K TO 12 SETTINGS

Mr. Mollohan. Would you identify yourself?
Dr. Seidel. Yes, I am Acting Assistant Director for Math
and Physical Sciences, but I have examples of exactly what Joan
is talking about as a PI at Louisiana State University. I had
NSF funding at a center there, before I came to NSF, where we
worked, for example with local school districts and had
workshops in the summer where we would have teachers and their
students from local high schools, in fact across the state,
learning how to build a super computer out of PCs--how to build
a Beowulf cluster. And the great thing about that is the kids
get very excited because they understand PCs and they can build
something that becomes a super computer. And their the teachers
also get very excited about it and learn how to do this and
then they can begin to incorporate this into the class.
When the kids built the computers they brought them back
into the classrooms and we donated them to the schools, and
then they maintained these small super computers.
Another example is funding from an ESPSCoR program where we
involved students using Sony Play Stations, what they use for
gaming, but actually they are small super computers themselves.
And so we taught them to run things like storm search
calculations on them, which is something understood by many
kids in Louisiana because of the hurricane phenomenon that come
all the time. And so they understand how these are actually
super computers.
And then we have had letters from parents saying their
children have been turned around and they are very interested
now in going onto college when they might not have before.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you think this kind of education ought to
be--inquiry-based education ought to be ubiquitous in STEM
education across the country?
Dr. Seidel. I think there are all kinds of evidence that
inquiry-based experiential learning, hands-on kinds of
experiences, and concept-based learning, that kind of activity
can be driving what goes on in schools across the country.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Dr. Seidel. That is a yes.

FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN
K TO 12

Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your testimony.
So if members of Congress who have year after year heard
that kind of exciting testimony about these methods that if
they were employed they would improve whatever standard test
you judge that, and you understand that, and that if it were
employed throughout the country would change the testimony
before us from that of woe is me, we are falling behind to we
are really getting it and we are implementing the policies and
techniques and strategies in the school system integrated from
K up. We are hearing that, but it is the same woe is me
testimony the next year, so that that integration has never
happened.
And so would you think it reasonable for members after
hearing that to wonder why this is not integrated from the
highest levels of NSF through education down through
kindergarten?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely a reasonable question.
If you think about the whole K through 12 system the main
drivers are the teachers themselves, what they know, how
equipped they are to teach with this kind of material, to teach
in this style, and the materials themselves. So the learning
tools, the resources are important. NSF invests of course in
both areas.
But not to be overlooked piece is the assessments that are
used. It is hard to measure some of this.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes but see--let me--just forgive me.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Sure.
Mr. Mollohan. And explain to me why that is an answer to my
question.
What I am trying to get at is I think I could do a fairly
superficial job of answering a lot of these questions having
asked them a lot and heard them answered, and I said
superficial, but the question that doesn't get answered is the
question I tried to ask just a second ago.
By what method and does NSF have a role in introducing
these techniques not sort of as an experiment, but as an
accepted method to be embraced by the educational communities
across the country, how does that happen?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Okay. I think I would go back to what
Dr. Bement said about what he heard from the teachers. Dr.
Bement is going to comment too.
One way is by the creation of the funding of materials that
use these methods that are well tested and have strong evidence
behind them so that teachers can then pick them up and use
them.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is a piece of it.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. That is a piece of it.
Mr. Mollohan. Materials is a piece of it.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Teacher preparation and education is a
piece of it.
Mr. Mollohan. Teacher preparation, teacher support.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Superintendent involvement and acceptance.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. School-based support.
Mr. Mollohan. State board of education----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Support and implementation----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And direction perhaps.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. And assessment again, if the tests don't
measure----
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Assessments to do it. Integration,
teacher retraining at the colleges. The undergraduate being
taught inquiry. And you have all these pieces. And are there
prototypes to tie all that together in different rural, urban,
southern urban, northern urban, western urban environments to
see how you can actually integrate that throughout the system?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So again, this notion of a systemic
approach seems right where you tie together----
Mr. Mollohan. I mean would it be NSF's role to run a
solicitation to invite different educational systems to be a
part of a comprehensive testing out of how you integrate all
that, and prove out whether this STEM education works? And the
only way you could do it would be if you did it in an
integrated sort of way up and down wouldn't it? Would that be
an appropriate role for NSF?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. We have had different approaches to
that----
Mr. Mollohan. Or have you done it.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy [continuing]. Over the years, and we have
done it. And I think what we have learned is that it does take
all of that integration, but it is costly, because you have to
have a lot of partners on board all headed in the same
direction and you have to have the policies headed in the same
direction, but there have been existence proofs. Our Math and
Science--Partnership Program continues those ideas.
And so we are all for these kinds of integrations across
all these different parts of the educational system. But to
make deep change does take time and does take a lot of
collaboration.
Mr. Mollohan. But is that exercise at this point in time
appropriate or are you beyond that? You didn't hear my
question, you were talking to somebody else weren't you? Or is
it useful at this time or are we beyond that?
Dr. Bement. Let me butt in, because we have been very hard
at work at this, especially in bioscience.
There has been an effort through the last three or four
years of the whole community, and in many cases you have got to
get community buy in, so this is an approach that involved the
community at large. It is now being rolled out. There is a
joint program between EHR and the Bioscience Directorate to
carry this into implementation. It is primarily focused on
undergraduate education in bioscience, but it will also impact
K to 12. And if you wish I will develop a report for the record
to tell you more about it.
[The information follows:]

Over the past year, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, with support from the National Science Foundation Directorate
for Education and Human Resources and Directorate for Biological
Sciences, held a series of conversations with faculty, administrators,
students, and other stakeholders on the future of undergraduate biology
education. The website below outlines the work of this collaboration:
the issues, discussions, presentations, and other activities. A summary
of recommendations may be found in the report titled Vision and
Change--A Call to Action.
The report may be found here: www.visionandchange.org/
VC_report.pdf.

Mr. Mollohan. Okay, and I would like you to come up and
talk about it, just chat about it.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Could I add one more thing?
Mr. Mollohan. If you are not doing anything that day you
could come too.

COLLABORATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Okay, thank you.
We are in very strong and good collaboration with the
Department of Education, and so some of what you are talking
about, this kind of systemic approach to how to roll things out
in ways that get picked up widely are exactly the topics of our
conversations with Michael Lach and others at the department.
That is to say we have even been working on, you know, what
is well known about math professional development and how do we
immediately then communicate with states with--chief state
school officers and with other parts of the enterprise to get
these ideas out so that some of the NSF investments get picked
up?
So a way we have tried to work on it recently has been
through this kind of leveraging of intellectual resources with
other agencies that have wider reach where we have been able to
build and understand in deep ways the models that can work and
then to take them out broadly.

FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES IN INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

Mr. Mollohan. Well this is the 2011 budget hearing for NSF,
and irrespective of conversations with OMB, and not to get into
any pre-decisional secrets here, this would be your opportunity
to say gee, if I had my druthers I would like to see something
in this area in the 2011 budget request for NSF. Can she answer
that, Dr. Bement? Please?
Dr. Bement. That is sort of the answer that comes from the
initial lead in. If you had additional money in your budget
what would you spend it on?
Mr. Mollohan. Well no, honestly it is--you know, if we
wanted to do something in this area we would like to know, and
have your advice, what would it be? Forget about your budget
request. If we wanted to do something in this area, a direction
from this Committee, what would your advice be to what we would
do? That is a totally appropriate question, I would hope you
would answer it.
Dr. Bement. I think what you would do is you would move
directly to be sure that those programs are well supported.
Part of what we do in order to bring about systemic change
is to do innovative institutional integration, and that is
taking various programs and integrating them in order to
achieve purposes like this, and there is a budget line for that
in our budget. And one of the objectives of that program is to
also boost inquiry-based learning.
So now that we know the level of interest that you have,
there are things that we can do with our existing budget and
with our existing programs in order to intensify attention to
your interest.
Mr. Mollohan. Well it is not my interest, I don't want to
be, you know, I don't have the knowledge base that you have and
wouldn't pretend to be an expert.
Dr. Bement. But you know based on our testimony that we
agree with you fully, so you know, we are not in opposition, we
are not talking cross purposes, we fully agree with one
another.
Mr. Mollohan. Well we look forward to working on this as we
move our budget forward, and thank you, Doctor, thank you so
much.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NSF AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Following up on one of the Chairman's line of questioning.
Has there ever been the opportunity for the NSF to develop a
cooperative relationship with the school district whereby you
literally, not take over the school district, but you
literally--they were willing to turn this over to the NSF,
perhaps one in a rural district one in an urban district
whereby NSF would run the program?
Dr. Bement. Not within the limitations of the Constitution.
Mr. Wolf. No, where they would ask you. School districts
would be very open. I mean you mentioned Chicago. You know, if
you have a failing school district they may be very open. I am
not talking about the federal government taking over, I don't
believe that. What I meant is that whereby they would say our
math and science scores are not very good, et cetera, et
cetera.
Dr. Bement. Well, I don't know of a single example of that.
Mr. Wolf. Would you be interested in something like that?
Dr. Bement. I don't think so. I don't think we are in the
education business per se, I think we are in the education
research business, and the investment that we make can have an
impact on schools broadly rather than just a single school.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I know that, but the reason we put the
language in last year was to get you to give us something that
would be best practices that every other school district could
use. We don't have that from you now, and if you had a
situation where you went into a particular urban, suburban,
rural, whatever and did something it would be an----
Dr. Bement. Well, we do have pieces of it, Mr. Wolf. We are
on the website of the Institute of Education Sciences on best
practices. Some of these best practices are on their website.
In fact a good fraction of the best practices on their websites
are based on NSF programs.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Dr. Bement. And we can give you that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]

The What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education provides a list of nine topic areas under which
reviews of research on important issues in education can be accessed.
NSF-funded activities can be found under two of these topic areas:
Elementary School Math--of the nine interventions
reviewed, two have received NSF support.
Middle School Math--of the fourteen interventions
reviewed, five have received NSF support.
The web link to the topical index is www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
reports.

NSF'S ROLE IN IMPROVING SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. Wolf. This year and the last the Committee heard
testimony from experts advocating a more prominent leadership
role from the NSF in a national effort to improve science
education. Your education budget continues to grow, but at a
lower rate than your research program.
How do you see NSF's role as distinct with that of the
Department of Education, and do you feel that roles and
responsibilities in funding are properly aligned?
Dr. Bement. Well, I can say categorically that I believe
that our programs are effective, I think they are making an
impact on improving math and science proficiency. I feel that
it is in the interest of the Nation that we continue that role,
and we are working very hard to find ways of leveraging our
resources to do it better.
Mr. Wolf. But have not the scores continued to drop in
comparison to other countries?
Dr. Bement. No. Well the latest international data
indicates that in 4th and 8th grades math proficiency scores
have increased significantly.
Mr. Wolf. What about in high school?
Dr. Bement. I am sorry?
Mr. Wolf. How about in high school?

STATE OF K TO 12 SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE NSF

Dr. Bement. I think probably less clear in high school. The
problem area is in science. Science has been pretty flat, it
has not improved very much.
I believe from what the teachers tell me they feel cheated
sometimes in their education programs because they don't get
very much exposure to science. Unless they are teaching in
secondary schools they don't get focused preparation in
science.
Mr. Wolf. Cheated by their school district or cheated by
the college?
Dr. Bement. I am talking about the colleges. I am talking
about the education programs.
Mr. Wolf. The last study that we worked on said that the
STEM money in 2007 was only 50 percent of the STEM money was
used. Is that accurate?
Dr. Bement. I don't know that.
Mr. Wolf. Wouldn't that sort of fit in though if the
teachers felt cheated that that would be the no cause and
effect death?
Dr. Bement. I think it is an issue that has to be taken
seriously by schools of education across the board. Under No
Child Left Behind science was not a measure. It wasn't a
requirement. So in many cases teachers were not encouraged to
put a lot of time and effort into science education, and I
think that has to change. There has to be much more emphasis on
science and it has to start early.
Most children by the time they are eight to ten years old
already have a world view, they already know pretty much what
they want to be when they grow up. If you don't have an
influence, if they don't have basic understanding of some
science or at least the scientific method early they are going
to have an education deficiency as they try to move up to
higher grades.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think that was why we had asked you to do
that study.
There was a full page article in a journal a week ago
Saturday I think by Chester Finn and he talked about in China
for instance they go to school 41 more days than we do. He also
commented on other countries that have Saturday classrooms,
Saturday schools. He also commented on the number of hours in
different countries.
Does this also have a major impact as far as scores, and I
don't want to use the word techniques, but something like that?
Because if you take off as he said the full summer the school
gets out on June 10th, doesn't go back till the day after Labor
Day, the memory loss drops off.
Dr. Bement. Well let me give you a case in point in South
Korea where I just visited. The concern that the president of
South Korea, Mr. Lee has, is that parents are putting too much
emphasis and spending too much money on private tutoring for
their children. The children have hardly any time of their own.
They start school at 8 o'clock in the morning and they go
sometimes till 10 o'clock at night, because when they finish
the school room part of their learning then they go to a
private tutor and they spend another two or three hours with a
private tutor.
That kind of learning will give you better proficiency
scores on tests because the tests are pretty much what the
students are being taught, but a lot of it is learning.
A few years ago I came to realize that education
administrators from Singapore were quite concerned because even
though they were scoring high in math and science in Singapore,
they were finding that their students once they got into higher
education were not very creative or not very innovative, and
they saw the United States as the country where education and
creativity and innovation was the gold standard, and so they
wanted to learn from us, and these are the exemplars when you
look at just the scores of math and science proficiency. They
wanted to learn from us how to teach creativity and innovation.
Which gets me back to inquiry-based learning. It is in
inquiry-based learning and activity-based learning that you
teach creativity and innovation. That is our strong suit. That
is what we ought to build on. So we are in complete agreement
on that point. That is the strength of our education system.
And unfortunately we are faced with a tyranny of averages as a
Nation because we look at means.
One has to recognize that we have the brilliance among our
young people in this country that can go to an international
math Olympics and come back with gold medals. They can go to a
computer software Olympics and come back with gold medals. They
can go for a robotics international competition and come back
with gold medals. So the talent is here.
Now the challenge is to make education and excellence in
education more broadly available, that is where the challenge
is.
Mr. Mollohan. Is a part of that mining those high aptitude
math and science students, those who have inclinations in this
area, identifying them and concentrating on them?
Dr. Bement. Well that is being done. Almost every state has
their own academy or their own institute for bringing in the
very bright students from around the state and putting them
into a residence education program where they are taught by
faculty that have master's and Ph.D. levels of education. I
mean these are almost like mini universities for the most part.
Mr. Mollohan. So the answer is yes, and I didn't want to
take up any more of that time, but maybe I will follow up on
it.
Mr. Honda.

IMPLEMENTING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The discussion is pretty interesting. Just to continue on
this line of discussion where you are really promoting and
being a champion for teaching innovation and creativity, and
yet I don't see where you are going with it except to say that
we got the information, but it is up to other people to do it.
A question, and I don't want an answer right now, but the
question is then how would you create a process from your point
of view to operate with the other entities to have a systemic
process where it will be embedded in our public school systems?
That is one question.
Then you talked about the tyranny of mediocrity I guess,
and then you say but what we have samples----
Dr. Bement. No, I didn't mean that, sir, I meant tyranny of
averages. In other words we look at the averages and we believe
in the averages. You don't see the variability around the mean.
Mr. Honda. Okay. The tyranny of average then. And I am not
quite sure what that tyranny is, maybe you can answer that in
part of your answer, then how do you make excellence the
predominant effort in our system to make it more available if
the information you already hold that speaks to excellence is
not shared or advocated by your group with the rest of the
community in public education?
Dr. Bement. Okay. We have clear examples. We have a program
that is designed----
Mr. Honda. No, I know we got programs.
Dr. Bement. Well let me go on.
Mr. Honda. No, no, I want you to answer the question. How
do you see this becoming infused into our system then?
Dr. Bement. And that is the question I am trying to answer.
Mr. Honda. Okay. Because I will stop you if you say we have
programs and yet you don't describe how that program works.
Dr. Bement. Well they start with programs, but to get to
your question, the math and science partnership is primarily
designed to bring about systemic change and to improve
performance in math and science education. And it goes back to
my question of transitioning and also scalability.
In other words, within a state--within your state, Chairman
Mollohan, we have the Math and Science Partnership with West
Virginia, Kentucky, Southern Ohio. That program has done
magnificent work in improving math and science performance.
Now the question, getting to your point, how do you scale
that, how do you transition it? You have to work with the
states. Because even though this is a national problem and a
national issue, the responsibility for education is with the
state and local areas, not with the federal government. So
unless the state adopts these methods and infuses them in their
school systems they are not going to be very effective.
Mr. Honda. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I just may insert myself
again.
This is based upon the Constitution that the Constitution
says the states have a primary responsibility for education.
Okay. The Constitution was written on September 17th, 1787,
that was the first day of our federal government. They had no
departments. And so they said it is going to be the
responsibility of the states.
We have developed to a point in 2011 where we could talk to
each other in real-time as you have said, shrunk this world to
a point where they could never have conceived it at the time
they wrote the Constitution.
Is it not time for us to take hold and understand that the
span of time that has gone on that we jump to 2011 from the old
Constitution and say in spite of that we have to find a way to
become partners where what we know and understand should be and
somehow convince the public, what we call the local entities,
that this is the reason why, and if you can't understand that
you complain about other countries, but you have to understand
that they are not the enemy.
Dr. Bement. Right.
Mr. Honda. We are the enemy of our own selves.
How do you readjust what it is that you know and understand
in the context of what I just described and make it happen?
Dr. Bement. Well, Mr. Honda, politics is the art of dealing
with values, and what you are raising a question about is how
do you deal with values in a contemporary society? That is a
political activity that has to be determined as part of the
national governance----
Mr. Honda. Excuse me. Education and the expenditure of our
funds for research and development and the knowledge that comes
out of it becomes something that we have that we are supposed
to be sharing. Is that not a right to have that shared with the
rest of our country and rest of our children instead of hiding
behind----
Dr. Bement. Well, you know, your point is well taken, but
you were asking how do we make it happen, and the only way I
can respond to how to make it happen is through the political
process.
Mr. Honda. In your experience, and sometimes when we accept
the infrastructure that we have right now, if we accepted the
old infrastructure we would still be back in the days where we
used to use people as slaves and things like that. We have
changed. Our infrastructure has changed. Is it not time to look
at the public education as if it were a civil right?
Dr. Bement. No, I think we have to put education under the
microscope and really study it very hard and make these
determinations. At what stage do we begin to adopt national
standards, for example? That has been an ongoing question for
some time. What is the state-federal partnership in education?
How do you structure the state-federal partnership? That is
another key question that has to be resolved. How do state
governors come together to deal with regional systemic
initiatives rather than just statewide systemic initiatives?
In Appalachia, for example, that is a regional initiative.
It involves four or five different states. They are taking a
regional approach. We need more regional approaches. But again,
that is part of the political process.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD TO FOLLOW

Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Bement, we have been talking to you here
this morning about 12 percent of your budget plus whatever you
are spending on education out of research and related
activities. It is not that we don't realize you are doing other
things, but you are just doing them so well, and so we
appreciate that, and we will have questions for the record
regarding all that and some follow up questions along these
lines.
Dr. Bement. I would be pleased to respond.
Mr. Mollohan. I would appreciate that. And I hope that we
can find some time to sit down and visit with you.
Dr. Bement. I will get that on my calendar.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Have a cup of coffee and talk about this
and think about ways that we can help do what you think that we
should do in this area.
So again, thank you for your testimony here today. Let me
repeat what a pleasure it has been for me to work with you
during a lot of those--well all those years actually, I have
been on the committee one way or another during that time, and
wish you well in your future endeavors, which I know will be as
successful and as impressive as your career up to this point.
Dr. Bement. I hope our paths will cross many times in many
ways.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I hope so, that would be great.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mollohan. I would certainly benefit from that.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I apologize for being what may be
considered unkind and unprofessional. I recognize that you are
an independent agency, but I think of all the kids across this
country, and we are sitting here cogitating intellectually
about what they go through every day, and I know that you think
about that, too.
Dr. Bement. Yes, we have a shared passion.
Mr. Honda. Right. And so if the only currency our
youngsters go to school with is time, and every day that we
talk about things that should be, that could be, that isn't,
then that is the investment that we lose from them and they get
nothing out of it. And if we don't start strengthening our
systems and pointing out where some of the gaps are and
suggesting how to fill those gaps on behalf of the children
then I don't think we have done our work.
But it wasn't directed to you personally.
Dr. Bement. I didn't take it that way.
Mr. Honda. I just wanted to squeeze something out of this
hour, but I apologize if I offended you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Looks like I was
premature in ending the hearing. I hope you haven't already
readjusted. Mr. Wolf has some other questions.

ICE BREAKER FUNDING

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question and one
sort of thought.
But the fiscal year 2010 bill transferred funding for the
operation of coast guards pulled the ice breaking vessels back
to the Coast Guard. It is an initiative we have been involved
in for years. Your fiscal year 2011 budget again requested
funding on their NSF. Why is that?
Dr. Bement. It was our expectation that based on
legislation that we would find the Coast Guard putting money
into the operation of maintenance of the Polar Sea and also--
what was the other vessel? And the Healy.
And so we were all primed to go into the new mode of our
operation of paying incremental costs and had thought about our
MOU with the Coast Guard in those terms; however, we discovered
that the Coast Guard didn't put money in their budget for the
operation or maintenance of those ships. And since they are
essential not only for science funded by the Science
Foundation, but also NASA and NOAA, we felt that we had to
preserve the availability of those vessels so we put it in our
budget.
Mr. Wolf. Because you would rather it be the other way, but
since it wasn't you----
Dr. Bement. That is right. It was a default decision.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well the other question I want to ask you
is there a benefit to NSF of having the funds appropriated to
NSF rather than to the Coast Guard? Then the answer would be it
should have been the other way, but I understand.

STATE OF SCHOOLS

Dr. Bement. Yes. That is the answer.
Mr. Wolf. I guess the last thing I wanted to say. Once,
again thank you for your service to our country.
I think the concern that I have is that it just doesn't
seem to be working as well as it should.
And you mentioned the Chicago schools. Well the Chicago
schools have the highest death rate of any school system. They
have been gunning kids down left and right, Chicago. And I saw
this Administration, I saw, you know, the Secretary moved to
Arlington County, which I represented, because he wanted a good
school for his kids.
Last week I went to a school in the inner city, it was a
little Christian private school, the kids are scoring really
high, they are really doing amazing things, and yet this
Administration and this Congress is cutting off the tuition and
grants to them. These are all inner city kids who are poor.
I talked to a single parent who said this was their
opportunity, this was their way out, and yet so I feel the
inconsistencies of saying we are doing this or putting all this
in, but yet we just throw these inner city kids in.
Dr. Bement. I won't argue that. One of the very best
schools in this whole area is in the District, it is at Howard
University, it is their middle school, their university school,
and they take children I guess from about 7th grade, it is a
middle grade, 6th grade. And so it is six to eight, and since
they have an open enrollment policy, it is required in the
District that they have open enrollment, they take kids into
the school that don't come anywhere near the mean or the
average performance of the other kids. Within about a semester
they brought them all up to speed.
By the time they are finished in the middle school the big
challenge is what do they do next? I mean they brought them to
such a high level then where do they go, where do they transfer
to finish out their high school? But you know, that would be a
place to do a CODEL or a STAFDEL to go and visit that school
and see what they do. I think you would be very much impressed.
We have another example in Alaska believe it or not at the
University of Alaska in Anchorage where the issue is how do you
get to the rural communities in Alaska and teach mathematics so
that native Alaskans in Barrow or other places, in really
remote areas, can meet the entrance requirements for
university?
Well what has happened is that the graduate students at--
and these are native Alaskan graduate students--decided that
they would do an online distance learning program where they
would connect directly with these communities and they would
bring in the students and they would teach them online. And
they developed innovations because they wanted to teach better
than they were taught. And so they have done some remarkable
things, and they have overcome that deficit. And this is self-
initiated by graduate students. That would be another great
STAFDEL. If you ever wanted to go to Alaska that would be a
great school to look at.
So those things can happen. If it works in Alaska it should
be able to work in any EPSCoR state, should be able to work in
Hawaii, and should be able to work almost anywhere where you
have to deal with rural school issues. And that is a best
practice. That is a best practice that ought to be emulated and
replicated.
Mr. Wolf. Well hopefully when you look at the kids in the
inner city in some of the schools, and in my area we have great
schools. Thomas Jefferson is frankly according to the U.S. News
and World Report the best school in the country, and I think we
have to replicate that in the inner city.
I think we agree you are doing a good job, I worry at times
though when someone tells me that they are opposed to helping
kids in the inner city with the tuition help because they want
to improve their overall schools, but if you are a parent you
can't wait. Because if you lose somebody you never get them
back in a way. And so to say that their children should just
wait unless we want to happen happens----
Dr. Bement. No, you can't wait.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. In the interim. And I just think
when you come into my--you know where I am from in Philadelphia
the schools are dysfunctional in parts of it, Chicago, other
parts, and I just think that is something--just how do we kind
of broaden this whereby there are the opportunities for
everyone.
Anyway, I will just submit the rest of the question for the
record, and again wish you the best.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Well as I indicated there is a tremendous
amount of interest in this----
Dr. Bement. Obviously.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And I was premature in thinking
we were closing up, but some really good questions happened
after I said all those good things about you.
So let me just--let us refer to the record to see what I
said and by reference will be the end of the hearing.
Thank you, Dr. Bement.

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Bement, A. L., Jr................................................ 423
Bolden, Major General C. F., Jr.................................. 189
Hill, Dr. Oliver................................................. 1
Holdren, Dr. J. P................................................ 107
Luft, Dr. Julie.................................................. 55
Miele, Dr. Eleanor............................................... 1
Strang, Dr. Craig................................................ 55

I N D E X

----------

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH (STEM) EDUCATION

Page
Breaking the Cycle of No Inquiry................................. 11
Decline in U.S. Manufacturing.................................... 26
Education
Creativity and Innovation.................................... 83
Crisis....................................................... 5
Drivers of Curriculum Choices................................ 9
Educational Materials........................................ 93
Effective, Accelerated Implementation........................ 24
Effects of Poverty........................................... 33
Eighth Grade Projects........................................ 29
English As a Second Language................................. 33
Grants....................................................... 46
High Stakes Standardized Testing............................. 14
How We Can Bring About Change................................ 35
Improving Higher Education................................... 45
Mathematics.................................................. 3
National Science Education Standards......................... 99
New Course Development....................................... 13
Science Teacher Certification................................ 92
Standards of Learning........................................ 84
Student Assessment........................................... 99
Teacher Challenges........................................... 86
Teacher Preparation in Science............................... 88
Teacher Preparation in Science............................... 88
Teacher/Student Rapport...................................... 45
Teacher Talent............................................... 25
Teaching Instead of Retiring................................. 37
Test Scores and Science Interest............................. 43
Exit Projects and Student Assessment............................. 13
Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs)
Challenges for Young Faculty at.............................. 27
Role of...................................................... 4
Inquiry Based Instruction
Assessing Student Inquiry.................................... 82
Building a Cognitive Network................................. 41
Doing Science--Inquiry....................................... 9
English Skills............................................... 34
Implementation of............................................ 78
Inquiry Skills............................................... 39
Instruction and Evaluation................................... 10
Recommendations through NSF Funding.......................... 51
Student Math Achievement Evaluation.......................... 42
Superiority of...............................................23, 77
Support/Spreading............................................76, 86
Testing...................................................... 42
National Science Foundation
Funding...................................................... 11
National Security Perspective.................................... 36
Prepared Statements
Hill, Prof./Chairman Oliver, PhD............................. 6
Luft, Dr. Julie.............................................. 58
Miele, Eleanor, PhD.......................................... 16
Strang, Dr. Craig............................................ 65
Schools
Are Improvements Ready for Broad Implementation.............. 43
Building Student Support..................................... 33
Charter...................................................... 30
Local School District Issues................................. 36
Math and Science School...................................... 28
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education
Career Choices...............................................11, 23
Department of Education...................................... 88
Good Education............................................... 27
Importance of................................................ 84
Increased Undergraduate Majors............................... 14
Individual Successes and Pervasive Problems.................. 25
Funding Impact............................................... 49
National Security & Production of STEM Professionals......... 34
NSA.......................................................... 35
Personnel Turnover........................................... 98
Reward of STEM Careers....................................... 26
Rural America................................................ 28
Systemic Initiatives......................................... 97
Training
Cognitive Training........................................... 21
Innovative Role of Junior Faculty............................ 37
Inquiry Skills............................................... 39
Skills Training Versus Inquiry............................... 39
Using Local Resources............................................ 12

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 153
Climate Change................................................... 181
Climate Observing Systems........................................ 163
Doubling Path for Basic Research Agencies........................ 187
Exploration Beyond Earth's Orbit................................. 176
International Space Station and Crew Transportation to LEO....... 175
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)............. 110
American Leadership.......................................... 134
Augustine Commission Report.................................. 131
China........................................................ 149
China and Russia............................................. 126
Commercialization of Space Exploration................134, 141, 170
Constellation..........................123, 126, 128, 131, 140, 188
Heavy Lift Capability........................................ 138
Hubble Space Telescope....................................... 169
Human Space Exploration....................................125, 168
International Space Station.................................. 169
Intelligence................................................. 142
Job Losses................................................... 127
Manned Space Program......................................... 148
Mars......................................................... 128
Planetary Science Program.................................... 138
Satellites.................................................137, 143
Vision................................................139, 146, 147
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS)..............................................161, 184
Ocean Surface Vector Wind (OSVW) observing system................ 162
Opening Statements
Holdren, Dr. John............................................ 108
Mollohan, Chairman Alan...................................... 107
Wolf, Ranking Member......................................... 121
Research and Development......................................... 171
Science
Astrophysics and Heliospheric Physics........................ 161
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
Advanced Technology Education................................ 166
Education.................................................... 155
Inquiry Based Instruction.................................... 164
Reform....................................................... 166
Space Exploration................................................ 174
Prepared Statements
Holdren, Dr. John............................................ 112
Questions for the Record
Mollohan, Chairman Alan...................................... 153
Wolf, Ranking Member Frank................................... 174
Culberson, Representative John............................... 188

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Aeronautics Research
Aviation..................................................... 313
NextGen...................................................... 316
Antideficiency Act (ADA)..................................249, 250, 367
Antideficiency Act Prosecutions.............................. 250
Astronaut
Commercial Astronaut Launch................................237, 272
Corps........................................................ 270
Flight Schedules............................................. 268
General Bolden's Experiences................................. 220
Health Risk.................................................. 213
Launch Capabilities.......................................... 271
Positive Effects of Astronaut Visits......................... 304
Safety.....................................................270, 377
Training Facilities.......................................... 271
Budget Request
Authorizations and Obligations............................... 326
Cost of Astronaut Flights to Low Earth Orbit................. 218
FY 2011 Proposals............................................ 234
NASA's Budget..............................................228, 252
Objections................................................... 219
President's................................................191, 213
Closing Remarks
Congressman Fattah........................................... 263
Ranking Member Wolf.......................................... 261
Construction of Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Constellation
Constellation Closeout Cost.................................. 257
Constellation Program.................................231, 275, 276
Constellation Program Continuity............................. 256
Constellation Program Contracts.......................220, 251, 366
Constellation Program Contract Modifications................. 251
Constellation Program Cancellation Costs..............242, 275, 278
Constellation Program Termination................191, 213, 236, 353
Contracts
Constellation Program Contract Modifications................. 251
Heavy-Lift Contracts......................................... 255
Termination Cost............................................. 366
Termination Liability........................................ 250
Cooperation with China........................................... 274
Cost Overruns in Major Projects.................................. 357
Cross-Agency Support
Cybersecurity..................................................230, 231
Deputy Administrator Garvey Speech............................... 238
Directors Discretionary Funding.................................. 296
Education
Budget.....................................................259, 356
Middle School Education Efforts.............................. 254
Retaining Contractor Expertise............................... 241
Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM)........ 297
Space Grant................................................305, 311
Summer of Innovation......................................... 297
Exploration
Animal Experimentation....................................... 266
Ares I................................................215, 245, 371
Ares V...........................................243, 245, 251, 371
Augustine Commission Cost Estimates........................247, 377
Commercial Cargo & Crew Capabilities.......................261, 382
Commercial Oriented Approach................................. 216
Constellation Closeout Cost.................................. 257
Constellation Program.................................231, 275, 276
Constellation Program Contracts.......................220, 251, 366
Constellation Program Cancellation Costs..............242, 275, 278
Constellation Program Termination................191, 213, 236, 353
Exploration Technology................................252, 362, 374
Heavy-Lift Capability......................................228, 369
Heavy-Lift Contract.......................................... 255
Heavy-Lift Launch and Human Capsule Vehicle.................. 235
Heavy-Lift Technology......................................242, 243
Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle........................232, 276, 285, 340
Heavy-Lift Propulsion Research & Development Program.......203, 229
Human Exploration and Robotics............................... 233
Human Launch Capability Timing............................... 218
Industrial Base in Solid Rocketry............................ 279
Leasing...................................................... 362
Lost Constellation Program Benefits.......................... 214
Mars......................................................... 372
Moon.......................................................275, 372
Orbital Science Corporation................................380, 381
President's Proposal for Space Exploration................... 222
Robotic Space Exploration..................................233, 282
Space Exploration............................................ 342
Space X...............................................373, 380, 381
Use of Current Year Exploration Funds........................ 346
Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR)...... 375
Full Time Equivalent............................................. 329
Launch Capability................................................ 228
Letters Expressing Concern over the Human Spaceflight Program.... 385
Opening Remarks
Administrator Bolden......................................... 190
Chairman Mollohan............................................ 189
NASA Facilities.................................................. 286
Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL)................................... 290
Prepared Statements
NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr..................... 194
Primacy in Spoke................................................. 256
Questions for the Record
Aderholt (Representative).................................... 366
Culberson (Representative)................................... 362
Mollohan (Chairman).......................................... 257
Schiff (Representative)...................................... 340
Wolf (Ranking Member)........................................ 342
Science
Astrophysics................................................. 253
Europa Mission........................................235, 244, 245
GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE)........................ 308
Hubble Repair................................................ 234
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)................................ 246
Missions..................................................... 240
Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)............................ 246
Planetary Science............................................ 234
Plutonium-238 Production...................................257, 354
Space Operations
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)............................ 283
Astronaut Transport to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)................. 268
Buying Russian Launch Services............................... 260
Center Job Losses............................................ 224
Human-Rate Launch Vehicle.................................... 273
Human Space Flight........................................... 278
International Space Station......................283, 317, 359, 379
Launch Services.............................................. 284
Space Shuttle..............................................283, 358
Shuttle Workforce Transition Strategy Report................. 255
Workforce.................................................... 223
Space Summit..................................................... 254
Space Technology................................................. 322
Super Computing.................................................. 295
U.S. Leadership in Space.......................................219, 325
China and the Moon.........................................225, 256
High Ground (The)............................................ 235
Leadership in Human Spaceflight.............................. 224
NASA's Role/Mission........................................234, 264
President's Proposal for Space Exploration.................222, 225
Review of the New Proposal................................... 226
Space Program................................................ 227

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 468
Appreciation of Dr. Bement.....................................423, 426
Broad Support of Research........................................ 424
Budget
Authorizations and Obligations............................... 504
Doubling the NSF Budget...................................... 423
President's FY 2011 Request.................................. 426
Science Board Support for the 2011 NSF Request............... 442
China
Position in the World........................................ 445
Maintaining U.S. Global Competitiveness...................... 526
Climate Research................................................. 424
Collaboration
Department of Education...................................... 441
International................................................ 444
Community Colleges............................................... 479
Cooperative Relationship Between NSF and School Districts........ 459
Doubling Path.................................................... 519
Education
Education and Human Account Funding Request.................. 438
Implementing Creativity and Innovation....................... 462
Leveraging Education Funding Across NSF...................... 438
NSF Roles in Improving Science Education..................... 460
State of K to 12 Science Education in the NSF................ 461
EPSCOR........................................................... 485
Funding
Ice Breakers................................................. 465
GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE)............................ 510
Industry Based Education
Examples of K through 12 Settings............................ 455
Inquiry Based Education.......................................... 452
Collaboration with Department of Education................... 458
Full-Scaled Implementation K to 12........................... 456
Funding for Initiatives...................................... 459
K through 12 Classrooms...................................... 454
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction............. 519
Minority Servicing Institutions.................................. 481
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (ARECIBO)............... 450
Long-Term Funding............................................ 451
NEON Project..................................................... 523
Prepared Statements
Bement, Dr. Arden L, Jr...................................... 428
Questions for the Record
Aderholt, Representative Robert B............................ 525
Mollohan, Chairman Alan...................................... 468
Wolf, Ranking Member Frank R................................. 514
Research and Development
Current Perspective.......................................... 489
Future Perspective........................................... 501
State of U.S. Investment in Science and Engineering.......... 442
Research Vessels................................................. 483
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
Education Reform.................................424, 469, 514, 525
Examples of Effective STEM Education......................... 446
Firm Directive for Integrating STEM Education Across Society. 448
Integrating STEM Research and Education Across Government.... 447
Role of NSF.................................................. 439
State of Schools................................................. 466
Stimulus Programs................................................ 517