[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2016
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Colin Samples, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
_______
PART 5
Page
Department of Commerce....................................... 1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............. 57
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 87
National Science Foundation.................................. 253
Federal Investments in Neuroscience Research................. 321
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-070 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2016
_______
Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. And we are
delighted to have with us today the Commerce Secretary.
Secretary Pritzker, we are delighted to have you. Thank you
for your service to the country. And as you present the
President's 2016 Department of Commerce budget request, we are
just delighted you could be with us today and really genuinely
appreciate your service to the country.
You have many important responsibilities of the department
including obviously promoting trade and dual use technologies,
making sure those are not exported improperly, helping
economically distressed communities, administering our patent
and trademark laws, preparing for and conducting the decennial
census, advancing the measurement of science standards and
technology, and forecasting the weather and protecting and
researching our oceans which is extraordinarily important.
And we will, of course, work with you to do everything that
we can to be sure that each one of your important
responsibilities are adequately funded, but it is important to
point out that the department's request proposes discretionary
appropriations totaling $9.8 billion which is a total of $1.3
billion higher than last year.
And your request proposes increases for nearly every
Department of Commerce program. And in light of the sequester
and the difficult circumstances budget-wise that we find
ourselves in, it is not a realistic budget proposal. It also
assumes a number of different fee and tax increases which are
simply not going to happen.
The subcommittee will not have an allocation that is
sufficient to fund this excessive level of spending. While we
recognize the important work that you do and we will work with
you and the Members of the Committee to meet the resource needs
of your highest priority programs, we have to find savings and
reduce spending for lower priority or ineffective programs. Our
current budget environment will simply not allow everyone to
get everything that they want.
We look forward to hearing from you about how we can help
you improve the management of the department and to ensure that
Commerce employees, for example, are not abusing tele-work
programs.
We heard earlier from the inspector general. Our first
hearing of the year was from the inspector general and the
weather satellite programs. We want to make sure they meet
their cost and schedule milestones.
And the 2020 census, we want to work with you to make sure
that the cost of the 2020 census is less than the last census
and to find out how you are prioritizing cyber security and
protecting the department from the ever-growing threat of cyber
attack.
We will do, as I say, all we can to help you, but we are
going to have to prioritize and cut wherever we can. I do
appreciate your service to the country.
And I want to, before we proceed, recognize my colleague,
Mr. Fattah, for any remarks he might wish to make.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the Secretary for the extraordinary
service that she has provided to the Nation. Having spent a
great deal of time in the private sector to take on this role
at this time I know is a major sacrifice but has helped our
country.
So we now have 59 months of straight consecutive job growth
and over the last 11 months, we have seen job growth of 200,000
or above each month. And we hope that when the February numbers
are made public that we will continue to see this trend moving
in the right direction.
This country, this economy in which you are the chief
custodian for has generated more jobs than the rest of the
developed world combined. And so you have done a great job
under some challenging circumstances.
We welcome you to the committee. And I know that my
colleagues on the other side always talk about dynamic scoring.
In your case, it is kind of like dynamic investing. If we
invest in job growth, we can reap the rewards. And we look
forward to hearing about your budget request. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Madam Secretary, we will, of course, without
objection enter your statement into the record in its entirety
and welcome your testimony to summarize your statement. And if
you could, keep your statement to five minutes. Thank you very
much, and we are pleased to recognize you.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you very much.
Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and Members of
the committee when they arrive, thank you for this opportunity
to lay out the priorities of President Obama's fiscal year 2016
budget for the Department of Commerce.
This budget advances the core tenets of our department's
mission which are to develop and implement policies that
support economic growth, enhance our country's competitiveness
and global leadership, as well as strengthen America's
businesses both at home and abroad.
To support this mission, the fiscal year 2016 budget
provides $9.8 billion in discretionary funding to reinforce the
priorities of the department's strategy, our open for business
agenda, by promoting U.S. exports, trade and investment, by
spurring high-tech manufacturing and innovation, by unleashing
more data for economic benefit, by gathering and acting on
environmental intelligence, and by making our agencies'
operations more efficient and effective.
Today I want to highlight some key initiatives supported by
this budget. First the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau creates
data products used by businesses, policymakers, and the public.
And this budget reflects the fact that this is a critical
year for preparation of the 2020 census as we test the use of
administrative records, re-engineered field operations and
Internet data collection, create new systems to improve the
quality of the census and develop plans so that in fiscal year
2017 and 2018, we can conduct an integrity test of the entire
process, all leading to a potential savings of $5 billion to
taxpayers. To achieve these savings, we must invest today.
Another part of our agenda is to help communities and
businesses prosper in a changing environment. NOAA's budget
will enhance our ability to meet this goal through two
investments.
First, the budget proposes $2.4 billion to fully fund the
next generation of weather and environmental satellites.
Funding the development and launch of future satellites is
absolutely critical to reduce the risk of a potential gap in
the weather data in 2017 and beyond.
Second, the budget requests $147 million to develop a high-
endurance, long-range ocean survey vessel. Immediate action is
necessary to maintain our critical ocean observing
capabilities. Making this investment this year will enable NOAA
to take advantage of the navy's design work and project
management team which will save taxpayers millions of dollars
in acquisition and design costs.
For generations, manufacturing has been a key to U.S.
innovation, a source of middle class jobs and a pillar of our
global leadership. Over the last five years, America's
manufacturers have added more than 870,000 jobs, growing for
the first time in decades.
Recognizing the importance of manufacturing to our
competitiveness, Congress passed the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation Act which calls for the expansion
of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation or NNMI.
This initiative brings together industry, university
researchers, community colleges, NGOs, and government to
accelerate the development of cutting-edge manufacturing
technologies.
Our fiscal year 2016 budget requests funding first to
support and coordinate current and future NNMI institutes and
second to support two institutes led by the Commerce Department
which would focus on manufacturing technologies that industry
determines have the most potential.
This budget will also provide the International Trade
Administration with the resources needed to advance President
Obama's robust trade agenda and to help U.S. businesses expand
their exports and reach the 95 percent of customers outside of
the United States.
Finally, our budget requests $24 million for the renovation
of the department's headquarters to enable us to make better
use of our space and ultimately to reduce the amount of funds
required to house our employees.
These priorities only scratch the surface of our
department's work to support U.S. businesses, communities, and
our economy.
I look forward to answering your questions today and to
partnering with this committee to keep America open for
business. Thank you.
2020 census
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the census.
I have a lot of constituents who are concerned about the
American Community Survey, the intrusiveness of it in a lot of
areas, and, of course, the survey response is currently
mandatory.
Is that statutory or by your internal administrative rules
that the survey is mandatory? I think it is administrative
rule, but it is mandatory.
Secretary Pritzker. I am not sure.
Mr. Culberson. I think it is----
Secretary Pritzker. It is mandatory by statute. I think it
is by statute.
Mr. Culberson. It is mandatory by statute. So we would need
to change the law in order to make it voluntary?
And I notice also there is a lot of overlap between the
information that the community survey asks and information, for
example, that the Internal Revenue Service already has.
And the estimate, I know that the Commerce Department is
predicting that the survey is planning for the census in 2020
to cost less than the last census, but the estimates show that
the cost of the census is going to be nearly $13 billion. We
just simply do not have $13 billion to spend on a census.
So one way it seems to me that is the straightforward way
to save money is to use other branches of the government to
provide some of that data, and so many of the questions that
are asked in that long census could be obtained from the
Internal Revenue Service.
Have you worked with the Authorizing Committee on this?
What are you planning on doing in order to ensure that you are
using information already collected by other branches of the
government to bring down the cost of the census?
Secretary Pritzker. So, Chairman, you know, one of the
major efforts that we have with the 2020 census is the use of
what we call administrative records, the ability to use other
data that has been collected by the Federal Government.
What we need to do in order to take advantage of that
information is we have to test the efficacy of using that. And
so that is why our request is so significant this year. It is
very much about testing.
The 2010 census, as I understand, was pretty much done the
way censuses have been done for the prior 30 or 40 years. What
we need to do is to transform the way we do the census. And you
very much are suggesting that which is that we have more
automation and greater use of administrative records. And so we
very much want to use other administrative records. What we
need to do, though, is test that that will work.
In terms of the American Community Survey, we respect the
privacy and time, of the individuals who fill out the American
Community Survey as well as the time that we ask people to take
to fill out the survey.
It is a survey, though, that is very much used by
businesses, by NGOs, by local, state and Federal Government.
The VA, for example, is a big user of the American Community
Survey. It is the only source of data in many instances for
small and rural communities.
So if the ACS were no longer available or no longer used,
there is about 60 million Americans that we would not be
collecting data on except during the census period.
But recognizing the concern about this survey, I did last
year call for complete top to bottom review of the survey, what
other sources of information could we be using, how frequently
do we have to ask questions, could we ask them less frequently
and still have the data be reliable, could we delete questions.
And we are in the process of analyzing that and the answers
are due back to me at the latest by the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Culberson. So you will be using, for example,
information from the IRS to help you fill in some of the
blanks?
Secretary Pritzker. I do not know the exact sources of the
administrative records that we are allowed to use. And some of
that is by statute what we are allowed to use.
Mr. Culberson. But you anticipate using IRS records?
Secretary Pritzker. We would anticipate using whatever is
available to us. We will have to check whether we can use----
Mr. Culberson. Can you use IRS records?
Secretary Pritzker. I do not know, but we will find out. I
will get back to you, Mr. Chairman, on whether we can use IRS
records. Obviously what we want to do is use whatever
administrative data and records are available to us. And there
is a whole list that----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. Census is accessing.
Mr. Culberson. I ask for a couple of reasons. A, obviously
you want to try to save money by using administrative records
that are collected by other agencies, but, B, I am a big
believer in privacy and our most important right as Americans
is to be left alone which is why I am concerned about the
American Community Survey.
It is very long and intrusive and it is treated as though
it is mandatory. I understand that it is statutory. That is
something we in Congress ought to change because fundamentally
the census ought to just be who are you, how many people live
there, what is your, you know, ancestry,--very simple,
straightforward questions.
I am also concerned about whether or not privacy advocates
are aware that you may be using IRS records with the problems
that the IRS has had recently about targeting people. I am
concerned about the privacy angle and I do want to know whether
or not you will be using IRS records.
Secretary Pritzker. Mr. Chairman, we will get back to you.
Privacy is something that we at the Census and we at the
Department of Commerce take very, very seriously.
We work very hard to protect the data that we have the
privilege of having access to and we work very carefully to
make sure that it is being handled in a responsible fashion
when we do the things that we are required to do either by
statute or by the Constitution.
Mr. Culberson. I understand another way you will be trying
to save money is with allowing people to log on and handle a
lot of this online. And if there are 140 million households
estimated to participate in the survey, you are going to have a
lot of people visiting the Web site. The Obama Care Web site
had about 250,000 visitors before it just completely melted
down.
What are you doing to prevent something similar from
happening to the Census Web site?
Secretary Pritzker. So we are in the process of beefing up
our systems to be able to handle the volume. But the other
thing that we need to do is make sure that we--we are equally
as concerned about the issue of verification to make sure that
when we send out a survey, a census survey, someone knows that
it is us, it is the government, it is the Census Bureau. It is
not someone else.
And we also will need to have methodologies to authenticate
that the person responding is actually who they say they are.
There is a lot to be dealt with to make sure that this
works online well. It brings me back to what is important is
that the Census Bureau very much wants to take advantage, as
you said, of how do we save money, how do we do this
efficiently.
But to do that, we have to invest today. We have to be able
to test because if we cannot prove that it is going to work,
then we are now allowed by, you know, as I said, what I call
the lock-down or the integrity test that will occur in fiscal
years 2017 and 2018.
If we cannot prove to the Census folks that this will work,
we are not able to do the census that way. Then we go back to
the more expensive survey which is sending people to people's
houses which seems ridiculous in a digital world.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
You know, we just simply will not have the money this year.
It is going to be a very difficult budget environment.
Secretary Pritzker. No, I understand.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fattah.
MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE
Mr. Fattah. Well, let me first of all, Madam Secretary, ask
you about the manufacturing initiative. One of my priorities on
the subcommittee over the last few years that I have been the
ranking member has been the MEP program, the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, the Hollings legacy around manufacturing
extension using the same basic method that was used in the
agriculture extension to apply to our manufacturers.
Now, we have seen arrested by this Administration the major
losses that we were seeing in this sector. In fact, I recall in
the first weeks of the Administration economists aggregated
together on the pages of the New York Times saying how this
could not work and manufacturing could not come back.
And the Administration has shown that this was a fallacy,
that in truth manufacturing has led the recovery. And you said
it is 800,000 jobs, but there is more for us to do. And I have
talked to you about this.
I am particularly interested in how this intersects with
the other work of our subcommittee because we invest in
science. And the chairman and I have a great interest in
science.
But I am interested to make sure that American innovation,
that is American ideas are connected to American jobs, that
when we have the spinoffs from our space program and other
programs in which intellectual property is allowed to be used
mainly for free by companies to create wealth that we require
in the licensing of this intellectual property that whatever
jobs it created are created in the United States of America.
And the committee has done some work in this area in the
past, and I have a continuing interest to make sure that where
we invest in a national lab, where we invest in NIST or NASA or
NOAA that when there are new widgets that those widgets get
manufactured whether in Texas or Pennsylvania or some other
place, California, New York, and Washington State.
But the point here is that there is no reason why taxpayer-
financed research, even though it may create wealth for some
innovators, and I think that is wonderful, I am all for it, but
that the jobs that go with it should benefit Americans and the
Americans that we are taxing to make the initial investment
into science.
So if you could talk a little bit about that, that would be
helpful.
Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, you know that I am as
passionate about manufacturing as you are and I view my number
one responsibility is to help our economy grow and help our
private sector grow because one thing I know from my own
experience 27 years in the private sector is that the people
who create jobs are the private sector.
And so one of the things you talked about, the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and, as you know, we are
re-competing our MEPs at this time and we have just done ten of
them, and the reason that we are doing that is and the reason
that MEP exists is to help small and medium-size manufacturers.
And if you had told me from the private sector before I had
this job that the Federal Government could help you to have
better access to technology and processes to manufacture, I was
highly skeptical until I went out and actually saw this with my
own eyes and, more importantly, talked with owners of
businesses who said I would not have been able to adapt the
kind of world-class processes that I have access to because of
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
So these are programs that I think are extremely effective.
We have changed the funding match to be one to one so more
small businesses can take advantage of it. And it is something
that, you know, is really exciting to see the kind of
specialized expertise that a small manufacturer can take
advantage of.
In terms of other efforts that we have around innovation,
whether it is the Centers of Excellence in terms of that NIST
has working on disaster resilience or forensic science or
advanced materials, these are areas where we work with outside
universities to take technologies, move them forward so that
they can get out of the laboratory sooner rather than later.
The National Network of Manufacturing Innovation is a
continuation of that effort to take ideas that we think can go
from lab to market over the next five to seven years, and that
is why I was so excited when you all passed the Revitalize
American Manufacturing Innovation Act because it is an
opportunity for us as a country to really put together our
researchers in the universities, our private sector, our local
governments, our NGOs, our community colleges and the supply
chain and the skilled labor training that can go on in our
community colleges to take technologies like lightweight
materials or take technologies like photonics or digital
manufacturing and really bring them to market.
And the reason we need to do that is we know that a third
of our economic growth since 2009 has come from our
innovations. And so it is really critical.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I saw the red light come on and I think that----
Secretary Pritzker. Sorry.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Means that--no--that I will wait
until the next round to ask a follow-up. No, we are going to
try to follow the rules.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I wanted----
Mr. Fattah. Could the gentle lady introduce the young one?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Sure. This is my daughter, Abigail.
She used to be quiet and you could just drag her anywhere. And
now she just babbles, so I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
Babbling that people like, right?
Okay. I wanted to bring up an issue that is not wholly your
purview, but it is something I would like you to be aware of
and would very much appreciate your assistance and your
thoughts. So I want to get it right. Let me stick to my notes.
GROUNDFISH BUYBACK LOAN
Fishermen in Washington State and along the West Coast have
been under a challenge since about 2003 under the groundfish
buyback loan. We feel that the terms of the loan are punitive
and so we moved in a bipartisan fashion to change that.
And it was actually the end of last year with the NDAA
passage and the President signed into law provisions that fully
refinanced that loan at rates that other businesses get which
we feel like is a little bit more appropriate.
The implementation of the law has been held up, though,
with the Office of OMB, which we will be bringing it up as
well, claiming that either the funding must come out of NOAA's
budget or a new appropriation is required which Congress did
not feel like that was necessary. That is why we were able to
move it, quite frankly. The bill was fully offset in the NDAA,
so we felt like we had provided what we needed to.
So what we are seeing is a challenge within the
Administration where the money is going to come from. And the
law was passed. The offset was in it. I, quite frankly, do not
care whose budget it comes out of. I just would like to make
sure that it is addressed and that the law is followed in
conjunction with the Congress and the President's signature.
So if you have a comment, great.
Secretary Pritzker. I would just say I am well aware of
this issue.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, great.
Secretary Pritzker. And I know it is important to you. And
I understand my staff is working with your staff and the
committee's staff to try and get this addressed.
FISH STOCKS
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. I think that is what we would
like. We would just want to make sure that it gets taken care
of and that, you know, recognizing the offset was there. And it
is nice to see everybody behind you, yeah. Okay. I know how
that works as a former staffer.
And I brought this up with the OIG as well. The salmon
hatcheries, switching issues on the Columbia River are funded
through the Mitchell Act and which supports recreational and
commercial fisheries in the rural communities. I am along the
Columbia River and then out to the Pacific Ocean, so that is
almost my entire district. They provide a lot of jobs and
resources in my local area.
I was really upset to see NOAA requested a decrease of
nearly $3 million to the salmon management account and those
reductions actually target the Mitchell Act Hatcheries. So even
under level funding, we know that the number of fish released
is decreasing and the costs are going up.
Moreover, the funding needed to ensure that the hatcheries
are maintained is being undermined and we are seeing the
consequences of fish losses from failed equipment.
So despite all these facts, NOAA states in their budget
that a document that they are able to--in their funding
document, they believe they are able to meet their obligation
for operation and maintenance and their obligation to meet
their hatchery reform responsibilities.
But given these facts, I am not sure how NOAA is going to
be able to do this, and I guess I would love comments that you
have on that because this is another big one.
Secretary Pritzker. Making sure that we have adequate
salmon stocks and that this fish stock is doing well is of
great importance to us. What I would ask is that I would
probably have my NOAA staff work with yours to explain to you
how exactly we believe--we believe this is adequate funding to
do what we need to do, but I would like to have them come and
work with you so that you can be satisfied about that.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely. Mitchell Act funding for
these hatcheries is key and so we want to make sure what we are
hearing on the ground corroborates with what your NOAA staff
are seeing and hearing.
My time is just about up. I just want to put this on your
radar. Hatchery genetic management plans which are required
under ESA, and we can go into a little bit more detail, again,
I do not want to run out of time, but I am concerned about the
backlog. I think I have seen over 100 are due and we do not
have them. So we will bring that up with your staff as well,
but those are kind of my top three.
Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. We will look into it and we
will work with you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. Appreciate it.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. I yield to my colleague and good friend Mr.
Serrano from New York.
2020 CENSUS--IMMIGRATION REFORM AND TRADE OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for
being here today and for your work. I am going to ask you two
quick questions at the same time because they are based on
hopes. It might be that by the next time the Census comes
around we may have immigration reform. While what that means to
the Census Bureau, other than people coming forth to be counted
that perhaps were afraid to do so before, you know, are we
ready for that? Will it be a big challenge or something you
have to be ready for? And secondly, my second hope, which seems
to be coming to be, is that by pretty soon we may have full
diplomatic relations with Cuba which may entail a lot of trade.
And the Commerce Department will play a role. Are you ready to
meet that challenge if that comes your way? Simple questions,
but historic in nature.
Secretary Pritzker. Yes. Well Congressman, I too hope that
we have immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform by
the time, certainly hopefully before the next 2020 Census. And
I assure you we stand ready to be able to handle that
regardless of when it comes into fruition. It will not affect
the processes that we use, it simply is the number of people
that we count.
In terms of Cuba diplomatic relations, which is also as you
said historic and something that as the Department of Commerce
we have been proud to play a role in. You know, we are working
on the regulatory aspects of, and the licensing aspects
particularly in the area of telecommunications where there is
an opportunity for certain goods to be sold into Cuba. And so I
am looking forward to having the opportunity to visit Cuba
later this year.
There is an embargo in place. We respect the embargo. But
it does, the current laws do allow for certain items to be sold
into Cuba to the private sector particularly in the area of
telecommunications. I think there will also be some
agricultural opportunities now and banking opportunities.
CUBAN TRADE MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Serrano. Right. Without telling me anything I am not
supposed to know, although we are supposed to know everything,
right? What items does the Commerce Department think the Cubans
would be ready to sell us other than to flood us with great
baseball players and great music and so on, which is great. But
we know what we can sell to Cuba. We have been doing it little
by little. But what would we be interesting in getting from
them in that kind of trade?
Secretary Pritzker. You know Congressman, I have not
studied the opportunities for two-way trade in the way we
should. But I am sure that is something that our International
Trade Administration will be looking into and I am happy to do
more research for you.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you. One last question since
I do have time. The chairman is interested in cigars, by the
way, in case----
Secretary Pritzker. I think it is $400 worth of cigars you
can buy?
Mr. Serrano. That is right.
Secretary Pritzker. I think that is the limit right now.
Mr. Serrano. That will end, hopefully.
Mr. Fattah. Well I am sure the chairman and the ranking
member will be glad to go with you----
Mr. Serrano. Right, very, that is true. Very quickly----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Allocation if you got the chairman
some cigars, you know what I mean? I hear that, Judge, I am
sorry.
Mr. Serrano. Are you charging me for this time? No, but
anyway. No, it is not. Madam Secretary, in 2010 the Census
received a lot of criticism and feedback around how respondents
of Hispanic or Latino origin were able to self-identify. How if
at all has the agency considered making changes to this area?
Are there any plans to expand the existing response categories
of Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
and other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? And have you
been in conversations with any groups concerning those changes
or petitions for changes?
Secretary Pritzker. Well Congressman, we are committed to
accurately measuring how people self-identify their race and
origin. And we tested an approach in 2020 and we are building
on the research of that in twenty--we tested in 2010 and we are
building on that for 2020. We have been actively working with
stakeholders and in fact we have just put out a big Federal
Register notice on this issue. So we are trying to make sure
that we get this accurate, get this right. Because we are very
much committed to an accurate Census.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Judge Carter.
EXPORT INITIATIVES
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I have got a bill on the floor. Thank you very much for
being here. I am from Texas, as my colleague from Texas pointed
out, and energy export remains a major driver of the Texas
economy. The Obama administration's regulatory policies
threaten to impair this vital part of our trade economy. How
does your agency expect our nation to be able to expand trade
to reach foreign markets if the regulatory burden here at home
cripples those industries? And with these concerns in mind what
are the challenges to encouraging direct foreign investment in
domestic industries?
Secretary Pritzker. Well I will start with the last part
and then talk about our export initiative. But first in terms
of foreign direct investment, we run a program called
SelectUSA. In fact, I am quite excited, I got a report on, an
update this morning about SelectUSA. This is the first ever
effort by the federal government of the United States to
welcome investment by foreign companies into the United States.
And what we do know is about 5.6 million Americans today are
employed by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.
So SelectUSA is both, is populated by people in 32 key
markets that we want to attract investment from, and we also
put on a summit. Our foreign commercial service officers that
work on SelectUSA are helping those companies invest here in
the United States and then we have staff here in the United
States helping them navigate our federal system. But obviously
we do not prefer one state over another.
Then we also run a summit once every 18 months. The second
annual summit will be March 23rd and 24th. You are all invited.
We will have about 1,200 attendees. The goal is 2,500 attendees
and about 1,200 companies to join us for that. These are
companies interested in investing in the United States. So we
have a robust effort to reach out to foreign companies to
invest in the United States.
In terms of helping American businesses export, that falls
under our Foreign Commercial Service and our U.S. Export
Assistance Center and our National Export Initiative which we
just revitalized this year. We took a look at what we have been
doing over the last three or four years and tried to update it
to grow exports. And you know we hit record exports this year
at $2.35 trillion. So we work both to attract foreign direct
investment as well as helping American businesses, particularly
small and medium sized businesses, that need help to understand
well what market our U.S. Export Assistance Centers, of which
there are 108 I think in the United States, they help American
business identify what countries their products are competitive
in. And then our Foreign Commercial Service Officers, which are
in 75 countries around the world, help those companies then
navigate the local regulations, the local rules, etcetera, to
be able to do business there.
Mr. Carter. Oh, you did not answer my question about the,
the United States regulatory burden and how it affects trade
and commerce.
Secretary Pritzker. Ah. Well, to date what we are finding
in terms of interest in investing in the United States, it is
extremely high. We are the number one place in the world, by
A.T. Kearney, by Goldman Sachs, to invest in the U.S. So in
terms of regulatory burden it does not appear that that seems
to be an impediment at this time for companies being interested
in investing in the U.S.
But President Obama has asked his head of OIRA and each and
ever one of us running our departments to look at our
regulatory burden and to assess whether on a cost benefit
basis, whether our regulations are working and are worth it and
are effective. And we have been doing that here at the
Department of Commerce. For the most part that would affect,
for example, two different areas. First fisheries, how does it
affect our fisheries and how we regulate our fisheries? And the
second area is really our licensing at BIS. At BIS we, if you
have a dual use product that we are trying to sell outside the
United States there is what is going on is what is called
export control reform. Something like 30,000 plus items have
gone from being really restricted to being sold outside the
United States to a much lower standard, which is what we
manage. And so BIS has gone from 24,000 licenses in fiscal year
2013 to our estimate in fiscal year 2016 of about 50,000
licenses a year. So we are trying to lower the regulatory
burden to encourage exports as well as foreign direct
investment.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge. Mr. Honda.
NNMI SITE SELECTION
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being
here, Madam Secretary. You made the comments on the NNMI and on
MEP, which were very positive and we are grateful for that.
Under the NNMI you in your testimony indicated that the
Department of Commerce would be looking at two selections for
sites and I was just curious as to how is that choice, how are
those choices going to be made? Who will be part of that? And
do you know when these choices will be effective?
Secretary Pritzker. Well assuming that we get funding for
two institutes then what we would do is we would run an open
topic federal funding opportunity that would be posted. And
then what we would do is consider the results of the FFO and we
would structure the FFO that would take into account the
recommendations that the PCAST has made, you know, the
President's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has also made.
They have recommended various technologies. The idea being our
goal is really to have industry decide what are the
technologies that ought to be in the Department of Commerce
institutes as opposed to at the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy they are choosing the technologies that
they would like to see go from lab to market. We view that our
role would be more to take our cues from industry.
Mr. Honda. And based upon that process, then, the outcome
if the decisions would make more clear the sites or the regions
that----
Secretary Pritzker. That would help determine topics and
then we would use those topics to determine, to run a
competition where consortia would come together regionally. It
seems that to date the consortia being put together, they are
pretty broad actually in terms of their geography. They tend to
end up locating one place but the groups that come together
tend to often be broad based upon the researchers needed to
bring the ideas from lab to market.
Mr. Honda. Okay. I have always been one to make sure that
we fully fund this process so hopefully we move forward on a
fully funded----
Secretary Pritzker. I hope so, too.
SEQUESTRATION AFFECTS ON PTO
Mr. Honda. On the USPTO we were fortunate to have the
Department of Commerce locate in Silicon Valley. And which
city, that was arm wrestling among the cities in the district.
But we were very fortunate to have USPTO place the office
there. Having said that, since that selection was made
sequestration came in. And USPTO is fully funded through fees,
which is not part of the tax dollar budget process. However, in
spite of the fact that it is fully funded by fees it was
affected by sequestration. How will you help us build a
firewall around that fund so that if there is another episode
of sequestration that we can build a firewall around agencies
that are fully funded by fees and not be affected by
sequestration?
Secretary Pritzker. Well sequestration, you know, was very
destructive to the Department of Commerce and particularly
destructive to the Patent and Trademark Office. In terms of its
effect on the Patent and Trademark Office, basically when
sequestration came down the only real flexibility in terms of
cutting that we had at that time was to cut our investment in
IT. And so first of all it was sort of a double whammy. If you
think about it PTO, as you said, is fully funded by fees. So
the idea of sequestration does not make any sense because I do
not know where that money went to but it is not accessible to
PTO. But folks seeking a patent or a trademark put up fees in
order to get their patent and trademark adjudicated, so that is
kind of nuts. And the second thing is that our IT systems, it
is really critical, we are working now on something called
patent end to end. One of the issues that is often brought up
about our Patent and Trademark Office is its backlog, or how
long until we have a first adjudication and how long until a
final adjudication. We have a target of ten months to first
adjudication, and 20 months to final adjudication. By, if we
were to have sequestration and then not have access to the
money that third parties have paid as fees in to actually
adjudicate a patent, the thing that would probably get cut is
our systems. And the systems are the very things that help us
actually expedite, systems and training and number of patent
adjudicators, are kind of the three inputs to how fast you can
do patent adjudication. So it would kind of be a double whammy
to the Patent and Trademark Office. So I am certainly hoping
that we can come to a budget as opposed to end up with
sequestration.
How we protect against that, I think that falls under----
Mr. Honda. The administration?
Secretary Pritzker. We do not have that control. That falls
under----
Mr. Honda. Well it was OMB that decided, as far as I
understand. And since you are part of the administration I
would hope that----
Secretary Pritzker. I will fight, I will----
Mr. Honda [continuing]. The term that is nuts is, you know,
communicated to the administration. Because it is nuts. I mean
it is, first it is fee-based. So those who are wanting their
patents processed. And it is an economic engine for more jobs
and for the economy. So I would hope that we start that
discussion within the administration in the case of
sequestration that we have that firewall built in early.
Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, you are probably more
knowledgeable about this than I am because fortunately I have
basically lived with a budget as far as I have understood it.
And so if it is up to me to argue that with OMB, I will argue
like all get it. I would love the support of you all. And if it
is up to you I sure hope we can work this out. So I look
forward to not finding ourselves in that situation because I do
think it is nuts.
Mr. Honda. I think not only California but Texas is also
impacted by patents, so.
Mr. Culberson. We are in the middle of a vote. We have got
13 minutes, and I would like to recognize Mr. Kilmer.
HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLANS
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam
Secretary for being here. And thanks for coming out to
Washington State recently. We loved having you.
I wanted to follow up on some of the points that Ms.
Herrera Beutler had brought up, specifically with regard to
NOAA. NOAA obviously pays a big role in our salmon recovery
efforts and the Marine Fisheries Services has an obligation to
ensure that programs comply with the Endangered Species Act.
And one of the ways in which it does that is through the
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. And without approval of
those I am concerned that the hatchery managers are subject to
significant risk of litigation which could potentially have
very severe implications for our recovery efforts, for federal
tribal trust obligations, and for the $9 billion West Coast
Fishery. So I have heard a number of concerns from stakeholder
about concerns that NMFS lacks the work force that it needs to
process these plans in a timely manner and I wanted to get a
sense from you what steps is NMFS taking to address the issue?
Secretary Pritzker. So this year we are seeking to increase
the number of staff devoted to the hatchery plans review from
two to six, and we are also reprioritizing some of the existing
staff to assist with the reviews and analysis. So we are taking
it very seriously to be able to try and address these
challenges.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. It is certainly a big area of
concern in our area.
INTERAGENCY TRADE ENFORCEMENT CENTER
I also wanted to ask about the International Trade
Administration. The President's budget calls for a $6 million
increase in funding to the Interagency Trade Enforcement
Center, a multiagency effort to address unfair trade practices
and barriers the impede U.S. exports. So how has that
Interagency Trade Enforcement Center affected the
administration's ability to identify and challenge unfair trade
practices? And how will that funding increase affect the
ability of American made goods and services to remain
competitive internationally?
Secretary Pritzker. So what ITEC does is it really helps us
identify areas for enforcement and then also does research for
cases during enforcement. And what we need is we need more
language proficient trade analysts. We need more subject matter
experts, so that the budget calls for 15 new positions. And you
know, fundamentally in a world where we have more trade
agreements we need more enforcement because we have folks that
are trying to avoid and evade our trade agreements.
IT PROCUREMENT
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. You touched on, with my time
remaining, you touched on IT issues. There are a number of
members of Congress, myself among them, who are very interested
in IT procurement reform. Your department and a lot of
departments are significant purchasers of technology. But I
think there is concern about whether there is adequate
coordination between bureaus on what is procured. And so your
department and other departments often will purchase products
that they already own, or do not benefit from economies of
scale, lack interoperability among products. So are there any
internal initiatives that you can share with us that would
eliminate some of the redundancy in IT programs and ensure, you
know, a more coordinated and standard based approach to IT
procurement?
Secretary Pritzker. Yes, thank you for asking. You know
Congressman, when I arrived our IT situation was, pretty good
at the bureaus but really pretty awful at the Office of the
Secretary and in kind of the central office, if you will. We
have been fortunate to be able to bring in a new CIO and he has
really put together a plan overhauling not just our security
risk management but also our procurement. So he is working with
our Chief Financial Officer, who is sitting behind me, to
understand what are our opportunities for bulk buying of
equipment, of software, of different programs. And in fact I
have already seen in certain software that we have needed to
use for customer management, that process come into effect. I
am not saying we are where we need to be, I am suggesting that
we have a really strong initiative in place to really better
manage this effort. But we have work to do.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you,
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. I really just want to
zero in on one area where I think we will wrap up after this.
Mr. Fattah. That is correct. And I have one ten-second
area.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Fattah. Do you want me to go first?
Mr. Culberson. Go ahead, sure.
Mr. Fattah. As we discussed when we met, I am very
interested in working with you to pursue the neurotechnology
sector as an industry. I am going to be in Israel next week, in
Tel Aviv, at the BrainTech Israel Conference. But there is a
growing industry internationally, but America leads, and we
should continue to focus on how to develop these businesses
focused on brain related health issues. And I look forward to
an opportunity as you indicated for us to put together some of
the industry representatives with you to talk about what we can
do as a country to work in this space. All right? Thank you
very much.
Secretary Pritzker. I look forward to that.
NTIA'S ROLE IN THE INTERNET
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Chaka. I want to ask about the
Internet. The National Telecommunication and Information
Administration has contracted with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers since as I recall almost the
beginning of the Internet when the Defense Department first ran
it, but it has always been controlled by the United States.
This is an American owned company. And the administration
recently came out with a proposal to shift that over to a
global multi-stakeholder model. What would be the role of
foreign governments and international organizations like the
United Nations in the new planned model?
Secretary Pritzker. Mr. Chairman, the goal of this is not
to be a government run effort, this is meant to be a multi-
stakeholder effort. And just let me step back for a minute. Our
role, NTIA's role, has been one of stewardship. We are
committed to a free and open Internet. And what we have done is
set up. I met in fact this week with the head of ICANN. We laid
down a set of criteria that are absolutely essential to be met
before we would give up our stewardship role at this point. One
is it has got to be a reliable multi-stakeholder model that is
not government-led. It has got to be able to do its function of
providing a secure, stable, and resilient Internet domain name
process. It has got to be able to service its customers. It has
got to be able to support an open and free Internet. So we are
waiting now for their proposal back as to how they would do
that and also how they would assure that governments are not
going to highjack the Internet.
Mr. Culberson. But a multi, when you say multi-stakeholder,
that includes either foreign companies or foreign governments'
involvement either directly or indirectly?
Secretary Pritzker. Multi-stakeholder is just what it
sounds like. It is a broad group of constituents in the
Internet world but it is not meant----
Mr. Culberson. International?
Secretary Pritzker. Yes, it is international.
Mr. Culberson. International, that is what I was concerned
about.
Secretary Pritzker. Right.
Mr. Culberson. Because the Chinese, of course, are
aggressively censoring the Internet. I am strongly opposed to
this FCC regulation that just came out, I am deeply concerned
that this regulation that the FCC has just come out with is
going to put the government in a position to regulate the
Internet like a utility and the Internet has thrived because it
is free and unregulated. What role would countries like China
have, or companies owned and operated within China have in the
administration of the Internet under this proposal?
Secretary Pritzker. So Mr. Chairman, that is what we are
waiting for a proposal to understand is----
Mr. Culberson. From?
Secretary Pritzker. From ICANN. Our role is in the IANA
transition. IANA is the domain name process. We supervise that
process. ICANN actually runs that process today and we have a
supervisory contract with them. And what we are suggesting is
that we would ultimately let that contract expire, unless the
criteria that we have set up are put in place. And we are
waiting for ICANN, which is who does the role now, to give us a
proposal that would satisfy us that the Internet cannot be
hijacked by foreign countries or foreign companies, and that
the Internet remains free and open.
Mr. Culberson. I just want to make sure I understood. The
proposal you have asked them to come forward with--you have
asked them to come up with a proposal that involves foreign-
owned companies?
Secretary Pritzker. There will be foreign players, yes.
There will also be domestic players involved.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you. That is what I wanted to
establish. I will have additional questions I know for the
record. If, of course, Mr. Fattah, you have additional
questions?
Mr. Fattah. No. But I do think on this Internet matter,
just so we can get some clarity at some point, we should just
do a meeting and have a briefing----
Secretary Pritzker. Happy to----
Mr. Culberson. Good idea.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. So that all of us can understand
exactly what is going on. Because I think----
Secretary Pritzker. I would be delighted to have the
opportunity----
Mr. Fattah. Right. So that we can----
Mr. Culberson. There is a lot of concern.
Mr. Fattah. Right. Yes.
Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. To bring myself and my
experts here and we go through it in detail.
Mr. Fattah. But the chairman's offices will arrange it. But
we will----
Mr. Culberson. Sure, we will set it up.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Just have a meeting, not a
hearing, and get to the details.
Mr. Culberson. Because there is a lot of concern. Our
constituents, Judge, I know yours are as well concerned about
this.
Secretary Pritzker. Chairman, I share your concern. So this
is not something that we are going to let happen, whereas I
said there is not going to be a hostile takeover of the
Internet.
Mr. Culberson. Well I assure you, Congress will help make
sure that does not happen too.
Secretary Pritzker. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much for your time and your
service to the country, and the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
KATHRYN SULLIVAN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Culberson. The House Appropriations Committee for
Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order.
And I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing
with Dr. Kathy Sullivan, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.
We deeply appreciate your service to the country, Dr.
Sullivan. We look forward to hearing from you and asking
questions about your budget for the coming year.
And we have a particularly difficult budget year
recognizing the immense importance of the work that NOAA does
from weather forecasting to ocean research. We want to make
sure we get our weather satellite system, and make sure there
are no gaps in coverage there, of course.
But it is an extremely difficult budget year and we are, as
good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars, going
to have to be sure we are limiting our investments to our top
priorities, while recognizing that you have asked for about a
ten percent increase above the current fiscal year.
In your budget request for 2016, you are asking for $5.9
billion, an increase of about $540 million dollars. We will
certainly do our best to be sure that top priorities of NOAA
are funded, but, I want to make sure it is clear for the record
with every one of our other witnesses, that we are facing a
very difficult budget environment and many of the assumptions
that the President makes in his budget are not going to happen
such as tax increases and fee increases, et cetera. These are
just simply not realistic.
But we will, of course, do everything we can to protect the
important work that NOAA is doing. Weather forecasting is so
vital, and the work that you are doing in ocean mapping and
exploration is absolutely essential. And we will do our very
best to protect you.
The work that we do has always been bipartisan in nature.
This subcommittee's devotion and support for the sciences and
scientific research, space exploration, weather forecasting,
and law enforcement is a long tradition of the subcommittee.
It has been a privilege for me to be a part of it since I
first got on the Appropriations Committee and particularly to
succeed my mentor and dear good friend, Frank Wolf, who we all
have great memories of and I do my best every day that I have
got this job to live up to the high standard Frank Wolf set.
It is a privilege to have you with us here today. And I
would like to recognize my good friend, Mr. Fattah, for any
opening statement he would like to make.
Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank the chairman for hosting you
and this hearing is an important part of our decision-making
process. So I want to say a number of things.
One is that you have a distinction, you know, in terms of
not just your service at NOAA but as one of the first women
astronauts and walking in space, so you are an important
example of the impact science can have in the life of our
Nation.
NOAA is a critically important agency and I have been over
to visit at the National Weather Service. I got a chance to
keynote or talk at the conference that was held on severe
weather events. We have a lot going on not just in terms of
your normal work but the challenges related to weather and the
historic high in terms of severe weather events.
The work that NOAA has done to make advancements in weather
forecasting has helped save lives and protect property
throughout the country, and also it is critically important for
navigating our waters for commerce and for troop deployments.
We need information through NOAA. And the work of the
Administration to create an ocean policy, I think, has been
very important.
I was at their coastal zone conference in Chicago a few
years back where I got a chance to speak, but more importantly
to learn about the important efforts of NOAA all the way to and
including the Guard Club of America and their tremendous
support. They were just here on The Hill a few weeks ago
talking to Members and making it abundantly clear these 11,000
volunteers, how important your work is.
So I want to welcome you. Look forward to your testimony.
And I thank the chairman. And, again, I apologize for being
a couple minutes late. But I was with Tom Cole and he said he
would give me a slip if I needed one. But we were trying to
conclude work on Labor HHS. So thank you, Chair.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. All right.
Mr. Culberson. That is impressive.
Mr. Fattah. Well, conclude today's activities, yes.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Sullivan, it is a pleasure to have you here with us and
we will without objection submit your full statement for the
record in its entirety, and welcome your summarization of your
testimony. And we are pleased to have you here today and would
recognize you for your presentation to the subcommittee. Thank
you, ma'am.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah, and
Members of the subcommittee. I am quite pleased to be here
today and talk about NOAA's fiscal year 2016 budget request.
I would agree with both the chairman and the ranking
member's assessment that NOAA is one of the most valuable
service agencies in the United States Government. Through our
observations, our forecasts, and assessments, we strive to
provide the foresight and information that people need to live
wisely and well on this dynamic planet. At NOAA, we call this
information environmental intelligence and producing it is at
the core of our mission.
Americans from our citizens to our military to our
businesses rely upon this environmental intelligence and the
services that NOAA provides every single day from forecasting
extreme weather events to providing data that help ensure safe
navigation, sustaining and promoting economically viable
fisheries, and protecting endangered species.
We leverage our capabilities across all of the different
scientific disciplines involved to support the Nation in
preparedness, response, and recovery.
Our fiscal year 2016 budget builds on the foundation that
was established with the support of this committee and the
Congress. It sustains our efforts to put critical information
into the hands of the public. Each of the increases in our
request is a carefully chosen targeted investment in an area
that is most vital for NOAA to meet the growing demand we hear
from the public. I would like to touch briefly on the four main
priority areas of our request.
First, this request invests in observational infrastructure
improvements that are needed to effectively execute NOAA's
diverse mission portfolio and protect public safety and welfare
now and into the future. To ensure the continuity of our at sea
data collection capability, one of the most important requests
in our budget is funding for the construction of an ocean
survey vessel that is capable of advanced oceanographic
research in coastal and deep ocean areas.
NOAA's current fleet will decline from the current 16
vessels to just eight by 2028 without continued investment. We
will continue to partner as we do now robustly with the private
sector to meet our ship time needs, but a combination of
contracts, partnerships, and a robust NOAA fleet is clearly a
must if we are to continue to provide the critical reliable
data that businesses and the American people depend upon.
NOAA must also ensure the continuity of satellite
operations to provide the National Weather Service with the
data needed for forecasts that protect lives and property. The
fiscal year 2016 budget initiates development of a Polar
follow-on satellite system that will reduce the potential for
gap in these critical observing systems and enhance our ability
to provide timely and accurate weather forecasts now and into
the future.
Second, this budget proposes to equip communities to face
increasingly frequent natural disasters and confront the long-
term adverse environmental changes that are seen. 2014 was the
warmest year on record with eight weather and climate
disasters, each of which had losses totaling $1 billion. Each
of these events causes widespread damage and devastates
families, businesses, and communities.
This budget invests in the services and information to
support the communities' own efforts to assess their risks and
minimize their losses in advance and in the aftermath of such
events.
For example, it invests in actionable coastal intelligence
tools such as water level data for improved storm surge
predictions and nautical charts. It spurs important research to
help farmers and coastal communities prepare for and mitigate
drought and flooding and it will strengthen and expand the U.S.
seafood industry by tapping into a $100 billion aquacultural
global market for which this country currently only makes up a
one percent share.
Third, this budget makes investments to ensure that America
has a National Weather Service that is second to none. Weather
and climate impact approximately one-third of our Nation's GDP.
It can cost billions of dollars and claim thousands of lives
per year.
NOAA continues its commitment to build a weather ready
Nation and provide citizens with the most timely, accurate, and
well-communicated forecast information.
Specifically this budget invests in several targeted areas
needed to improve weather service capability and service
delivery to meet key user needs. This includes improving the
geographic accuracy for hazardous weather and improving the
prediction of precipitation and temperature outlooks for the
three to four-week range, a time frame that is essential for
emergency managers to prepare for and mitigate these extreme
events.
And, finally, this budget aims to improve our agency's core
operations. Every day NOAA employees strive to execute our
mission with discipline and consistency and timeliness.
However, we cannot perform our core functions at the highest
level when our support services cannot keep pace with the
growing demand.
And in recent years, our support functions have fallen
drastically behind. This threatens our ability to recruit,
retain, and reward the best talent possible and to ensure our
customers receive the best service possible. It compromises our
ability to engage with the private sector and academia and to
provide you with the quality and timeliness of accountability
reporting that you rightly expect.
Our fiscal year 2016 request for corporate services is
smaller but similar to what we requested in fiscal year 2015
and will focus on improving corporate service functions, in
particular in our workforce and acquisition and grants arena.
Overall, NOAA's fiscal year 2016 budget request reflects
the commitment of Secretary Pritzker that she and I have made
to the President to growing a strong economy that is built to
last while being fiscally responsible and focusing on priority
initiatives.
I am proud to serve with this vital component of the United
States Government helping to maximize United States
competitiveness, enable economic growth, foster science and
technological leadership, and promote environmental
stewardship.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of this committee as well as partners and our
constituents to achieve the goals that I have articulated
through the implementation of this budget. And I thank you for
this opportunity to make a comment.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan. We appreciate your
testimony and your leadership of the agency.
And as a father of a daughter who is keenly interested in
the sciences, I would, if I could, just like to open by asking
you to tell the committee and anyone out there listening,
particularly young girls who are thinking about going into the
sciences, what led you to major in geology and go on to join
NASA. Tell us what led you into the sciences, what inspired
you, and talk to us a little about any barriers that you
encountered as a woman, if any, and what you did to overcome
those.
Ms. Sullivan. Well, it is very kind of you to inquire, Mr.
Chairman. I was driven from a very young age by a strong
curiosity, basically a strong geographic curiosity about
virtually every aspect of geography, landscapes, climate,
critters, peoples, cultures.
And, frankly, if you poked me as a little girl and asked me
what my dream was, it was to figure out how someone bought me
airline tickets so I could actually get to go to all these
exotic places and learn firsthand about those phenomena and
those people and those places.
I first began thinking I would parlay a strength I have in
foreign languages into a career like that and so actually chose
my college as a language and linguistics major.
Mr. Culberson. What was your focus and what language?
Ms. Sullivan. I was already fluent in French and German and
I wanted to go into Russian. And happily that college had the
wisdom to require me as an arts and language major to take
three science courses which I thought was a terrible idea at
the time.
They won and I discovered geology and oceanography and saw
in the lives and the work of my young professors, all of whom
were male, but I admired their curiosity. I admired their spunk
getting out into the field. They invited us into the passion
that they felt for understanding this planet and how it works
and for turning that information, the scientific data into
information that could really help people live better.
Mr. Culberson. Dr. Robert Ballard's specialty is geology.
Ms. Sullivan. Well, and young Dr. Robert Ballard and I went
to sea together in 1974 on the cruise that began his arc of
fame. He was at that time a very wet-behind-the-ears post-doc
who was, frankly, doing all the grunt work for the big names
who were aboard----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. The cruise. I was even more
junior to Bob, so I got to do the even grimier grunt work, but
that was quite a remarkable voyage in its own right. And it was
those sorts of experiences, the chance to live overseas in
Norway for a year for my junior year that reshifted my focus
towards geology and oceanography, towards the North Atlantic in
particular which is why I studied in Canada.
Barriers to overcome, I was blessed to have parents that
inoculated me through their confidence and their composure that
any interest their child has is an interest that is valid for
that youngster to pursue. And the peanut gallery does not get
to edit those choices, but also strong enough to tell me, you
know, you have got to work hard at the things you care about.
Mastery is an important thing unless you just want to make it
your hobby.
And so that gave me, I think, some ability to proceed on an
ignorance is bliss basis. If my work was good, I just managed
to largely ignore people who thought it was odd that I should
be doing this.
You know, it is challenging and you certainly can meet a
boss or a mentor or supervisor who more actively tries to hold
you back. I was fortunate to not meet any really malicious
people who aimed to hold me back, but there were plenty who
challenged me hard.
And I think it is fair to say that those of us women in the
early days of oceanography and geology and the astronaut corps,
I think we certainly had to reach to a higher level to be
accredited as basically capable. You know, that is not a bad
thing. It does make you stronger.
Mr. Culberson. It does indeed make you stronger and it is a
great story. And I saw that you were on the mission that
deployed the Hubble Space Telescope which continues to--
Ms. Sullivan. The 25th anniversary this coming month.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Continues to give tremendous benefits
to all of humanity.
And the Space Program in particular, I know it is a vital
part of the work that you do at NOAA and we are, all of us on
the committee, concerned. We want to make sure there is as
little a gap as possible in our coverage of satellites.
There was some early problems with the management of the
Polar weather satellite. We have, all of us on the committee,
we reviewed the inspector general's report who points out the
potential gap in data between the current on-orbit Polar
weather satellite, the NPP, should it fail or if there is a
launch failure for the next Polar satellite.
Congress included $111 million in Hurricane Sandy
supplemental to address this gap and the overall lack of
program robustness. So we essentially fully funded NOAA's
weather satellite procurement request for the last several
years.
What distinct actions has NOAA taken to address the
potential gap and what is your best estimate on the length of
the gap that might occur and what could we do, if anything, to
move up the launch of the JPSS-1?
Ms. Sullivan. Thanks for that question.
We have done a number of things. One is, really along with
our partners at NASA, we looked carefully at how we are
managing the current primary satellite, the NPP satellite,
making sure that we are working well within margins, we are not
over-straining systems, doing everything we possibly can within
the operations of that satellite itself to up the likelihood
that it will last to and beyond its design life.
That is all going to be statistics. You can make a guess.
Mr. Fattah can make a guess. Mrs. Herrera Beutler can make a
guess. And a micrometeorite could hit it tomorrow or----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. It could run for a long time. So
we are doing that. We are doing everything we can to extend the
life of NPP.
We scrubbed the JPSS-1 procurement schedule very
assiduously again with our NASA colleagues and our vendors. We
have pulled that to the left as far as it is technically
possible to do. The big constraint there are the long lead
parts and the intricacy of assembling the primary instruments
that make the key vertical profiles of the atmosphere. There is
just only so much that our vendors tell us they can compress
that given the realities of their supply chains.
Thirdly, you will recall we mounted an array of activities
with, in particular, the Sandy supplemental funds aimed at
inoculating ourselves in every other way we could against a
loss of data. So factors that feed into that are improvements
in our operational super-computing capacity at the Weather
Service, improvements in what is called data assimilation, the
mathematics by which you pull the data into the system. That
actually can play a significant role in the skill, the final
result of a model.
We have been doing some assessments of whether short-fill
temporary data sources, how might they make up for a loss of
JPSS satellite from purchasing more aircraft data. We buy data
from commercial suppliers of measurements from airplanes, for
example.
The key contributor there is the COSMIC radio occultation
system. There is a COSMIC version 1 in orbit now but well past
its design life and our focus on securing all 12 of the COSMIC-
2 sensors goes very directly to the notion that they can play a
significant role should we lose Polar satellite data.
Mr. Culberson. What is your best estimate today of the
potential gap and when is your best estimate on when you can
launch and what, if anything, can we do to help speed that up?
Ms. Sullivan. JPSS-1 has been meeting every budget and
schedule target consistently for the last 24 months. The
program has retired those management risks that were a problem
in the 2009, 2010, 2011 time frame. Our GAO colleagues concur
in that assessment. It is now a stable and well-managed
program. It is on track to launch in the very beginning of
calendar 2017.
I would have to pick a random number, Mr. Culberson. You
would have to decide what probability of a failure do you want
me to calculate the number on. And you can get a range from 12
to 14----
Mr. Culberson. Your best personal estimate.
Ms. Sullivan. Depending how you cull the statistics, you
could say it is a 12 to 14 or 18 month. And there are more
cautious or worried people who would say, oh, it could be 36 or
48 months. It entirely depends on what----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Probability. If you want to tell
me I want a 90 percent probability or 80 or 40 or a 30, that
gap length will vary significantly. So it is a pretty random
exercise to try to pick a gap length.
Mr. Culberson. It sounds like from your answer there is not
much we could do to speed that up. The supply chain, your
vendors tell you there is only so much they can do. Not much
then this subcommittee could to do to help you speed up or make
that launch date any earlier than early 2017?
Ms. Sullivan. We have turned over every rock and we have
asked them point blank if we could provide an additional slug
of money, can we change this. And they tell us they cannot.
They do not have the wherewithal to stand up----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Separate parallel lines. The
important thing to do in our view is to move out with this
budget and establish the Polar follow-on program because it is
that. It is breaking out of this one-at-a-time procurement
cycle and moving towards a more economically effective multiple
satellite purchase that will prevent us from kicking this gap
further down the road and having the same problem at JPSS-2 and
ever thereafter.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I think it was Dr. Harris, Bernard Harris who
wrote the book Dream Walker, and it talks about walking in
space. And he said that when you are out there and you are
facing earth, it is warmer. And when you are facing away, it is
colder.
I hope you know it is warm in here. When you are here, we
want to help you do what you want to do and what you need to do
on behalf of the country.
And the work of NOAA, this satellite gap that the chairman
raised, as we know, because the committee looked at this early
on, this was set in place well before your tenure, well before
this Administration came into being. But it is a problem that
we have to help solve.
And as you say that the best-case scenario is for the life
of the existing satellite to move as well as it can within the
probabilities of some type of failure, catastrophic or
otherwise, until the new satellite can launch, but in terms of
going forward in terms of not being--I guess there are two
sides of this.
One is the satellite repair, you know, the need for
funding, and we funded this in NASA, some effort to start to
look at how we can extend lives of existing satellites, because
we got a lot of satellites floating around out there.
But also your point is correctly taken which is that one of
the things the committee can do even as we look at this in the
rearview mirror, this gap that none of us had anything to do
with, is to make sure that we do not repeat the same mistake
and that we forward fund and take the necessary steps to make
sure that--because these satellites are critical to our
weather.
And as I understand when we talk about severe weather
events, these billion dollar plus events, our ability to
project where these incidents are going to take place has
improved dramatically and, therefore, our warning systems in
terms of moving people, we have saved lives and also because we
know more about what is going to happen, we are in just a much
better position. So it is a worthwhile investment.
And I know that the committee did some work in terms of
tsunami warning systems and maybe you could talk to us about
where we are with the investments that we have made there and
whether there is any additional work we need to do in that
trade space.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
We have made great strides forward in weather forecast
capability. Earlier this year, we were able to step up the
operational super-computing capacity times three and sharpen
the resolution of our models from 13 kilometers to three
kilometers.
You know, if you are Craig Fugate or a county emergency
manager, that boils down to now being able to give you a
projection of where the key severe weather and storms are going
to be that is down to the street and block level, not to just
the city level. Tremendous step forward.
On tsunamis, what we have been able to do most recently----
Mr. Fattah. I would love the chairman to hear this.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am sorry. That is me.
Mr. Fattah. It is okay.
It is important that you just make sure you get this so the
chairman can hear.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you.
I had commented we have stepped our operational super-
computing capacity----
Mr. Culberson. Up three times.
Ms. Sullivan. Up three times and that is what our model
was, resolution, get down to storm scale, so we are pinpointing
a storm in a neighborhood, not roughly a storm somewhere over
your city. That is a tremendous improvement for emergency
management folks.
Mr. Culberson. And the resolution has probably gotten
better, too, because you are able to use----
Ms. Sullivan. From 13 kilometers to three kilometers, but
that is about the computer power that lets us put a finer grid
cell into the model. That has been a huge step forward.
That model when we ran it in parallel with the derecho a
couple of years ago, we had a ten-hour warning on the derecho
which is what led us to get the emergency management----
Mr. Culberson. How do you pronounce it?
Ms. Sullivan. Derecho.
Mr. Culberson. Interesting. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. Mrs. Herrera Beutler will correct my
pronunciation if I am off.
Mr. Culberson. Well, as a linguist, you know, I figured----
Ms. Sullivan. Well, yeah.
Mr. Culberson. You got it right.
Ms. Sullivan. With respect to tsunami warnings, one of our
key concerns there had been the buoy. We have buoys on the deep
sea floor of the Pacific and Indian and Atlantic oceans that
measure the tsunami when the tsunami is about a half an inch
high in the middle of the ocean. This sensor on the sea floor
15,000 feet below can detect it and help us triangulate where
it is going and how it is going to develop.
And they are far away out in the middle of the ocean and
they are in deep water. It takes very specially equipped ships
to be able to service them. And their in-service rate had
fallen off because of declines in ship time due largely to the
fuel price increases. We have been able to get that tsunami
buoy network back up to its 80 percent operational target, so--
--
Mr. Culberson. On the west coast?
Ms. Sullivan. Throughout the entire system.
Mr. Culberson. Eighty percent?
Ms. Sullivan. Yeah, 80 percent. So, you know, that has been
a real success. And we have both our Anchorage and our Hawaii
forecast centers that model the whole globe. You have to model
the whole globe to do tsunami forecasting, the entire global
ocean. That can be done anywhere. We do it in Anchorage and we
do it in Hawaii.
The Hawaii center is linked to the International Tsunami
Warning Center so that our international partners like the
Indonesians or the Indians, the Malaysians collaborate and they
take the warnings and propagate them through their emergency
system to protect their citizens.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize. I am going to bore you with Snapper.
Dr. Sullivan, thank you.
Mr. Culberson. We are interested in Snapper in Texas as
well.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you for being here.
I am going to be very honest. I need your help, your
leadership on the Snapper issue. The past several years have
been incredibly controversial and it is going to get so much
more controversial tomorrow with the publication of the new
rule.
I understand that balancing the fish stock, balancing the
accountability of commercial for hire and recreational. Some
Members choose to go all in with one sector. I do not. The
first thing I did when I got elected was I put together a
council in my district which includes NMFS, NOAA, and other
agencies, as you know, of all three sectors to try to figure
out where the sectors could actually agree we needed
improvement.
And the one area hands down every single sector agrees on
is data. Nobody believes the data. Nobody believes the data.
Magnuson requires the use of best science in determination
closures. We have seen Snapper go from 75 days to nine days and
I am pretty sure after tomorrow's rule publication will go to
six days, but nobody believes the data behind the rules.
And so as these rules are published and create such
controversy, it is the underlying data behind that that if we
can improve the data collection and we can meet the
requirements of Magnuson, if you can then justify those
closures and the stakeholders believe the data, okay, that is
fine. But there is such suspicion about the data that it
creates the controversy behind the rules.
And so my question for you is on your view of how we are
achieving best science, how are you achieving best science
ahead of any rule decisions determining closures to comply with
Magnuson?
Mr. Culberson. And could you talk about the rule itself
that they are going to publish tomorrow?
Mr. Jolly. So tomorrow's rule, well, perhaps if you want to
explain the rule, it essentially is going to reduce, you are
going to create a buffer zone to reduce the quota number or
data number on what you allow for days by 20 percent to ensure
there is no overage. So essentially you are taking what had
been a hundred percent pool and reducing it to 80 to determine
closures which is part of the concern of recreational.
Mr. Culberson. And based on what data which is a really
important question also when it comes to----
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Weather data for global
warming.
Mr. Jolly. And I will also share, and it is an
acknowledgment of the challenge you face, it is easy to get
compliance and accountability from commercial because of the
way it is regulated. It is slightly easier with for-hire,
recreational it is very difficult to determine their
accountability. The challenge it creates, though, is in musical
chairs when the music stops, recreational are the last people
standing and they have no ability for redress.
So how are you complying with Magnuson's requirement of
best science?
Ms. Sullivan. It is a complex issue and a complex question,
but as you note, it is a very important one and a very
challenging one in particular in the Gulf. Just as a backdrop,
although it is counterintuitive, part of what we are dealing
with here is a cognitive dissonance that comes from the success
that actually has been achieved in the Gulf in actually
rebuilding the stock. There are more snapper and they are
larger and they are being seen now in places where they have
not been seen for decades. And all of that is thanks to the
discipline and the self-sacrifice of constituents, including
the recreational fisher----
Mr. Jolly. If I may, though, that creates a circular
argument. And I have had this conversation, because if you
declare the success of the past management plan because now we
have more snapper than ever, why are the days going down?
Ms. Sullivan. Well, yes. So there is where the apparent
inconsistency comes in. And the catch limits for snapper are
set on weight and so, when you get bigger fish, fewer fish
total up to that weight sooner. And that has had this sort of
ironic and counterintuitive consequence of shortening the
number of days, because the weight quota is met faster with the
bigger fish. I completely sympathize with the sort of clash
that creates for your folks down in the Gulf.
Mr. Culberson. And in Texas. I am keenly interested in this
question. So do not be constrained, Mr. Jolly, by that----
Mr. Jolly. I have got a solution for you----
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Jolly. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. I know it goes all across around the Gulf
states.
Mr. Culberson. And you are going to hear about salmon from
the West Coast.
Ms. Sullivan. I suspected that might be the case.
With respect to data, and our Southeast region is actually
a good example of this, we have completely open data calls.
Anybody, any party can bring data, and it is everyone
adjudicates and debates which data meet the quality standards
that the council has agreed must be met for anybody's data to
be accepted. If one of my guys brings a study in that does not
meet those standards, it does not get included in the data that
will go into the assessment.
So we do use outside data, we rely on it quite a lot.
Mr. Jolly. Well, you make the call for data, but I can tell
you those who try to participate feel as though they really do
not have a seat at the table, that it is not considered.
Mr. Culberson. Is the whole process transparent and is the
data out there for independent verification?
Ms. Sullivan. It is, yes.
Mr. Jolly. So let me ask you a question and I realize the
time is up.
Mr. Culberson. This is important.
Mr. Jolly. Let me ask you your opinion on a model that has
come out of my council. And understand, the council includes
all sectors. We have had representatives from your agency, from
NMFS, from state regulators sit at the table as well with us to
brainstorm on things. Staying out of the controversy of days
and catch shares, if the issue is data, that everybody agrees
on, everybody is suspicious of, they feel like they do not have
a seat at the table, they can submit proposals, they get
rejected, how about this model.
The agency currently has cooperative research institutes.
What if under the jurisdiction of NMFS, so within the
jurisdiction and control of your agency, there was a
cooperative research institute that existed with personnel, as
well as funding to let out competitively awarded, peer-reviewed
research contracts? So that rather than making the decision
when the data is presented, you are actually making the
decision on proposals submitted by third-party data collectors.
It could be major research universities, it could be commercial
fishermen who have a GPS, iPhone data system that works, it
could be recreational. One, it would bring them to the table.
It would be their opportunity to participate and, if they chose
not to, well, then shame on them.
But to have a cooperative research institute under Mr.
Crabtree's jurisdiction to let out competitive contracts to
research universities, recreational angler groups, commercial,
and others that met peer-reviewed processes, let out the
contracts. That information then is owned by NMFS and we know
has to then be incorporated, because they have approved the
manner in which it is being collected. Would that be a way to
satisfy the----
Ms. Sullivan. We do fund, we do fund. And I know Mr.
Crabtree, I can get the statistics for you and give you a more
detailed briefing. That is the purpose of NMFS's cooperative
research. We do not have to establish and pay the overhead of
having an institute per se, because the cooperative research
budget lines that we have within NMFS are intended to do
exactly that. I would be happy to get the detailed data on how
much cooperative research is being done associated with snapper
across the Gulf.
Whoever does that cooperative research and whoever collects
those data on the back end, the data have to pass a peer review
to be accepted. So, I mean, my guys could go out and do a bad
job on a cruise too. We do not want their data going in----
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Un-quality checked.
Mr. Culberson. So you like Mr. Jolly's proposal?
Ms. Sullivan. I would prefer to not put extra overhead
expenses in this setting up an institute per se with all the
administrivia that might come along with that.
Mr. Culberson. But you like his idea?
Ms. Sullivan. But I would like to bring back the data on
what cooperative research is actually currently being done with
respect to snapper in the Gulf. I do not know those figures, I
do not know the dollar values or the participants.
Mr. Jolly. And being incorporated into the closure
decisions.
Ms. Sullivan. It is certainly worth looking at.
Mr. Jolly. Because----
Ms. Sullivan. That is exactly the----
Mr. Jolly. Because here is the other thing I think we would
accomplish with that. We would eliminate the suspicion by the
sector participants, particularly recreational, who believe
today--and I know you know this, but I live it--they do not
believe that they have a seat at the table. They believe they
see more fish than they have ever seen before, and they see a
constant reduction annually of the days they are allowed to
fish and it does not make sense. And the more people I hear
from the agency who say our plan is working, again, then I ask
the question, are you declaring success? Because if you are
declaring success, then tomorrow's rule is not necessary.
And so there are more fish than ever and yet our
recreational guys--and listen, this means something in
communities on quality of life of course, but it also means
things for our economy. This is a very fragile economic model
and it is destructive to the quality of life to coastal
communities.
And so I started by saying I need your help and I mean that
to set a tone that I am not beating up on the agency, but I am
telling you what is being implemented right now is broken. And
I have tried to find a solution that is--we have gotten to this
cooperative research institute idea. And I will be honest, I
appreciate that you have said there is cooperative research
going on. From this committee's perspective and from compliance
with Magnuson, unless you can demonstrate the teeth behind that
and our ability to provide accountability and oversight of the
third-party data that is including everybody, I still would
want to push for something that establishes a cooperative
research institute that we know is accountable.
So, Dr. Sullivan, I appreciate very much your willingness
to engage in this conversation.
Ms. Sullivan. Very much willing to follow up with you, Mr.
Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And I would like to offer, maybe we can sit
down together and have a follow-up meeting on this, because it
is a keen interest to me as well and in Texas. And Washington
State and the west coast have got similar concerns that are
maybe not identical, but they have also got some real serious
concerns about fisheries, because it is so important to their
economy as well. So I will indulge you guys next.
Mr. Fattah. Well, there are a few fishermen and women in
the New England area too. I know there is a lot of interest in
these catch share things.
Mr. Culberson. Right, that is right.
Mr. Fattah. So we would be glad to participate.
Mr. Culberson. In fact, water quality has improved so much
around the Gulf Coast. We are seeing porpoises and improvements
in stocks in areas, like you said, we have not seen them
before.
Data collection is so vital, to make sure the data is
accurate. I cannot find in your submitted statement, I heard
you say that this is the warmest year on record. Where is that
and what are you referring to?
Ms. Sullivan. Those are the global atmospheric
temperatures.
Mr. Culberson. Is that in your summary--I cannot figure out
where it is--is that something that you added?
Ms. Sullivan. I would have to page through my written
testimony, that was in my oral statements.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. The data has to be accurate. I mean,
that is the most important thing. As long as we have got good
data, that is something we can all work with. And I think that
is one of the biggest concerns, whether it be with the climate
or with fisheries or with anything else that we do. Whether it
comes to the National Science Foundation, NASA, or NOAA, we
just need good data to make good decisions. We have got to be
certain the data is accurate.
So I concur completely. And we ran a little over, but that
is okay. And when it comes to salmon and the west coast, you
guys can do the same thing. So Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Fattah. Well, the issue there is whether you are going
with the natural hatcheries or--and you have got a lot going on
up there in Washington State.
Mr. Culberson. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr.
Sullivan.
I do want to talk about salmon, but I want to start on
coastal resiliency issues. I represent a district with a whole
ton of coastline and, as a consequence, we are challenged by
everything from storms to tsunamis to you name it. And in fact
I have got three tribes in our district that are in the process
of trying to move to higher ground because of persistent
challenges.
In fiscal year 2015, NOAA received an additional $5 million
to expand its regional coastal resilience grants programs. And
I just want to get a sense of, one, do you have a sense of when
the details of that funding opportunity are going to be made
public? And to what extent will the state coastal zone
management programs be engaged as part of that effort?
And then in addition, it seems like a lot of the funding is
primarily targeted at capacity building and planning. Are we
doing enough to actually provide resources on the ground to
these communities, you know, that currently lack the capacity
to actually address if there is going to be a massive storm or
a tsunami or whatnot?
And then I will just also throw in while I am asking you
questions, how do you see that work being done through this
proposal complementing the existing resiliency work being done
by the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Sea Grant
Programs?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for those questions.
Mr. Kilmer. You bet.
Ms. Sullivan. I do not have the exact date at my fingertips
of when we will have that FFO out. I know it is in final
stages, so I do expect it very shortly. And the regional ocean
partnerships, the coastal zone programs, all I think could be
competitive under the terms that I think will be the final
terms of it. But it is soon and we will be happy to get back to
you when we have got the exact date on that.
Your next question was about the capacity and, you know, I
have really seen that vividly as I have traveled around. I was
in Hoboken on the second anniversary of Sandy, talking with the
mayor there about what are they doing, how are they trying to
get up on the curve of the kind of challenges they have there
where they can get flooded from every side and up through the
ground.
I have been down in New Orleans and met with that city's
mayor and resilience manager. And just a couple weeks ago
stopped by New York to talk with both the Bloomberg and the
Rockefeller foundations that are also trying to move some of
their financial capacity and expertise out to do just what you
say. To help communities build the capacity within their
municipal governments to do smarter planning, to be more aware
of the vulnerabilities they have, to have the kind of
information tools, which again start with data and start with
sound maps.
And key to those maps along the coastal zones are of course
the coastal bathymetry, a solid and accurate bathymetry, water
level data, the kind of data that NOAA provides from our
coastal intelligence arena.
The scale of the need is huge and I cannot begin to say
that we are doing enough yet to really meet what we hear and
see from communities as demand within NOAA. Our budget request
this year has a couple of asks in it that reflect that. A
couple million dollars to provide an AmeriCorps kind of service
capacity out in the field to get out to those communities and
help them begin to start up their own efforts. An expansion of
the regional coastal resilience grants from five, which was
barely enough to begin taking the lessons learned and practices
from the Sandy area out beyond New York, New Jersey, to 45. And
uses we would intend with these funds are right on the points
that we heard loud and clear from the state and local and
tribal leaders who came together in the President's task force
in the wake of Sandy.
The whole Federal family wanted to be sure that we were not
talking to ourselves about what the needs are and what the real
gaps in their capability are, but we actually heard from them
about what do you most need from the Federal Government to help
you. And when it comes to NOAA, what they most need are the
kind of environmental intelligence data that we provide that
have very simple first-order tools that are sort of their
starting set tools, and that bit of technical support that lets
them begin to develop the fluency and the competency they need
to take those tools and go forward and plan and work within
their community.
Mr. Kilmer. I want to make sure to ask about some of the
salmon recovery efforts and I know Ms. Herrera Beutler will
also be chiming in on this.
I wanted to raise two concerns, one about the $3 million
cut to the salmon management activities account and the
targeted Mitchell Act hatcheries in particular. I think if you
talk to folks on the ground in our neck of the woods they would
disagree with the assessment that that level of funding would
enable to meet NOAA's obligation. And I do not understand and
perhaps you can speak to it, how do we actually improve our
hatcheries and ensure species recovery when we are moving
backwards in terms of funding?
And then in addition, when Secretary Pritzker spoke in
front of the committee, I asked her about the ongoing
challenges facing our hatcheries, which need approved Hatchery
Genetic Management Plans, HGMPs, to ensure compliance under the
Endangered Species Act. And she said that they were increasing
staff from two to six. And I certainly appreciate that, but we
have got a backlog of a hundred HGMPs that have been submitted
for review and approval. We have already seen some hatcheries
that are operating without sufficient HGMPs be subject to
litigation and even get shut down. And that affects our tribes
and it affects the recovery efforts and it affects our
fisheries.
So how long does it take to review and approve one
individual HGMP and is there any estimate to how long it is
going to take with six staff to complete this backlog?
Ms. Sullivan. We do really appreciate this question and we
very much understand your concerns about the Mitchell Act
hatcheries. They are a mainstay of salmon and tribal treaty
rights in the Columbia River, and we appreciate the points you
are making about the economy. We have requested level funding
for these hatcheries for many years and we do believe that that
level of funding meets our basic obligations.
We appreciate the data on the ground. Folks see more need
and more interest. But I assure you we are committed to working
closely with your partners on the ground, but the level that we
request we are confident does satisfy our basic obligations.
With respect to the genetic plans, we are going to increase
our staff and redirect resources to go from two to six. My
understanding is that that should let us clear 40 genetic
plans, so we could get through that backlog within a couple of
years. But it is part of a larger picture. If you look at our
endangered species consultation, our genetic management plan
consultations, our essential fish habitat consultations, the
fact of the matter is that our staff levels are very woefully
shy of what it would take to really move any of those forward
in a timely fashion.
On our Southeast region, for example, we have a total of 15
staff that are facing a backlog of 550 permanent actions on
which we are responsible for endangered species and fish
habitat consultation. That is a tremendous strain and a morale
drain on my team, which I care about. But more importantly,
that makes those permits an impediment to viable and valid
economic activity in that region.
And so that is why you will see in this budget request a
request for increased consultative capacity, because we are
trying to get ourselves out of precisely these backlog holes
that you are referring to.
Mr. Kilmer. It is a really big deal.
Ms. Sullivan. It is a big deal.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I recognize the young lady from Washington
State.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. You know, I was going to start with
sea lions, but I will kind of piggyback off of the Mitchell
Act, because I have asked about HGMPs as well. And you talked
about level funding, but NOAA requests a decrease of $3 million
in the salmon management activities account and those
reductions target Mitchell Act hatcheries. So that is not level
funding, that is a reduction. And even under level funding, we
know that the number of fish released is decreasing as costs
escalate. Moreover, the funding is needed to ensure these
hatcheries are maintained.
Just this last week, an estimated 200,000 coho salmon fry
died in my district at the Kalama Falls Hatchery in Cowlitz
County after a generator pump failed. And I am not sure of the
age of the pump, but it is very reflective of deferred
maintenance action and aging infrastructure on our Mitchell Act
facilities due to funding shortfalls. So 200,000 coho fry is a
big deal.
And despite all this, you know, I have asked this question,
I think the gentleman from Washington has also asked this
question. NOAA states in their budget document they are able to
meet their obligation for operation and maintenance, and that
their obligation will be fulfilled with regard to hatcheries. I
am really hoping this is not the beginning, but the reason we
raise it is we are very, very concerned. I would expect you to
ask for an increase if that is the biggest issue, but instead
you are asking for a decrease.
Ms. Sullivan. Well, I think if you look at the President's
budget request over the years those, my understanding is, have
been level at the level we are asking for this year. I think
the Congress has supplemented that from year to year. But I
would be happy to go back and look at that figure and look at
the trends and get you the detailed information.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, we have put obviously
more money into some of the salmon recovery activities. Even
before I was on the subcommittee, just on the full committee,
we worked really hard with the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
Fund and were able to restore funding there. But we need it to
be your priority as well, I guess.
Switching over, I wanted to show--this is what I got the
Chairman in trouble for--I was trying to show him something
that I would love to show everyone. We can pass it around,
there is only a couple of us, but I wanted to make sure you saw
it.
Those are sea lions and seals. That is the mouth of the
Columbia River on February 15th. This goes to my ports up and
down the Columbia. Between just the mouth and the Port of
Portland, so that obviously does not go all the way inland,
there are an estimated 7,000 sea lions and seals, and they are
gorging on our salmon that we spend a lot of money, time and
heartache trying to protect because it is important to us. Any
kind of dock they will sit on.
A couple years ago there was about six or seven of them
that had died and it was when--and I am going to lead into
this--the immediate assumption in the paper was that someone
had like, you know, passionate tribesmen or recreational
fishers had killed them. What later we found out was they
engorged themselves and they died.
Mr. Culberson. Overate.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah, on salmon. I do not know if you
have ever fished in the Columbia River, but it is really
discouraging to commercial, recreational fishers when you get
one on the line and only the head comes up. Or you see
prehistoric sturgeon lying along the banks with one bite taken
out of the middle.
I mean, it is a real problem, which is why I introduced the
Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act. And
it allows for an increased take, lethal removal of some of
these animals. At most, it would be 92 a year. You are looking
at about 7,000. So we are not in any way going to harm the
population.
But I guess I wanted to know if NOAA has a prediction on
how big these populations have grown? Have you determined the
size of the population on the Columbia River system and what it
could support? And is there an adequate sea lion population
size?
Ms. Sullivan. I do not have those detailed figures at my
fingertips, Mrs. Herrera Beutler. The broad trend is clear and
your images show it very graphically of a tremendous recovery
over the past three decades. I would be happy to go double
check with our NMFS folks and get a briefing brought up to you,
bring it myself, if you would like, on exactly what the
population numbers are and if they have got an equilibrium
population estimate based on what we see happening with the
ocean conditions off the northwest coast.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I would be happy to have that. What I
am most interested in, so part of the reason we had to
introduce this bill, is right now the agencies do have the
authority to lethally remove some of these animals and we do
not feel like it is happening quickly enough. The tribes agree,
the commercial and recreational fishers agree, the community
agrees, and even a lot of conservationists agree that we are
losing an endangered population because of what seems like an
in-historic or un-historic population of sea lions, that we
need your help.
Mr. Culberson. So in people's memory, they have never seen
this many sea lions before.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. No. And we used to get amazing salmon
runs. Our efforts, our recovery efforts are working. We are
seeing record runs of all different types. That is why we want
to continue the hatchery programs, it is all working. The spill
we do over the dams, the mitigation, it is working. But now we
have attracted these animals from California and they just sit
there and gorge. It is a real problem.
Mr. Culberson. Why are they washing up on beaches in
California starving to death?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I don't know. They are talking
to each other, apparently, and they are saying, hey, the
Pacific Northwest is an entree for endangered salmon, come have
your fill. Yeah.
So with that, I do look forward to your help on this. This
is something that is not going to go away.
Ms. Sullivan. I am glad to do that.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today.
As you know, all regions of our country, from blizzards in
the Midwest to earthquakes on the west coast and hurricanes in
the southern and eastern United States, our country has to be
mindful and prepared for when weather-related disasters do
unfortunately occur. And without forecasts and models and up-
to-date predictions on the timing and strength of these natural
disasters, Americans would be completely caught off guard. So I
want to thank you for all you do for our nation's citizens, for
the safety and infrastructure and natural landscapes.
Hurricanes and all that are packed along with them, high
winds, possible flooding, the usual spinoff, tornadoes are one
of the most severe weather-related disasters that my
constituents in Alabama's Second Congressional District have to
be mindful of during the summer and fall months. So if you can
share with me the results and major findings of the first
successful launch of the unmanned aircraft system directly into
the eye of the hurricane last year, if you could talk about
that a little bit.
And then my follow-up question to that is, do you feel that
this should be repeated? And, if so, does the budget--do you
request money to do so in this year's budget?
So if you could just talk about that a little bit and how
it has had a positive impact.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question, Mrs. Roby.
Data from actual measurements of the conditions inside a
hurricane are very critical to the accuracy of track
forecasting. And on a research front, as you know very well, we
have had much better success scientifically improving track
forecasts over the last couple decades. The error cones are
much narrower now than they were 20 years ago.
Getting the intensity right and getting shifts in
intensity, jumps in intensity, has been a much more challenging
problem. The science has not cracked that nut yet. Data
measurements inside active storms are key to both of those.
That is why we operate the two P-3 aircraft that we do that
have tail Doppler radar and other instruments that can fly at
various levels right through the heart of the storm at
different points in time to characterize it.
The experiment we did with the--I have just lost the name
of the little vehicle--anyway, the small unmanned aircraft that
we deployed out of a sonobuoy tube. Its wings pop out and it
navigated itself down through the storm. So a sonobuoy we
dropped out before just plummets, basically, right straight
down through. What we were interested in with this device is it
has some capability to navigate and actually fly around, not
just fall straight through, and how might that help us better
characterize the lower couple of thousand feet of the storm.
Our P-3s do not fly below, I think it is 3,000 feet, it
might be 4, but for obvious safety reasons there is an altitude
they stay at or above. And the lowest level of the storm, where
you have got all the friction with the ocean and the picking up
of the moisture, the transfer of energy from the ocean to the
hurricane, that is clearly a pretty critical part of the storm
and it is impossible to sample it.
We have done two experiments in the last couple years. One
is we took a self-propelled ocean glider, which we are also
experimenting with, the kind of unmanned systems we are doing
small-scale pilots with to see how they might help improve our
mission. And two seasons ago we had one of them move in sort of
a picket line underneath a storm, so we could get some
measurements as the storm went over it. They move really slow,
you have got to put them out or put enough of them out that the
storm goes over some of them. So that is a bit of a logistics
challenge. In this case, dropping this little device through
and letting it fly around a bit, it survived down to the sea
surface, it did get us some very low-level winds.
And that is the snapshot summary that I have. I would be
happy to get our research teams to come up and give you some
more information on that, if you would like.
First experiments can be intriguing. We of course need to
do a couple more runs and then we could really understand how
many of these would it take to make a meaningful data
contribution. What do the prices and the operations really come
up to all in cost? Does it prove to be cost efficient or not?
So I would say right now both the ocean glider and the small
UAV are in the tantalizing--not even yet in the promising
stage, but in the tantalizing stage. And we will continue to
work on a pilot scale through the next hurricane season or so.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. And just real quick, I see the yellow
light. Shifting gears to tornadoes, which also is something
that we deal with quite frequently in Alabama every year and
have unfortunately had some pretty devastating tornadoes in
recent history that we have lost a lot of life. So it is a big
deal. And in the last year's appropriation bill you were
provided with funding to collaborate with the National Science
Foundation and it said, quote, `` to initiate a project to
understand how environmental factors that are characteristic of
the southeastern United States affect the formation, intensity
and storm path of tornadoes in the region.''
In this year's budget request, my understanding is that you
have asked to terminate this and it is Vortex Southeast
Project. And I can take it for the record, but I just want to
know more specifics about did that project ever really begin
and why are you terminating it, and what assurances can you
provide this committee that you guys are going to continue to
really study tornadoes in the southeast part of our country.
Ms. Sullivan. Let me commit to come back up and give you a
full briefing on that and the whole array of things that we are
doing centered on tornado forecasting. I assure you, it remains
a front-and-center focus of ours given the hazards and the loss
of life that you have reflected.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I went over. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. You only went over a little bit, thank you,
that is fine. I want to ask a little bit about the Polar
Satellite Follow-On because you have requested $380 million in
new funding for this. And the out year budgets for this program
are substantial, growing to nearly $600 million in two years.
If you could describe for us what the funding would buy in
terms of risk reduction, robustness for the Joint Polar
Satellite System, and then the, earlier you mentioned
efficiencies, I believe, in acquiring systems simultaneously.
Talk to us a little bit more about that, if you could?
Ms. Sullivan. Certainly. As you may recall we had an
independent review team come by about a year and a half ago
now, Tom Young and Tom Warman, real established experts in
large satellite procurement, and do a very rigorous assessment
of the Joint Polar Satellite System. They had been tracking it
as it came out of the NPOESS era and they wire brushed us
really properly, but also thoroughly, over the fact that we
were buying these systems in about as dumb a way as you
possibly could. You would buy one, you would do all the design
and engineering, you would get all the supply chain spun up,
produce one, and say thank you very much and let that all decay
back. And then a few years later you go, oh, I meant I needed
another one. And you would incur all of those expenses again.
And it is exactly the wrong way to buy any large complex
system, but certainly satellites.
They also worked with us to better understand how we needed
to wrap our head around not just the gap, but the robustness
that is what gets you out of having a gap.
Mr. Culberson. So NOAA is actually designing and building
the spacecraft, overseeing the design and construction of the
spacecraft?
Ms. Sullivan. NOAA holds the observing requirements and the
budget authority for the spacecraft and we work hand in glove
with NASA to actually do the development and execution of the
design. There is no need to duplicate the satellite acquisition
expertise that NASA has. So we rely on them as the acquisition
agent.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. So NASA is actually the lead on this?
Ms. Sullivan. NOAA is the lead; NASA is our acquisition
partner.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. So the Polar Follow-On, we looked at the
JPSS-1 and -2 program, which is the current program of record
as established. We looked at the timing that we had managed to
set for that based on our gap mitigation efforts and scrubbing
that all to the left. And then we looked at the existing
spacecraft, the structure that you are going to bolt the
instruments onto, and the instrument contracts and said how
much, how quickly could we get to robustness? Robustness means
the satellite system we depend upon for our weather forecasts
can tolerate one failure and still support weather forecasting
and you could restore its capacity within about a year. That is
the typical space architecture definition of robustness. And
your greatest risk of losing that is when you are launching a
satellite because that is the highest risk moment in the life
of a satellite. So a robust architecture has the next satellite
in sequence ready right close to a launch date----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. To cover that big risk. You do
not actually launch it right then, you launch it when you are
getting towards the outer edge of the age. But you separate
your production cadence from your launch cadence. And the PFO
program is the best path we could craft to move to that kind of
an approach. Number one, it establishes congressional
authorization for satellites beyond the JPSS-2 satellite. And
if you look at the lead time it takes to build our instruments,
if we do not start right about now on those next two spacecraft
we will be repeating the prospect of a big gap----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. As we are looking at now.
Mr. Culberson. I want to dive into this more with you in
separate meetings----
Ms. Sullivan. Okay.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Because I understand you are
working hand in glove with NASA but I want to understand more
about how that process works. Because it seems to me logically
you ought to just let NASA build the spacecraft for you and
NOAA obviously be the customer and provide funding. But NASA--
--
Ms. Sullivan. And that----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Does a pretty good, NASA does a
pretty good job.
Ms. Sullivan. They do a very good job. In this particular
mission, Mr. Chairman, where there is such tight integration
from the satellite specifics to the actual model input and the
model architecture, that vertical alignment of responsibility
and the ability to look end to end, from engineering decisions
you might make on the satellite to implications for a very
large and complex national modeling architecture on which the
weather forecast accuracy critically depends, that, that end to
end mission alignment in this case makes very, very good sense.
Mr. Culberson. What is the Earth Observing Nanosatellite-
Microwave instrument, and is that critical to weather
forecasting? It, is obviously brand new, does that introduce
any unnecessary risk? And what process did you go through to
determine it was an appropriate investment?
Ms. Sullivan. That EON-Microwave plays a couple of roles.
It opens a pathway at fairly low expense towards what could be
a smaller, lighter, less expensive microwave sounder. The two
instruments that the weather forecast system depends on
critically, both are called sounders. They make profiles of
temperature and moisture in the atmosphere, they just work in
different portions of the spectrum. The microwave one is the
all weather workhorse. So this conceivably could take the
microwave sounder of today and make it much smaller and more
complex. It comes out of Lincoln Laboratories and our systems
engineering folks consulting with NASA and other partners as we
were scouting the horizon for what might be new architectures
we should be thinking of for down the road, noted that,
evaluated it highly. So it gets us two things. If it proves
out, it could be an avenue towards less expensive, good,
competent microwave sounders. And secondly, it is on a time
path with Lincoln Labs that it could also play a significant
role as a gap mitigating effort in its own right. We are
talking with NASA about co-investing in that because it is an
interesting observing technology from their point of view as
well.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. To go closer to your own work, in part, earlier
in your career, one of the budget items is something around
$150 million for a new vessel. Can you talk to us about the
import of this and what it would be used for?
Ms. Sullivan. It is a very high priority for us this year.
NOAA currently has a fleet of 16 ships. In oceanographic ships
you can easily think of them as basically small, medium, and
large based on how close to shore and how long offshore their
mission requires them to stay. So if you are going out in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean to work on those tsunami buoys, you
need a fairly large vessel with a big deck and heavy winches,
and the ability to stay out at sea a long time. If you are
doing coastal nearshore fisheries work, you can work with a
much smaller vessel. We spent a good amount of effort these
last couple of years looking very critically at the age of our
current fleet. Vessels at sea have to be certified to operate
under various maritime rating authorities or they have to be
retired. We have laid up seven, I think it is seven ships since
about 2003. So we are losing ship capacity now.
When we stack up the observations, the scientific observing
requirements that all of our different missions drive, we
already do not have a fleet anywhere near substantial enough to
meet those which is why we rely so much on charter and other
partners. But the important point is as we looked downstream
and said where are we going to be down the road, given the time
it takes to procure a ship? We, half of our current ships will
have aged out and be offline, laid up, or tied up alongside, or
turned into razor blades by 2028. That is not very far down the
road. And the group that is going to age out first is our mid-
to ocean-class vessels because they are the oldest in the line.
So that is what drives the timing of this ask, is to prevent
that erosion of the fleet in the 2028 time frame. This class of
ship is driven and our request is driven by where we are going
to have the gap first.
And the other factor involved here is we propose to use an
existing Navy design. And NAVSEA, the procurement arm for Navy
ships, has a production line for this class of vessel still
open. If we can seize this opportunity now we can save the
taxpayers something on the order of $10 million, actually
probably a higher number because if you delay and have to
refresh the design and rehire the folks and restart the
production line, that number probably goes higher than ten by
the time you are all done. So again, as, you know, as with our
space systems, we are not DARPA, we are not the cutting edge
systems guys. We don't try to be the first movers on big
cutting edge systems. We try to parlay into existing
acquisitions and systems and programs in the interest of cost
efficiency whenever we can.
Mr. Fattah. One other question. The other budget item is a
$3 million increase, this is a partnership in part with Brazil
and the Air Force on a radio oscillation weather satellite.
Ms. Sullivan. COSMIC, radio occultation, in Taiwan.
Mr. Fattah. Yes, COSMIC-2, yes. Yes, I am sorry.
Ms. Sullivan. That is all right. There is an existing U.S.-
Taiwan partnership that has a set of sensors in orbit now
called COSMIC-1. And this is actually a very clever technique
that was developed that observed that as GPS satellites send
all their time signals back and forth to each other, the signal
bends a little bit on its path from satellite to satellite
based on the physical properties of the atmosphere. And you get
some smarter scientists and clever mathematicians together and
they figured out how to extract from that bending angle
information about moisture and temperature in the atmosphere,
essentially a sounding. This sounding method cannot penetrate
all the levels of the atmosphere that our normal sounders do,
it cannot fully replace true vertical soundings. But it does
provide a helpful correction. It has improved the quality of
the forecast by stripping out biases in the other data. It
ranks very highly when you stack up all the different kinds of
data that contribute to the accuracy of weather forecasts. It
is in the, it is in the top, certainly in the top ten.
So we are requesting $3 million to continue with COSMIC-2.
The current system is beyond its design life. It has proven its
value. We would like to replace that system with COSMIC-2 and
continue to retrieve those sounders.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, let me just put on the record
that you provide a lot of services but you do not, unlike some
of our economic competitors we do not charge for these
services, weather services, other information that's provided
to the private sector, companies like AccuWeather, and to
benefit you know all of our T.V. stations and others benefit
from this service that is provided through the National Weather
Service. And you also provide navigation information to, for
navigation of the seas, and so on. Do you, in terms of the work
that you do, there is a lot of benefit to the American, to
American enterprise. If you could just spend a minute just
talking about how NOAA has an impact on our economy? I guess is
the way I would phrase it, generally.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Fattah.
Yes, the model here is one that considers the, let me called it
the foundational data, I mean, vertical profiles of the
atmosphere, fundamental measurements of the ocean bottom, to
treat those foundational data as public goods. And so anybody,
a college student, a kid with a cool idea for an app,
AccuWeather, The Weather Company, anybody can get at those data
without any barrier to entry and capitalize on them as they see
fit. So the data become a tremendously powerful open innovation
platform. You are well aware of the scale of the private sector
weather enterprise, because with this model by design NOAA
stops at the foundational data. We do not try to be the spiffy
guys that read the news, read the weather to you on T.V., or
compete with the private sector for apps and advanced
analytics. So, you know, The Weather Company when it was sold
to GE went for about $4 billion, Climate Corporation, which is
based on public good USDA and NOAA data, when it sold to
Monsanto was sold for $1 billion. Our electronic chart data
when I was at NOAA as the Chief Scientist, we printed the
charts on gigantic printing presses in the basement of the main
Commerce Building. Nowadays we just send the data raw from the
ship, quality control, and then out to third party companies
that do the, they package it into an electronic chart display,
if you are going out to sea. They, all of your Garmin systems,
if you are using offshore nav, they are using the NOAA data or
they will publish you the chart book if you prefer to have the
hard copy or want to have the backup. So the notion of, the
notion of foundational data about the planet as public goods,
that make sure that public safety never becomes a fee for
service proposition but is always a fundamental assurance of
government, and that serve as this really vibrant, open-ended--
--
Mr. Fattah. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing that we
change it. I just wanted to make sure that we make the point,
that it is different from, say, you know, Germany, or other
countries, where this information is sold.
Ms. Sullivan. Or where the government service takes roles
that the private sector here takes.
Mr. Fattah. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Very quick question, Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. No real additional questions, other than I
recalled sitting here an invitation, a letter I sent to you
last year extending an invitation for the research vessel Nancy
Foster to at least temporarily port down at St. Petersburg Bay.
We have a cluster there, a marine science research cluster
there from USF Marine Sciences to NMFS, to Fish and Wildlife,
to the U.S. Coast Guard Stanford Research Institute. It is a
center of excellence in marine and weather science research and
they would welcome with open arms at least a temporary port of
call from the Nancy Foster if you were to find interest or an
ability to do so.
Ms. Sullivan. One of the joys of my life is how popular my
ships are.
Mr. Jolly. I bet. I bet.
Ms. Sullivan. In communities around the shoreline. But I do
know that welcome mat is out, and it is a very, very impressive
cluster of expertise.
Mr. Jolly. Very good. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Why not contract out more of this
work? I am not a big traveler. One of the few trips I have ever
taken has been out to go see Dr. Ballard, on the Nautilus. They
do extraordinary work.
Ms. Sullivan. They do.
Mr. Culberson. And the private sector is, I think the
universities around the country would leap at the chance if
NOAA was a customer and was offering to, I know Texas A&M, for
example, has a wonderful oceanographic research vessel. Why not
contract out more of this work, rather than invest in
purchasing new ships which can be tremendously expensive and
costly to maintain? When, I am just a big believer in the
yellow pages test.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. If you can find a service in the yellow
pages that the government does, we should contract it out as
much as we possibly can to provide better service at a better
price for the taxpayers.
Ms. Sullivan. We currently contract out 50 percent of our
charting, and about 50 percent of our fisheries research. I can
get you the precise figures. And even about a third of our
Tower A Deep Sea, which is the, you know, the oddest one
because there, I have looked at the yellow pages, not a whole
lot of listings for guys that want to go out to 15,000 foot of
water and haul up buoys. So we, those are the roughly current
percentages in those sectors now, and as I am sure you know our
ocean exploration program co-funds Dr. Ballard's vessel. When--
--
Mr. Culberson. With great success, very----
Ms. Sullivan. With great success. And when we put the
evaluation together that led us to bring the ocean survey
vessel request forward to you here, we did that side by side
with the NSF folks who fund the ships and support the ships
such as the ones at A&M and with the Coast Guard to make sure
that we were not asking for an asset or a capacity that already
is out there.
The reality is if you look at, if you look at the National
Science Foundation's proposal pressure, the scientific demands
for ocean going research that they face as well as the
scientific demands that we face, those combined far exceed
their ships plus our ships plus everything else. So the demand
remains much larger than either the federal civilian
oceanographic fleet or the NOAA fleet or both of them
combined----
Mr. Culberson. Well, the existing fleet. I just wondered
whether you have, because I had the same question of NSF. Years
ago I remember the Bush administration tried to transfer the
responsibility for building and maintaining the ships that go
to the Antarctic to the National Science Foundation from the
Coast Guard. NSF has got enough on their plate. So I fought
hard to get that out of NSF. So I had the same question of the
NSF.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. If the money was out there and you were
proposing to do this, have you ever looked at, looking forward,
encouraging the private sector if there is a pot of money out
there, we are willing to be a customer, there is X amount of
money available. Have you seen any interest from the private
sector or universities to----
Ms. Sullivan. Well we have seen it in those areas where we
have a good constant need, because that is a stable enough
demand function----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. That they can look at it. And
that is why we are up to 50 percent, slightly north of 50
percent, on both our mapping and charting and our, and our
fisheries research vessels.
Mr. Culberson. And the buoy, the maintenance of the tsunami
detection system, you said you are up to about 80 percent, and
that is with NOAA vessels?
Ms. Sullivan. That is the in service, the data availability
is at 80 percent. The TOGA TAO buoys that give us the El Nino
seasonal outlooks, we do about a third of that maintenance work
with private sector vessels. We do, I do not know the
percentage but I could check into it for you, we have made
international partnerships with other nations that benefit from
the tsunami network to draw them into servicing buoys that are
closer to their waters so that we are not bearing the cost of
those long transits.
Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you on that. But I
will also be following up on you, I am very concerned about the
report that came out in November that hackers from Communist
China had breached the computer systems at NOAA and essentially
the report was in AP that four of your Web sites were
compromised by an internet source, attacked. And my
predecessor, Chairman Wolf, discovered that the attack
originated in China and came only a couple of days after the
Communist Chinese had also hacked into the U.S. Postal Service
computers and, U.S. Postal Service's computers and compromised
information from some of its customers and employees. How long
was NOAA's system down? I understood they actually took over
control of some of NOAA's weather satellites. And could you
talk to us a little bit more about what happened?
Ms. Sullivan. They certainly did not take over control of
our weather satellites. I do not know where that misinformation
may have come from.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. They did compromise some of our Web sites and
it took us several days, I would have to get you the details
and we will bring you a full briefing on that.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. Some of the information is sensitive because
of threat information and things like that but----
Mr. Culberson. We will sit down and visit about it. I know
Mr. Fattah is concerned about this, we all are concerned about
it as well.
Ms. Sullivan. We will be happy to bring you a report on
that.
Mr. Culberson. And I also want to visit with you about the
report that, let us see, when is this? This is Inspector
General Report 1425A that talks about the risks posed by the
inconsistent implementation of mobile device protections
increases the likelihood of malware infection. I want to go
through some of that with you as well.
Ms. Sullivan. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. Because cyber is so important, and it is of
keen interest not just to NOAA but obviously throughout the
federal government. And it continues to look like the Chinese
have been particularly bad actors in this area and we want to
make sure that we are doing all we can to help protect you.
Ms. Sullivan. It is a dynamic and challenging threat
environment and we would be happy to visit with you further on
that. It is a priority of mine, as it is of the Secretary's and
the President's.
Mr. Culberson. I deeply appreciate your service to the
country. I will also be following up with you on making sure
that the data is accurate in terms of making sure--where, I
still cannot find in your testimony where you said this is the
warmest year on record. Warmest year on record where?
Ms. Sullivan. It was in my oral statement and we can get
you those statistics. The global----
Mr. Culberson. I mean----
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. The global atmospheric average.
Mr. Culberson. It was the warmest year on record throughout
the entire planet, or in the United States, or where?
Ms. Sullivan. Average across the globe----
Mr. Culberson. Average across the globe.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Atmospheric temperature.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. I am keenly interested in following up
with that because as Mr. Jolly pointed out we just want to make
sure we get accurate data. And I was alarmed to see that there
was, there has been in a lot of documentation that estimates,
that weather data has been estimated or extrapolated and
averaged up. I just want to make sure we have got accurate data
to make good decisions. I do appreciate your service to the
country and we look forward to following up with you on these
and other matters, and we will submit any additional questions
for the record. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 4, 2015.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
CHARLES F. BOLDEN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. Culberson. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and Science will come to order.
Before we begin, I wonder if I could take a moment, General
Bolden, to recognize and thank Mike Ringler who has been our
chief clerk on the committee for many, many years and a Rock of
Gibraltar for all of us.
It has been a real privilege, Mike, for us to work with
you, for me to work with you. You have taught us all so much
and we are going to miss you. And you have served the country
and this committee so well. We are really genuinely going to
miss you and I wish you all the best.
Thank you for everything you have done for the country and
the Congress and this committee. I really mean it. Thank you.
Thank you. We are going to miss you.
Mr. Fattah. And if the chairman would yield----
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Let me also add that it has been
an absolute pleasure to work with you and we have gotten a lot
done together and helped a great many people. So thank you and
we wish you well. I understand you found a perfect place in a
perfect state to pursue further career activities. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Back to Pennsylvania as soon as he could.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my words.
Mike, you have been a real gentleman and fair, and to me,
that word is very, very important, fair, balanced. Unlike a TV
station, you have really been balanced. And I appreciate that
and I wish you all the best. And, you know, we keep losing good
people and other people keep gaining good people. And so good
luck, and am I supposed to say go Yankees or that upsets you?
Mr. Ringler. Go Pirates.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Congratulations.
Mr. Ringler. Thanks very much.
Mr. Culberson. Today is also significant because it is Bob
Bonner's 20th, I believe, anniversary of helping with the
minority staff.
Mr. Fattah. Congratulations.
Mr. Culberson. And it is a real tribute to both of you
guys.
Mr. Serrano. And I think it is important that you singled
him out also because he is going to have a long suffering
season with the Phillies, so, you know, it is going to be very
painful for Bob.
Mr. Culberson. Well, we have always had a bipartisan bill
and tremendous cooperation and support on the committee. It is
a tribute to both of you guys and the great work that you have
done, but also it is a real privilege for us all to work
together on such noble, good causes as NASA and law enforcement
and scientific research and keeping the United States at the
cutting edge. It is something all of us on this subcommittee
share a passion for and you guys have been essential to its
success and we really appreciate it.
In fact, when I was asked to serve on the Appropriations
Committee back in December of 2002 going into my second term, I
was at a dinner with Tom DeLay who was my neighbor to the
south. He was becoming majority leader. He said I will give up
my seat on appropriations if you will take it.
And I was reluctant. I do not like to spend money if I can
avoid it. I said unless it is science or NASA or National
Defense, the answer is probably no. And he said you are hired.
It has been a great assignment. I asked to serve on this
subcommittee so that I could be here to help the National
Science Foundation and NASA.
So it is a genuine privilege and something I want to, you
know, thank the people in my district in Texas and the Members
of this committee. It is just a privilege to be here to serve
as chairman, to follow in Frank Wolf's footsteps who has done
so much for so many years to help NASA and the scientific
community.
Frank was a real mentor to me and it is an extraordinary
privilege for me to serve as chairman and to have you here
today, General Bolden. You are a true American hero, great
inspiration I know to a lot of young people all over the
country. You are a role model for young people I know all over
the country.
We all admire you immensely. Just deeply appreciate your
service to the country and the marine corps, as an astronaut
and the administrator for NASA. We admire you immensely, sir,
and it is just a real privilege for me to be here today, for
all of us to be here to help you achieve your mission of making
sure the United States maintains its leadership in the world as
the best space program, manned and unmanned on the planet.
The President's budget is asking for $18.5 billion for NASA
which is an increase of $519 million above the current fiscal
year. And we have a very difficult budget environment, as you
know, sir, but there is strong support of this subcommittee for
your mission.
We want to make sure that you have the resources you need
and the freedom that you need and support to do what is on your
plate. You have got a lot on your plate and never seem to have
enough resources. It is an ongoing problem.
In this particularly difficult budget environment, we have
also got to make sure we are fully funding the FBI, the other
Federal law enforcement programs. We have got, of course, the
Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, NIST,
and adequately funding all of these programs and others within
this budget environment is going to be very, very challenging.
We do not yet know how the House budget is going to shape
up, but we can feel pretty confident that the President's
budget recommendation is one that we are simply not going to be
able to achieve because it assumes a lot of tax increases which
certainly are not going to happen.
But I know from my work on this subcommittee that you are
going to find all of us arm in arm in making sure that NASA
gets the support that you need, sir, to do your job.
We will be using the timer today to make sure, if we could,
that everyone is recognized in a timely fashion. And I would be
privileged at this time to recognize my good friend, Chaka
Fattah, for any comments he would like to make.
Ranking Member Opening Remarks
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
administrator.
The chairman is absolutely correct about the inspiration
you provide. I know you made a visit to Philadelphia to
Overbrook High School which graduated one of your great
astronauts, Guion Bluford, and you spoke with the students
there and, you know, I am sure even to this day is an
inspiration to all there in the Overbrook community.
Now, I was just out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, my
second visit. I was there a while back with you when the Mars
rover landed after eight and a half months of travel. We were
on the control room floor and there was such a celebration
because it showed again that the premier entity in the world in
terms of space exploration and flight is NASA and to land the
rover there.
And I got a chance to see in my last visit two weeks ago or
so, you know, some of the work that is still being done on a
daily basis at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And I know that
NASA's most valuable control assets are in Texas, but you do
have a little operation in Florida and in California.
So I did get a chance to visit with your national
headquarters staff here also and I have learned so much about
what is going on. And there have been some miscues, I think, in
some notion when we retired the shuttle fleet that somehow
America was out of the business of leading in space. The truth
is that we still lead in space.
And you have some active missions that are going on right
now and I would hope that as part of your testimony, you could
just share a minute or two about what NASA is doing right now
in space because as we deal with the numbers, sometimes we lose
a sense of what this is really all about and our exploration of
space, our development of space.
And yesterday I got a chance to spend some time with the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation for their board meeting and
their dinner last night. So I know you had another celebration
of very significant import into the work that you have been
engaged in.
So we welcome you to the committee. We want to hear about
your proposed budget and we want to work with you. And the
chairman, there could not be a more committed person, I think,
in the Congress to the success of NASA. We have had many
conversations and I think you have a true advocate. We are
going to work together to create a bipartisan product that can
help NASA continue to achieve.
Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. General Bolden, we welcome your testimony.
Your entire statement, of course, will be entered into the
record without objection and we welcome your testimony, sir.
And, again, thank you for your service to the country.
Administrator's Opening Remarks
General Bolden. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
want to just take a quick moment to echo everyone's sentiments
to Mike Ringler. I am glad you broke the ice because I did not
want to say anything and spill the beans if nobody knew it. But
it has been a great pleasure working with Mike and we are going
to miss him.
So, Mike, best of luck from all of us at NASA.
I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, also on becoming
the chairman of this committee because I do know through the
years of our conversations how much it means to you and how
serious you are about the duties of this committee. So I think
we are very fortunate to have you in that position. I also
thank you, as I mentioned earlier, for your recent visits to
several of our facilities out on the West Coast and look
forward to hosting you out there some more.
Mr. Chairman, to you and the Members of the subcommittee,
the President is proposing, as you mentioned, a fiscal year
2016 budget of $18.5 billion for NASA that builds on the 2015
appropriation and the significant investments the
Administration and the Congress have made in America's space
program over the past six years.
Thanks to the hard work of our NASA team and partners all
across America, we have made a lot of progress on our journey
to Mars. In fact, we have gotten farther on this path to
sending humans to Mars than at any point in NASA's history. And
this budget will keep us moving forward.
The support of this subcommittee and the Congress are
essential to this journey. The International Space Station
(ISS) is the critical first step in this work. It is our
springboard to the rest of the solar system and we are
committed to extending space station operations to at least
2024. Thanks to the grit, determination, and American
ingenuity, we have returned ISS cargo resupply missions to the
United States, insourcing these jobs and creating a new private
market in low earth orbit.
Under a plan outlined by the Administration early in its
term, we have also awarded two American companies, SpaceX and
Boeing, fixed price contracts to safely and cost effectively
transport our astronauts to the International Space Station
from U.S. soil. This will end our sole reliance on Russia. It
is critical that we receive the funding requested for 2016 so
that we can meet our 2017 target date and stop writing checks
to the Russian Space Agency.
Our newest, most powerful rocket ever developed, the Space
Launch System (SLS) has moved from formulation to development,
something no other exploration class vehicle has achieved since
the agency built the space shuttle.
The Orion spacecraft performed flawlessly on its first
flight to space this past December. The SLS and Exploration
Ground Systems (EGS) are on track for launch capability
readiness by November of 2018 and the teams are hard at work on
completing the technical and design reviews for Orion.
Our budget also funds a robust science program with dozens
of operating missions studying our solar system and universe.
New Horizons is preparing for its arrival at Pluto in July and
Dawn is now approaching the dwarf planet Ceres.
Before we send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way.
We are at work on a Mars rover for 2020 and have begun planning
a mission to explore Jupiter's fascinating moon, Europa.
NASA is a leader in Earth science and our constantly
expanding view of our planet from space is helping us better
understand and prepare for these changes. NASA has 21 research
missions studying Earth. In the last year alone, we launched an
unprecedented five more. We also are at work on humanity's
first voyage to our home star, a mission that will repeatedly
pass through the sun's outer atmosphere.
NASA's Hubble, Chandra and Kepler space telescopes explore
the universe beyond our solar system. Hubble's successor, the
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is taking shape right now
out in Maryland and a new mission is in development to extend
Kepler's pioneering work in finding planets.
Technology drives science, exploration, and our journey to
Mars. With the President's request, NASA will continue to
maintain a steady pipeline of technology to ensure that we
continue to lead the world in space exploration and scientific
discovery.
NASA is also with you when you fly and we are committed to
transforming aviation particularly as we just celebrated the
100th anniversary of the NACA last night at the National Air
and Space Museum. But we intend to dramatically reduce the
environmental impact, maintain safety in more crowded skies,
and pave the way toward a revolutionary aircraft shapes and
propulsion systems.
Mr. Chairman, America's space program is not just alive. It
is thriving. The strong support we receive from this
subcommittee is making that happen. I particularly appreciate
the generous fiscal year 2015 appropriation.
As the President said in his state of the union address,
and I quote, ``We are pushing out into the solar system not
just to visit but to stay, part of a re-energized space program
that will send American astronauts to Mars,'' unquote.
NASA looks forward to working with the Congress to make
this vision a reality. I would be pleased to respond to your
questions.
INSPECTOR GENERAL OR GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Culberson. General Bolden, thank you.
Before I go into some specific areas, we started our
hearing schedule this year with the inspectors general because
they always do a good job of identifying inefficiencies and
ways to save money and particularly in light of the tough
budget environment we are going to be facing this year and how
everyone on this subcommittee, as I said earlier, are strong
supporters of NASA.
I miss having our friend, Adam Schiff, here. He is now the
ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. And I know he is
here in spirit and will certainly be working with us to help
support the recommendations of this subcommittee for NASA.
But if you could, talk to us a minute about any specific
example where NASA has implemented Inspector General or GAO
recommendations to save money or create efficiencies.
General Bolden. Sir, I would be very glad to do so. Since
the Inspector General's report and also thanks to this
committee, I think everyone knows that we contracted for a
study by NAPA which was done last year. They gave us 27
recommendations with reference to Foreign National Access
Management (FNAM). We took all of those recommendations to
heart and are well on the way to complying with them.
We have made structural changes in our governance at the
Agency and we see through our construction of facilities
program that our buildings are becoming leaner, and I mean that
in terms of the acronym for energy efficient. We now have LEED
buildings across the Nation that is showing that we are trying
to save money through our facilities as we reduce our footprint
and in the place of excessive infrastructure replace it with
very efficient buildings.
If you talk more about governance, the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) and many of the other critical people in
positions at NASA headquarters now report directly to me, so
they are my direct reports. So in that manner, we are
streamlining the way that we conduct project management.
I would point out that over the past six years since I have
been the NASA administrator, we are very proud to say that most
programs have come in on cost and on schedule which in the past
was somewhat rare. So I think that the results that we have
seen in the last six years say that we have taken everything to
heart from the IG and from this committee.
OTHER COST SAVING MEASURES
Mr. Culberson. Other than reducing the property footprint
and streamlining project management, what other steps have you
taken to implement, for example, cost saving measures that were
recommended either by GAO or the Inspector General?
General Bolden. We have done a number of efforts and I
would take it for the record to bring you a compilation----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden [continuing]. Of the things that we have
done. But I just tried to give you a few of those----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden [continuing]. Top line efforts.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ACCESS TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
Mr. Culberson. Terrific. And also I want to be sure to
follow up with you on limiting the access of foreign nationals,
particularly the Chinese, to NASA flight centers. There is, I
think, an ongoing problem with the ability of Chinese nationals
that are working at universities on a research project gaining
access to flight centers and we want to make sure that that
does not continue to happen.
Program management, project management is something
Inspector General Paul Martin also talked to us about and has
pointed out that there is a--excuse me. He talked specifically
about better program management and four major challenges that
he identified in his report.
He identified that there was an underestimation of
technical complexity and how that impacted cost and risk.
Funding stability is, of course, a continuing problem, limited
opportunity for program managers, development, and moving
people around.
Talk to us a little more, if you could, about the way that
NASA has responded to his recommendations on project
management.
General Bolden. I think what Paul was talking about was
past practices where when we estimated cost and we estimated
schedule, we were optimistic. When I talked about the fact that
over the last six years we have brought in programs and
projects on time and on schedule, it speaks to that directly.
We spend more time training our program and project
managers with formal training. We now have a formal position
that is called the Chief Knowledge Officer at NASA headquarters
who takes lessons learned from past programs and projects and
that is taught to incoming program and project managers so that
they understand the mistakes and the errors of program and
project management in the past.
We now have a process that all of our programs go through
which formalizes our estimation of cost and schedule. We have
set a threshold of 70 percent certainty for cost and schedule
as a threshold for us. Since we have done that, I think if you
look at our science programs, that is what enabled us to bring
things like MAVEN or some of the others in if not under cost,
actually on cost. I think that is what Paul was addressing.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Culberson. He also suggested giving your information
technology administrator full responsibility, and I hope that
you are following through on that recommendation.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. The comment that I made earlier
about making the CIO for the Agency a direct report to me, I
think that is what Paul was talking about. So the CIO--is that
what you are talking about?
Mr. Culberson. On cyber because there is a lot of concern
about the vulnerability of NASA applications.
General Bolden. I understand.
Mr. Culberson. You obviously have a very big public
footprint, as you should, but all of those applications, all
those apps that are out there for people's phones and all the
public Web sites open you up to hacking. And he was concerned
that your information and technology director does not have the
authority that he needs as in other agencies. That is what I am
talking about.
General Bolden. And that was the reference that I made to,
and you used the term information technology----
Mr. Culberson. I may not be using the right----
General Bolden [continuing]. That is my Chief Information
Officer.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. So the Chief Information Officer is a
direct report to me, to the administrator, which means----
Mr. Culberson. In terms of the scope of his authority, I
hope you are taking his recommendation to heart to give that
individual more authority.
General Bolden. Yes. The fact that he reports to me means
that he makes policy for the Agency since I make policy for the
Agency. So he has direct responsibility and control over IT
infrastructure across the enterprise. So all of the CIOs at the
individual centers subsequently report to him.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. The only area that we have not done what
the IG recommended was incorporating program IT systems under
the chief information officer and we are looking at that. But
in my opinion right now given what we have and given the funds
we have, that might be a bridge too far because what we are
talking about would be he would have responsibility for
maintaining the Information Technology programs on the
International Space Station or on Mars Curiosity or MAVEN. And
that is something that I am not sure that any agency of the
government has done that yet. We are looking at it. I am not
saying we will not do it, but we are not there yet. So we have
got a long way to go before we incorporate all of the----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden [continuing]. Program and project IT
infrastructure and assets under the Chief Information Officer.
Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you.
General Bolden. But for everything else, he has the hammer.
Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you individually on
that.
General Bolden. Okay.
PLUTONIUM-238 AVAILABILITY
Mr. Culberson. Let me ask about one other, getting into a
specific area, and then I want to recognize my good friend, Mr.
Fattah, about plutonium production because we want to make sure
that you have got the plutonium necessary for future missions.
The budget request is for $15 million for NASA to pay the
Department of Energy to produce a supply of plutonium. And I
understand that we are approaching the end of the life span for
the machines that actually make the plutonium cakes, whatever
they are called, that actually make the pellets, I assume.
Talk to us about that and the availability of plutonium for
future missions, in particular the Europa mission and outer
planets missions.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will say you make an
assumption that I want to not let you make and that is that
Europa will be a nuclear powered mission. We are looking at----
Mr. Culberson. Still in the design phase?
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I just want to make sure that no
one in my organization had led you to believe that----
Mr. Culberson. No.
General Bolden [continuing]. We had made a decision yet----
Mr. Culberson. Still in the design phase. It is good to
have that option.
General Bolden [continuing]. On the power system for
Europa.
Mr. Culberson. You are going to need that option for deep--
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Space outer planets?
General Bolden. But in answer to your question for all NASA
outer planets missions, for Mars 2020 and others that we
currently have in our inventory in planning, we will have
sufficient plutonium-238 to carry out those missions.
We continue to work with the Department of Energy (DOE) as
you mentioned, as you alluded. A problem there on the DOE side
is just the facilities and the condition of the facilities. We
continue to work at an intermediate management level with the
Department of Energy to make sure that the funds that we
provide to them will, in fact, partially be used to make sure
that the facilities are there so that they can make the
plutonium that we need.
They are the producer of plutonium-238. Right now to my
knowledge, NASA is the only user of plutonium-238, so it is
very important to us that they get it right.
Mr. Culberson. If you could, would your folks get us a
recommendation on what is necessary to make sure that that
machinery is----
General Bolden. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Brought up to speed so you have
got it for----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What I think we will ultimately
need, a robust outer planets program?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Let me recognize my good friend, Mr. Fattah.
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So this is follow-up on what the chairman was talking about
in terms of plutonium. And this is at Oak Ridge National Lab,
the plutonium, the 238 production, right?
General Bolden. I will take it for the record----
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fattah. All right. Yeah.
General Bolden [continuing]. To find out exactly where it
is done.
Mr. Fattah. So I think that----
General Bolden. I should know, but I do not.
Mr. Fattah. I have done some work in this space and I think
that you are correct that NASA is the only consumer, but it is
a commitment on DOE's part to make sure you have what you need.
EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. But let me go to the big aspiration here which
is flight into deep space, out of lower Earth orbit for humans.
And you talked about the great work that is being done now on
the launch system and where you are.
There is some sense, and it is only because of your
success, that perhaps we can move the timetable and maybe that
is not the case, and these are probably people who are not as
intimately familiar with the work that you are doing, but if
you could comment for a minute on how you see the time line,
that would be good.
General Bolden. Congressman, I will do my best. The
President has set a rough outline for us in demanding that we
provide a way to put humans with an asteroid by 2025, but most
importantly that we be on Mars or in the Martian system in the
2030s.
And with that direction in mind and bipartisan agreement by
the Congress, we have a long-range program in existence today
to which we are marching and that calls for several things.
America is still the leader in space and I am glad to hear
Members of the committee acknowledge that because it is
important for all of us to understand that. There is no close
competitor to be quite honest.
But in order for us to stay the leader in space, there are
a number of things we have to do and deep space exploration is
one of them, but we have to make sure that we have a very
robust low earth orbit infrastructure that will be run by
American industry eventually or non-government entities so
critical to that is the completion of the commercial crew
program that we now have scheduled to actually fly in 2017. We
have brought about commercial cargo and that has proven to be
successful. I think by the end of this year, you will see how
resilient it is when Orbital Sciences flies a Cygnus on a
vehicle other than their own vehicle. So when you are buying a
service and the service provider provides it, even when a part
of their system goes away, that talks about resilience.
Mr. Fattah. I was on the floor of SpaceX out in California
looking as they put the Falcon 9 together, and it is amazing
that this industry that NASA has spawned is so robust now.
You have Boeing. You have SpaceX, low Earth orbit, the
commercial crew. What is in the President's budget is $1.2, I
think, 4, right----
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. $1.24 billion?
General Bolden. One digit farther I can go.
EXPLORATION BEYOND EARTH
Mr. Fattah. Yeah. And is that sufficient to continue to--I
know you have some other pieces of that. You have the advanced
exploration system at about 231.4 and then you have the
opportunity flight program which is another opportunity to seed
this industry and I think 15 plus.
So can you talk about whether that is sufficient to do the
work that needs to be done in low Earth orbit so that you can
focus on-- and the committee really likes to talk about going
to Mars.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Asteroids, you know, is not really, I think,
the thing that grabs our attention----
General Bolden. That is okay.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. In total.
General Bolden. That is okay.
Mr. Fattah. It hits you. Go ahead.
General Bolden. That is okay.
Mr. Fattah. Go ahead, Mr. Administrator, yeah.
General Bolden. Congressman Fattah, again, I appreciate
your reference to the total picture because that is what is
really important. And I talked about commercial crew and cargo.
$1.2 billion that we requested in the 2016 budget for
commercial crew is essential if we are to bring in the two
providers with their capability to carry crew to orbit by 2017.
The second leg of the stool is actually the International
Space Station and that is an area that I need to ensure that we
do not shortchange, that we do not look at it as a bank and
begin to pull money out of International Space Station
operations because when we use it as a bank, usually the first
place we go is cargo flights, fewer cargo flights which
eventually could put the crew in jeopardy because we are not
able to get stuff there.
The third leg that you refer to is SLS and Orion and once
we have a robust lower earth orbit environment, then we use SLS
and Orion to take us, first of all, back to cislunar space.
That is around the moon over the 10-year period of the 20s. So
beginning in the earliest part that we can of the 20s, we will
put Orion on the SLS and send it to cislunar space for multiple
flights and then on to Mars.
So it is the three-legged stool that is absolutely critical
that you are talking about.
Mr. Fattah. The red light is on. The red light is on, but
if the chairman would----
Mr. Culberson. Go ahead, please.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION--INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Yield. I think you got the
Russians' attention in some other respects. They took a
decision this week to announce that they were joining a
decision that you had already made a year or so ago about
extending the life and their presence in cooperation relative
to the International Space Station.
Could you just share with the committee where we are with
all of our international partners now that Russia has made this
decision?
General Bolden. And I would just caution what you hear
coming out of Russia is not always what they intended to say. I
am encouraged that they now have, in fact, in their
reorganization, because they are going through reorganization
just as we are, they now have what is called the Roscosmos
Science and Technology Council. So that is a brand new entity
that was put in place when they put Roscosmos under the
umbrella of their whole space industry organization and it is
much more complicated than I want to try to explain to people.
We were encouraged when Yuri Koptchev who I consider to be,
because he is a former colleague of mine, who I consider----
Mr. Fattah. You did a mission with him, right?
General Bolden. No. This is not the astronaut. This was the
former head of the Russian Space Agency, of Roscosmos. It was
Mr. Koptchev who actually could be considered the Russian
father of the International Space Station because he and a
predecessor of mine, Dan Goldin, were the two people who were
most responsible for getting the station started, if you will.
He is the head of the Roscosmos Science and Technology Council
(STC) and it was that council that met and said that it was
their position that Russia should remain committed to the
International Space Station and that they should remain
committed through 2024 before they go off and start talking
about taking pieces off and establishing their own lower earth
orbit infrastructure. So I think that is what you refer to.
I would say one more thing because you commented about
international partners. Everyone should take note of the three
space walks that were completed this past week. You know, Butch
Wilmore and Terry Virts did three absolutely amazing space
walks which in themselves were great.
Mr. Fattah. Five hours?
General Bolden. They were long. Each of them was in the
neighborhood of six to eight hours. But what was most important
was that that completed the installation of the international
docking adapter which it gives the International Space Station
now the capability of accepting any vehicle from any partner
that wants to bring crew to the International Space Station.
So we are now ready to receive. There may be a few puts and
takes we have got to do, but the station is now ready to
receive Boeing, SpaceX, any American company that wants to fly
a vehicle to the International Space Station.
The international part I wanted to point out for everybody,
the intra-vehicle crew member, and I have been one, that is the
hardest thing on the whole thing. The intra-vehicle crew
member, the person inside choreographing all three space walks
was Samantha Cristoferetti who is an Italian astronaut.
So if you do not think that our partners are doing their
part and that they are excited about this, that was a true
international effort to set up American industry to be able to
service the International Space Station with crews, and that
was incredible.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding for those
additional few seconds.
Mr. Culberson. Let me recognize Mr. Jenkins at this time.
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION (IV&V) FACILITY
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Administrator.
General Bolden. Good morning.
Mr. Jenkins. I am from down the home of the rocket boys and
Homer Hickam, West Virginia. So I would like to spend just my
brief minute or two bringing us back to earth a little bit
about some of your work and what NASA does and obviously as
participating in grant funding and projects in my State of West
Virginia.
The chairman brought up the IG's work. I would like to
maybe get your take a little bit on the NASA Independent
Verification and Validation (IV&V) Facility program up in
Fairmont, West Virginia, critically important to our state,
your feelings about that program and its value.
General Bolden. Independent Verification and Validation
(IV&V) Facility has been of critical value to us since its
beginnings. It is an asset that we use to do safety assurance
evaluations and the like. And there are a number of other
things that go on there.
I think the IG, if I remember his comments, you know, some
people took it to mean that he was recommending that we get out
of IV&V or out of the facility. And that is not something that
is, you know, immediately on our plate. As we look at our
assets and our capabilities, we are looking at what we should
do with each, but IV&V is a critical facility.
Mr. Jenkins. Would you mind sharing, to the extent you are
able to or maybe a follow-up, some of the details behind the
importance and, as you say, the value propositions that come
out of that facility and what we do?
General Bolden. IV&V or independent verification and
validation is a process that NASA uses. I think most industries
use it, but NASA uses the process to look at dominantly
software to make sure that we can put faults and failures and
all kinds of stuff into the program and make sure that it
responds appropriately, that it does not trip the software such
that it just loses its mind, if you will. So IV&V does not do
the critical software evaluations for the International Space
Station, but it does critical software evaluations for some of
our other activities. So that is the kind of work you do. You
cannot just say, we are going to close down the one in West
Virginia and go do it somewhere else because it takes time. You
have got the talent, the brain power, and you have got the
facilities that are there.
Mr. Jenkins. And when you make mention that some may have
interpreted IG as suggesting, that leads me to believe that
maybe--have you had a follow-up discussion with the IG and
maybe the way it was written or interpreted, that maybe that is
a conclusion that should not have been suggested?
General Bolden. I do not change the IG's mind. What I do is
I respond to the IG's report. What we do is we cooperate with
them as they formulate the report and we give them as much as
we can in hopes that the report will not reflect something that
we think is inaccurate. But we do respond. If they give us
recommendations or findings or the like, then we respond back
to them. So I do not remember exactly what our responses were,
but I think we told the IG that we appreciated very much the
recommendation. However, these are the actions that we are
taking right now.
As the chairman mentioned, the IG, the IG's report to me is
not a directive. That is a report of a finding by an Inspector
General. The Office of the Inspector General does not direct
the Agency to do anything. As the CEO of the agency, if I want
to assume the risk, then I just tell the IG I really appreciate
this point. I think you may be correct, but I am willing to
assume that risk at this time.
Mr. Jenkins. The second and final area of interest to me is
again your financial support. I just spoke last night to the
EPSCoR program and had the honor of introducing NASA's former
chief scientist who is now head of the National Science
Foundation. Your support for undergraduate research, STEM
programs--today happens to be Undergraduate Research Day in
West Virginia that a lot of bright-minded students make
presentations.
NASA's investment in education through the consortium, the
space consortium and all, can you share with me and the
committee some of the values of that effort and as part of your
budget?
General Bolden. I do not think we can put enough money into
the work that NASA does towards STEM education. I say that not
lightly to be quite honest. I think you can always use more.
However, I do say all the time that NASA spends 16 and if
we get the requested President's budget, we will devote $18.5
billion to STEM education in this country because there is
nothing that we do in the Agency, there is no office, no
department, no anything that does not have some impact on STEM
education, whether it is just employees acting as mentors or
providing NASA content to a school or something of that nature
that does not get counted in an education budget, but we have
$16.8 billion that we apply towards STEM education. It is an
incredible value.
Mr. Jenkins. Major General, thank you.
General Bolden. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS--NASA EXPLORER SCHOOLS
Mr. Culberson. And after we go through the Members, I want
to be sure to recognize our colleague, Mr. Schiff, for a
statement after the Members that were here first are
recognized.
So I want to go at this time to Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
I admire, respect, and love my ranking member, but he
almost gave me a heart attack when he said asteroids were not
important since one of my questions is going to be about the
Arecibo Puerto Rican observatory.
And let me first tell you, sir, that one of the best
experiences I have had as a Member of this committee has been
not only to have been twice the ranking member under Hal Rogers
and Frank Wolf but also the work that we have done in our
districts. And I wanted to speak to you about that.
The last time we had an event that was a wonderful event,
we had flown the Puerto Rican flag on one of the flights. Then
we had flown the Dominican flag on one of the flights. And
astronauts came down to the community college and presented
both flags. And the room was full of kids and community people
and it was just a wonderful, wonderful event.
And then there have been many times when astronauts have
come into the classroom to speak and it is one of those few
times where you do not have to worry about the children paying
attention because, you know, they are, oh, you went up in space
and they are captured.
So where is that program at? Those visits to schools, do
you continue them? Has the budget hurt you, you know, in doing
that kind of work because I think it is great and I support it
totally?
General Bolden. Congressman, I think during the period of
more active pursuit of sequester, I think everybody knows, it
is common knowledge that travel in Federal agencies was
significantly curtailed. So during that period of time, we did
have to cut back on school visits and the like from astronauts
and NASA employees. However, over the last year or so, we have
relatively restored our school visits and our other kinds of
outreach activities to some normalcy.
I was privileged to visit Puerto Rico earlier this year and
actually had a chance to--you mentioned Arecibo, but had an
opportunity to go out to the observatory there and walk on the
telescope, on the disk and everything else and talk to students
in Puerto Rico. There is nothing that promotes interest in STEM
education, as you have said, like a hands-on experience for
students.
Mr. Serrano. Absolutely.
General Bolden. Mr. Jenkins, well, somebody mentioned,
although he is not from Huntsville, but down in Huntsville, it
used to be called the moon buggy challenge and it is now called
the NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge, but we have
students from all over the world----
Mr. Serrano. Right.
General Bolden [continued]. Who come to compete in that and
build buggies from bicycle parts and other kinds of things. So
we still continue our outreach programs.
ARECIBO OBSERVATORY
Mr. Serrano. And I encourage you to do so. And I will be a
Member of this committee that will push for that because I
think those are wonderful programs and a wonderful way for
NASA, and NASA is one of those agencies that does not hurt
anybody. On the contrary, it just brings joy and solidifies our
future.
Let me move on to the observatory. The observatory is
funded mostly by NSF, as you know, and NASA plays a major role.
And a couple years ago, they were actually talking not only of
backing off from helping the observatory but even getting rid
of it.
And not this committee, I wish I could say this committee,
but it was scientists who wrote especially in a report that
said that Arecibo played a major role in keeping an eye on
things that have to be kept an eye on. So, of course, I am in
support of keeping it open. I know the chairman is also and so
is Mr. Honda and the ranking member and other people.
What is the status right now at least from NASA's point of
view and as to your knowledge, although that is a question for
them? Is NSF still thinking about, although they have backed
away from that, doing something?
General Bolden. I cannot answer what Dr. Cordova and the
NSF, what their position is right now, but I can say that NASA,
currently, provides in the neighborhood of $3 million each year
for support at Arecibo. But I will take it for the record and
get that specific amount to you.
So we continue to push for the telescope and its
availability. In fact, one of the reasons that I went to Puerto
Rico was because I had heard about it, but I had never seen it
and I wanted to go meet the people there. And they are
incredibly enthusiastic about what they do.
So I think it is value. The unfortunate thing is it is not
a NASA asset. It is a National Science Foundation asset. It is
like McMurdo Bay in Antarctica. It is like many of the research
facilities around the world the way that responsibility is
divided up. NASA frequently is the dominant player at our
international research facilities, but they do not belong to
us.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
General Bolden. They belong to other agencies of the
government and we do not have a say in whether or not they
close them or open them.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
General Bolden. But we generally----
Mr. Serrano. My time is up, but I hope that we can work
together for the part that NASA plays in keeping Arecibo open.
And it is a good thing to see that the chairman has always been
a supporter. The man that has always been a supporter of
Arecibo is now chairman of the committee and the ranking member
has always been supportive. So we will continue to work on it.
General Bolden. And, sir, I will try to get for the record,
we will contact the NSF and see if they can provide us a
comment since I do not----
Mr. Serrano. Well, turn it over to you and then we will
take good care of you.
General Bolden. No, no, no, no, no. I am not asking for
more on my plate. I do not need more.
Mr. Culberson. What is the $3 million a year for?
General Bolden. Let me find out specifically what it is
for, but I think most of it is for programs and instruments
and----
[The information follows:]
Arecibo Radio Observatory
NASA's Planetary Science Near Earth Object (NEO) Program uses the
National Science Foundation's Arecibo Radio Observatory for its
planetary radar capability, particularly for this asset's critical
ability to characterize Earth approaching asteroids and precisely
determine their orbits, size, shape and rotation dynamics. Radar
studies of the Moon, other planets and their moons are conducted as
well. Often the Arecibo facility is used in cooperation with NASA's own
Goldstone Solar System Radar facility to provide even higher precision
data on these objects.
There are two components to NASA's current funding of Arecibo,
contractually with the Universities Space Research Association, which
has the cooperative agreement with NSF to manage and operate the
Observatory. The first is a five-year grant (FY 2012-2016) of about $2M
per year ($2.074M in FY 2015, but increasing slightly each year to
maintain purchasing power) to operate and maintain the radar and
perform a crucial baseline of observations on NEOs and the planets for
NASA's planetary science programs. The second is a NEO Observations
Program science grant for $1.5M per year for 4 years (2013 through
2016) to obtain additional collection and analyses of radar
observations on all accessible near Earth asteroids.
Mr. Culberson. Instrument time?
General Bolden. Instrument time or instrument
modernization, because although the facility belongs to NSF, we
frequently will have----
Mr. Culberson. Your customer?
General Bolden [continued]. Investigators who go in and
actually build instruments that are used at the observatory.
Mr. Culberson. I know they need an upgrade on----
General Bolden. They do.
Mr. Culberson [continued]. A lot of their equipment and----
General Bolden. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continued]. Some maintenance. I know that
one of the cables had a problem. But, nevertheless, we are----
General Bolden. It was working when I was there, but it is
not in great shape.
Mr. Serrano. I think it was the cable James Bond hung from
when they made the movie there. [Laughter].
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, I think the Member can be assured
that we are interested. This is part of a series of
observatories around the world that are critically important to
NASA's success.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Fattah. Also to deal with asteroids that might be
coming our way.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer.
SMALL SATELLITE PROGRAMS
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will just echo
Mr. Serrano's enthusiasm for the NASA Explorer Schools. We have
got one in my district and it was certainly one of the
highlights.
I had a question regarding small satellites. That is one of
the fastest growing segments of the space industry, high
relevance for science and national security and commercial
industry. And NASA has really helped advance development and
demonstration of technologies in all sorts of arenas, whether
it be communications, navigation, propulsion, power, science
instrument capabilities. So how do we expand and accelerate
those types of cost-effective investments and how do we ensure
that NASA's program is taking full advantage of investments
that are also being made by industry and by the Defense
Department?
General Bolden. We collaborate with the Defense Department,
the NRO, industry, academia and everybody in trying to promote
the use of small satellites and a specific type of small
satellite called CubeSat. We work with our international
partners. There is now a private entity, and I just drew a
blank on what the name of the company is, that provides the
program that gets CubeSats to the International Space Station
for distribution or for deployment from the Japanese Experiment
Module. We have the CubeSat deployment mechanism on the
Japanese Experiment Module and it is the only one that has an
airlock. So they can actually bring the deployer inside, load
it up with CubeSats, put it back out and then deploy them. So
it is a program that we really push.
The Ames Research Center out in Mountain View, California
tends to be the center of effort for CubeSat development in
small sats for a number of reasons. They are in the heart of
Silicon Valley and so they have a way of getting not just
American students, but students all over the world interested
in this. I just came back from a trip to South America and in
the four countries I visited one of the things that we could
talk about with them in trying to expand the number of
international what we call non-traditional partners was the use
of CubeSats, teaching students to use CubeSat to do very basic
things, and it allows them to become partners.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. You mentioned the space station, I
wanted to ask about that program. To some degree, it can be
viewed as too big to fail. What recourse does NASA have if
commercial crew contractors are unable to meet the 2017
milestone of sending astronauts to the space station from
American soil or if program funds are exhausted?
General Bolden. Nothing is too big to fail, in my
estimation. However, there are some things that are critical
for the success of keeping America number one in space, the
International Space Station is one of those. It is a very
unique facility, it is a one-of-a-kind facility, it is a mini
United Nations, and it is a place where we do technology
development and human research. It is critical, I don't even
want to think about what happens if the Russians decide that
they want to change the way they operate with us. That is what
makes it so critical that we receive full funding for
Commercial Crew so that we can guarantee that it is not NASA,
not the U.S. Government, not money that kept American industry
from delivering. I have faith in American industry, I always
have. I talked about, when we put a plan together, work it with
them and say we can do something, we do it on time and on cost.
I have no reason to believe that SpaceX and Boeing will not
be able to bring in their programs in 2017 as they have
planned. They have given us milestones, they get paid for
milestones. Those are firm fixed-price contracts, so we know
that it will not overrun, because any additional money over and
above what they think it is going to cost the company has to
fund. So you would have to find Boeing or SpaceX deciding that
it is no longer fiscally viable for the company, the
corporation, for them not to deliver.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I see I am near time up. So I will
submit some other questions for the record and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Fattah. If the Chairman would yield for a minute. For
instance, because I don't want there to be unnecessary concern,
SpaceX has met the first milestone, right?
General Bolden. Oh, SpaceX has met several milestones on
the Commercial Crew milestone list.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. And Boeing?
General Bolden. And Boeing, they both have.
Mr. Fattah. Right. So, I mean, there is not that I am aware
of any concern that we will not be able to meet this time line
as long as we can meet the budget number.
Mr. Kilmer. That is the key, right?
General Bolden. And that was the point I tried to make,
Congressman Fattah, was industry is going to perform as long as
the government does not renege on its promise to pay. We
promised that we would pay them $6.2 billion combined and,
unless we renege on that, then I think Boeing and SpaceX will
deliver.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Honda.
STRATOSPHERIC OBSERVATORY FOR INFRARED ASTRONOMY (SOFIA)
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, welcome, Mr.
Administrator. It is great to see you here and it is great to
have an administrator that has got a science background and
knows what the hell you are talking about. [Laughter.]
You know, sometimes we have leaders that are more of a
bookkeeper than of looking at funding programs based upon its
mission and we have gone through that period now. It is good to
have you. And I understand that we already had a comment about
the 100th year celebration, so I will not say anything about
that. But I know that NASA Ames Center Director Pete Worden is
retiring and it is going to be a great loss to us, but it is
going to be good for the private industry. And I guess that is
going to be tough to find someone that is going to replace him
and fill his shoes, but I think that we are here to support
that kind of a direction that we find someone that will enhance
Ames and NASA and keep the A in NASA going.
One of the questions I had was that the Administration's
handling of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared
Astronomy, better known as SOFIA, in the President's 2016
budget notes that NASA plans to hold a senior review for SOFIA
in the spring of 2016. And, as you know, SOFIA just became
fully operational in February of 2014 and was in Germany for a
good portion of last year undergoing a heavy maintenance visit.
Now, this senior review is usually after four years of
operation and I guess my question is, why is it so early?
Because it gives the sense that NASA will be setting up SOFIA
to fail when it only had approximately one year rather than the
four years fully to, you know, open its wings and, you know,
have its contribution better known. Can you address yourself to
that?
General Bolden. Congressman, when I approached the folks in
our Science Mission Directorate I learned one of our assets
with which I am very familiar, the Hubble Space Telescope
actually underwent senior review much earlier than it was
scheduled to because we wanted to make sure that we had good
definition on the out-year programs for it, because that is
basically what we are trying to do with SOFIA. We are trying to
take a look at its performance to date. Had we flown SOFIA when
we were originally scheduled to fly it, we would have been well
beyond a normal senior review at this time. But because of
issues with the development of SOFIA and getting it to
operational condition, then we are somewhat behind in where we
would have been. But the senior review is to make a
determination of what its future missions should be, how we
balance the schedule for its flights, to evaluate whether or
not the science community thinks that we can fly fewer flights
and get the same amount of data that we wanted before. So it is
not a review that I look at as a reason or something trying to
justify shutting down SOFIA. SOFIA is funded in our 2015 bill
thanks to this committee and we requested funding for it in the
2016 request.
Mr. Honda. So the life and its expectation is to continue,
it is just you are doing this review with the understanding
that there may be a lot of stuff that has already been--could
be done, but usually you would have waited a few more years,
but you have some confidence in its performance.
General Bolden. I have confidence in SOFIA's performance to
date and I have confidence in--what I do not know, because it
is out of my area of expertise, is what does the science
community feel the relative value of SOFIA is for other assets
that gather the same type of data. SOFIA is somewhat unique, to
be quite honest, because it is an in-the-atmosphere observatory
that I understand looks in different wavelengths than many
other of the assets that we have, whether in space or on the
ground. But the science community is always looking at how do
they get the most efficient results from the experiments they
have. This goes back to, how long do you fly anything?
Mr. Honda. Okay.
General Bolden. But I am not concerned about SOFIA's
performance.
PROTECTING THE NASA WORKFORCE
Mr. Honda. Okay. I appreciate that. And one of the concerns
I have about NASA is that over the years we have lost staffing,
civil servants, if you will, and it does not feel like we are
setting up a system where we want to attract and retain our
employees at NASA. And so I guess the question is, well, what
are you doing to protect the NASA workforce and ensure that the
NASA Centers have the ability to hire and retain the best and
the brightest scientists? Because that is our human, you know,
treasure that we have that we have built up over the years. And
from looking at continuing programs like STEM and everything
else like that, these are the folks that have the deepest
experience to be able to talk to youngsters.
General Bolden. Congressman, at the risk of offending the
committee, I am going to take a chance.
Mr. Honda. Go ahead.
General Bolden. The reductions in force that you see are
not things that we do voluntarily. This Congress believes that
all of the nation's problems rest with civil servants. That is
the workforce you are talking about. We are not talking about
contractors. When the Congress says that the problem is
government employees, that is the people sitting behind me,
that is what you are talking about. That is the people at Ames
and at Armstrong and all over this country. You do not get
something for nothing. If you want us to cut the size of
government, you are talking about cutting people.
Mr. Honda. Okay.
General Bolden. And I understand what you are saying, but
that is a contributor to the problem that we are. When we
looked at sequestration, you are talking about people.
Mr. Honda. I agree with you and I think that this is a
message that needs to resonate among members of Congress and
those who are in positions to make sure that we do not go in
that direction, and that we understand clearly that you get
what you pay for. And based upon the comments I heard this
morning about the value of centers and how it is run and who
runs it, that we should take that position when we look at
budget and planning in the future and making sure that we do
not vilify civil servants, but we embrace them and make sure
that we understand their full value. And that cuts across the
entire gamut and I am sure that my colleagues on this
subcommittee agrees with that point, is that we have to put up
the fight to protect the assets that we have right now and
especially the human assets.
General Bolden. Thank you.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. We have been joined by
Chairman Aderholt, another strong advocate and supporter of
NASA and our manned program as I am, and it is my pleasure to
introduce at this time the gentleman from Alabama. Mr.
Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Mr. Administrator, good to have
you here.
General Bolden. Thank you.
EXPLORATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Aderholt. First of all, let me apologize for my voice.
I am overcoming a sore throat and I was in a hearing with
Chairman Rogers this morning. I have been chairing the Ag
Subcommittee Appropriations and we had the FDA Commissioner in
this morning. And he said it reminded him of what Mark Twain
said about Wagner's music, he said it is not as bad as it
sounds. So that is sort of why--I am not as bad as it sounds.
But anyway, I just have a couple of questions. Thank you for
being here. And I appreciate Chairman Culberson for letting me
slip in here and ask a few questions.
I want to ask one question about the SLS program and then a
second very short question, and then the remaining I will
submit for the record. But I am glad to hear the integration
plan for SLS, Orion and ground operations are underway at
headquarters. Slipping beyond the 2018 for the EM-1 flight is a
little more disconcerting. As you know, on the EM-1 flight, we
use an upper stage known as ICPS. I do not know of a definite
budget plan in NASA's out years for the flights beyond EM-1,
but it seems to me that there must be a firm decision soon on
whether to human rate the ICPS. And I am wondering if not human
rating the ICPS and instead human rating the new upper stage
for use on the EM-2 mission could save taxpayer dollars.
Progress soon on the upper stage might allow for options as we
plan large science missions such as the Europa Clipper. We
could also use the power of the upper stage to cut the flight
time by half or more and get the data back to our scientists
faster. I just wanted to turn it over to you on what your
thoughts are on this approach.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. As I was commenting earlier
before you came in, our approach to keep us as the leaders in
space is to try to put together a program in its totality. When
you talk about human exploration or about exploration of our
solar system and let's just not even--human and robotic
exploration, our program calls for being able to get humans
first of all into cislunar space, but that is not the only
thing we want to do. We want to be able to go on to Mars. So
the reason that it has taken us to this point to be able to
give you all the answers that you want on SLS and Orion is
because we are looking at how we get the totality of the
program in place. How do we get multiple flights out of SLS and
Orion? If I focus on the very first flight, which happens to be
unmanned, and that is where my focus is, then I could easily
lose sight of what I need for the downstream flight. So we find
that it is more economical and it is much more efficient if we
plan for a block of flights, the program. Such that, if you
gave me more money, as you are probably going to ask, what
would I do? I would buy down risk. What do I mean when I say
buy down risk for SLS and Orion? I would go and have Bill
Gerstenmaier, I would approve his purchase of pieces and parts
for EM-3, -4, -5, farther down the line. So that when you go to
SpaceX and you look on their floor, there are engines all over
the place. There are engines for flights they do not have yet.
That is the way they buy down risk, that is the way industry
does it. You put assets in place so that you can carry out a
program years in advance. So that is what I would do. I would
not focus on trying to get EM-1 earlier, EM-2 earlier. We have
a program in place that calls for them to fly at a particular
date and we are not going to change that appreciably with more
money.
So I think an Exploration Upper Stage is what you are
talking about, the EUS. The interim upper stage is something
because we do not have the one that we really want to fly for
all of our exploration missions, it is an interim upper stage
that will allow us to fly the first mission, but that is not
what we would ideally like to live with. But that again is, we
will come back to the Congress and tell you what we need in a
budget that will sustain us through multiple administrations
and multiple congresses, as opposed to one flight.
ROCKET PROPULSION
Mr. Aderholt. I see my time is slipping away, but let me
ask this one last question before I have to go back to the
subcommittee that I have been chairing now. The Marshall Space
Flight Center, which you know is on the edge of my district,
has a tremendous rocket propulsion skill base there. It has a
rich history in propulsion projects going back to the days of
Von Braun. The National Institute for Rocket Propulsion Systems
or the NIRPS, as the acronym goes, is located at Marshall and I
hear it is doing great things for the nation. Would you agree
that it is doing good things?
General Bolden. We affectionately call it NIRPS and NIRPS
is doing great things. In fact if you all will allow me to use
the acronym, just because it is easier. But the important thing
about NIRPS was--and it was the brainchild of some of the
engine folk at Marshall, because they saw how NASA was working
on engine technology, DOD was working on engine technology,
industry was working on engine technology. So what the
institute attempts to do is to bring all the disparate bodies
together to talk about national needs and so that is what is
done there. We have buy-in from the Air Force, we have buy-in
from industry. So everyone is represented when you go--if you
were to go to Marshall and ask somebody, when was the last time
the Air Force was in here or when was the last time industry
was in here, they would probably tell you, well, we had a
meeting yesterday and everybody was here. So that was its
intent and I think it is vital for the future of propulsion for
this nation.
Mr. Aderholt. Good to hear. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Administrator, for being here and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt.
Let me recognize the young lady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Roby. Well, you get two in a row. So I want to
continue with what my colleague from Alabama was talking about
as it relates to Marshall Space Flight Center's activities. And
across Alabama the impact is nearly 20,000 jobs, their total
economic impact in the State of Alabama is $3.3 billion. In
terms of procurement, almost 60 percent of Marshall dollars are
spent in Alabama. The Space Launch System or SLS results in
almost half the jobs related to Marshall. And in addition to
that, the International Space Station is managed by folks at
Marshall through the Payload Operations Center. Personnel
manage experiments on the Station around the clock and they
integrate the various components and manage the logistics
involved in getting these payloads to the station. They develop
systems at Marshall used for experiments in life support and
the Oxygen and Water Recycling Unit is just one example of the
ingenuity from the people at Marshall.
So back to SLS and thank you for being here today. I know
NASA intends to launch the first full-scale test flight by late
2017 and I wanted you to take some time to comment about the
needed steps and proper funding in this year's budget request
and future requests that are needed to keep that launch date on
time.
General Bolden. Congresswoman----
Mr. Culberson. Great question.
General Bolden. Okay. I thought I answered it, but I will
try it again. Before you came in, not since you came in.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Sorry. There are four hearings going on at
the same time.
General Bolden. No, no, no, because I obviously did not
answer it as well as I thought I did. In response to your
question, the one thing that all of us agree is that we have to
maintain America's leadership in space. And what I attempted to
do or what my team attempted to do when we gave this budget
recommendation to the President and he sent it over here was
there are three things that we want to do. We want to continue
to fund our capability to launch American astronauts from
American soil, so that's Commercial Crew, Commercial Cargo for
cargo and the like. We want to be able to get the three legs of
the stool in place for deep space exploration, that's
Commercial Crew & Cargo, a low Earth orbit infrastructure, the
International Space Station, and SLS and Orion. And the final
thing we want to do is we want to make sure that we maintain
our preeminence in science, technology and engineering. In
order to do all those, my job is to try to parse the funds up
that we request to you such that it supports a well planned
program to get us to Point A, if you will, which is what you
are talking about.
First flight for us has already occurred, that was Orion on
the 5th of December, 2014. So that was the first flight in our
exploration program, very successful. It was not in its
configuration for sending humans to deep space, but that was
the first flight, very successful. The second flight for us
will come some time after 2018, to be precise. The reason that
I say some time after 2018 and we will tell this Congress much
more precisely some time this summer when we finish with the
next milestone on Orion itself.
You may say, I asked you about SLS, why are you telling me
about Orion? Because they are a pair. We are not talking about
flying SLS without Orion for deep space exploration just yet.
So when we know when Orion will be ready to fly, then we will
know when we can fly an SLS-Orion pair. SLS ground systems are
ready now for a launch-readiness date of late 2018, so that is
in place. We do not have a launch-readiness date yet for Orion,
so we will give you that.
Mrs. Roby. What would be the most negative or detrimental
thing that could contribute to not allowing you to reach these
goals?
General Bolden. Not to fund Commercial Crew and find that
we have got to go back to the Russians and pay more money for
Soyuz seats over and over and over again, because it would mean
that the U.S. has given up on having its own capability to get
its crews to low Earth orbit. If we do not have the low Earth
orbit infrastructure that I talked about very early on in my
testimony, there is no exploration program. It is a program, it
is an integrated program, and it is really important for this
committee to understand that. We found, Mr. Chairman, that
there was a piece of the program we never even considered
before we started looking at Europa and how do we speed that
mission up. So potentially, and I have to be very careful
because the Chairman wants me to say we are going to fly an
SLS, we are not ready there yet. But if we do not have SLS and
Orion supported by Commercial Crew & Cargo and a viable low
Earth orbit infrastructure, there is no SLS Europa mission. I
would not bring this committee a proposal that I build an SLS
so that we can go to Europa, but I would bring this committee a
proposal that says we have a program for a journey to Mars and
here is the way that integrated program works. Here are the
three legs that I have got to have in place, Commercial Crew &
Cargo, I have got to have the International Space Station for
some period of time now to buy down the risk there, and then I
have got to have SLS and Orion. They are all necessary, but I
do not need to spend all the money on all of them right now to
get there.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I recognize the new ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee, and a valued member of
this subcommittee who has reserved his seniority, my good
friend Mr. Schiff from California for any statement he would
like to make.
PLANETARY SCIENCE
Mr. Schiff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
recognizing me and allowing me to attend this important
hearing. I look forward to working with you, as well as the
Administrator, to ensure NASA receives the necessary funding to
fulfill its core missions. I may be on leave technically, but
my heart is still very much with NASA and my commitment as
well.
In particular, I am hopeful that Congress can work with
NASA to provide the funding for NASA's Planetary Science
Division, so that we can continue to learn more about our solar
system from Mars 2020 to a mission to Jupiter's exciting moon
Europa. These missions must be fully funded and made a priority
for both NASA and the Congress. I share the conviction that our
Chairman has that we need to make every effort to fund the
priorities of the Decadal Survey. These are the nation's top
most scientific priorities and the potential for really
revelatory discoveries is just so exciting. And so I stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with our Chairman.
And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could submit questions for
the record, if I am permitted to do so.
Mr. Culberson. We would be happy to do so.
Mr. Schiff. But I thank the gentleman for allowing me to
attend and for all of his great advocacy for planetary science
and for all of NASA. I am happy to yield back.
Mr. Culberson. We are going to continue to rely on your
advice and guidance. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NAME BRAND RECOGNITION SURVEY
Mr. Culberson. It was a privilege to work with you and the
California delegation and my good friend Mr. Fattah. This whole
committee is devoted to ensuring that NASA has the resources
and the support that you need, sir, to do your mission. And I
think as Mr. Honda said, or Mr. Serrano, that everything NASA
does is just pure good. That is actually a nice way to look at
it. And I would frankly love to see if you could, or somebody
in your shop, find that survey that Sean O'Keefe did. Remember
he retained a firm in Baltimore to do a name brand recognition
goodwill survey of NASA and discovered that after the United
States Marine Corps, General Bolden, that NASA had the highest
positive name ID of any entity of the Federal Government. Am I
remembering that correctly? That is just extraordinary. And we
are here to help you and support you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR THE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Culberson. And I would like to follow up on Ms. Roby's
question and one that Mr. Aderholt asked, but first let me ask
you a really important question that I have been meaning to
ask, it deals with the manned space program. What is NASA's
contingency plan in the event the Russians just say no more
flights? Because obviously Vladimir Putin is reminiscent of Joe
Stalin, he is very aggressive. We are going to continue to see
the Russians attempt to expand their sphere of influence very
aggressively and I do not see relations improving any time
soon. If the Russians decide to just cancel our ability to use
Russian vehicles to get to the International Space Station,
what is your contingency plan?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, it is important for me to
state very clearly that while we are always looking at things
that could go wrong, when you look at the realities on the
ground, the relationship between NASA and Roscosmos remains
very strong. Indications are that while our two governments and
our political and diplomatic relations are not very good,
indications when you look at fiscal dealings, availability of
rocket engines, support for the International Space Station,
continued support for launching crews and commitment to the
International Space Station through 2024. In Russia that comes
from the top. So the indications are that the rhetoric on the
political side is not the same when you talk about space
exploration.
Mr. Culberson. Right. And that----
General Bolden. However----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
General Bolden [continuing]. We are always making plans for
contingencies should something go wrong.
Mr. Culberson. That is my question.
General Bolden. There are always--Mrs. Roby mentioned on a
bad day, on your worst day, what happens? On the worst day, the
Russians decide that they are no longer interested in space
exploration and that----
Mr. Culberson. Or carrying us to the space station.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I know this is going to sound
like I have some crystal ball or something. We are an
incredibly valuable partner for them, we are an indispensable
partner for them in space exploration. If they made a decision
that they no longer wanted to carry us to the International
Space Station, they have subsequently made a decision that they
no longer want to operate the International Space Station. That
is just simple. It is because we operate, we are responsible
for the day-to-day operations control of the International
Space Station. They provide propulsion, but we are planning
right now for them to, at some point take away the propulsion
module that is there right now and we have other means to do
that----
Mr. Culberson. But of course one of NASA's great strengths
has always been that you plan for the unexpected.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. You always have redundant systems on your
spacecraft, on the ground, you have the ability to fall back on
another system if one fails.
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. And we need to know, the Congress needs to
know----
NASA'S BACKUP PLAN FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What is your plan in the event
the Russians say we are not flying Americans to the space
station anymore? Please answer that directly. You have got to
be planning. I know that Mike Griffin, for example, did not
want to fly the mission to the Hubble because the high
inclination of the orbit was very different from the space
station----
General Bolden. That was Sean O'Keefe.
Mr. Culberson. Sean O'Keefe.
General Bolden. I apologize for interrupting----
Mr. Culberson. No, no, make sure I got it right.
General Bolden [continuing]. But I do not want my friend
Mike Griffin to get----
Mr. Culberson. I vividly remember the Hubble needed to be
serviced, but the concern was that if there was a problem we
could not rescue those astronauts. And the agency always has a
backup plan. So if you could, please, sir, tell us specifically
what is your contingency plan? What is NASA's backup plan in
the event the Russians say we are not flying Americans to the
space station? Tell us you have one.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because this is a partnership
and because Russian crew members would be equally at risk, our
backup plan, if you want to talk about that, would be to
mutually agree that the space station and space exploration is
going to come to an end.
Mr. Culberson. So you have no backup?
General Bolden. We would make an orderly evacuation of the
International Space Station. We have six seats, six crew
members, all six guys. If you wanted to say, what happens on a
really, really, really bad day? That the nations of the world
decide that we are done with human space flight. You are
forcing me into this answer, and I like to give you real
answers and I do not want to try to BS anybody. If the nations
of the world decided that human exploration is done, we have
the capability to bring all six crew members home, because we
have two vehicles, six seats, six crew members. That day----
Mr. Fattah. That are on the space station now.
General Bolden. That are on the space station.
Mr. Fattah. Right. So we could evacuate the station if we
need to.
General Bolden. I do not anticipate that that day is going
to come. I am not worried about getting people to the
International Space Station as long as the Congress funds the
President's budget at $1.2 billion in 2016, because we will
have an American capability to get crews to the International
Space Station. Getting them there is not the issue right now,
or getting them back is not the issue.
Mr. Culberson. I know we have got the ability to get them
back, but----
General Bolden. Getting them there. But that is the only
issue, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I urge you, it is vitally important that
NASA have the--are you making contingency plans? Have you got
people working on what if?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, may I make sure I understand
your question?
Mr. Culberson. Yes. So how do we continue--in the event the
Russians say we are not carrying anybody else to the space
station, your only plan is to evacuate it?
General Bolden. No, sir. And I thought I might confuse
people. Let's take two things. Is the question what is the
contingency plan to get people to the International Space
Station, to get crews there?
Mr. Culberson. I understand we can evacuate folks, that is
always essential. We want to make sure we can rescue people,
you have got a lifeboat capability to get them home. But if the
Russians said they are not carrying Americans anymore to the
space station before commercial reaches full capability, you
have no backup plan to continue to fly Americans to the space
station until the commercial folks get up and running?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that is the plan.
Mr. Culberson. But you do not----
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, there is no capability to get
anyone to the International Space Station today--well, there
are two ways, but I do not use one--and that is Soyuz. That is
the capability, that is the only capability any nation in the
world has. So, to talk about what is the backup plan, what is
the contingency plan, the backup plan, the very serious backup
plan is to get moving and get Boeing and SpaceX certified, so
that we can fly in 2017. That is the backup plan. Had we gotten
the funding that was requested when I first became the NASA
Administrator, we would have been all joyously going down to
the Kennedy Space Center later this year to watch the first
launch of some commercial spacecraft with our crew members on
it. That day passed. I came to this committee and I said over
and over, if we do not fund Commercial Crew----
Mr. Culberson. Had NASA not cancelled the Constellation
Program, we would be ready to fly within 12 months.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct.
Mr. Culberson. If we----
General Bolden. And, Mr. Chairman, whoever told you that,
that is not correct.
Mr. Culberson. It set us back.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, any time you interrupt a
program, it sets the nation back. So that is very true.
Mr. Culberson. Regardless of who is the President and
regardless of who planned it, it was just a setback. I just
wanted to establish it for the record and turn it over to my
good friend Mr. Fattah. But it is a deep concern that we do not
have a contingency plan to get our folks up in the event that
the Russians----
Mr. Honda. Would the Chair yield just for a real quick
second?
Mr. Culberson. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, it will be
his time.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield for a
second.
FUNDING FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Honda. Just real quick. I think we have to own the
question that you are asking that if we want those kinds of
things to happen we have to fund it. We have not funded it. I
have been here 15 years, we have been cutting every year
research and development, the kinds of program we had at NASA.
RUSSIA AND THE ISS PROGRAM
Mr. Fattah. Right. So first and foremost, just to put this
in context and not to belabor it, in terms of the space station
for a large period of time, even when we had the shuttle, the
Russians took astronauts to the space station, we used the
shuttle to take cargo; is that correct as a general matter?
General Bolden. After we lost Columbia in 2003, the
conscious decision was made because the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board said, get space station completed. We
worked with the international partners and decided the most----
Mr. Fattah. What I am saying is that----
General Bolden. But we did carry crews, but we carried the
construction crews.
Mr. Fattah. Right.
General Bolden. And we said we would use----
Mr. Fattah. But the main way to get individual astronauts
was through the Russians.
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. And when we had the problem with the Russians
and Georgia's independence and the military in Chechnya, was
there any interruption in our interactions with Russia at that
time?
General Bolden. No, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Right. And now we have this new dustup around
Ukraine, which is more than a dustup, you know, but it is a
similar kind of issue. Has there been any interruption in
Russia's cooperation with their part of this partnership?
General Bolden. No, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Right. So now they have also taken a decision
this week that they want to extend the life of the
International Space Station. They are late to that decision,
but they have said something that is useful in that regard. But
in the meantime the Administration took some action, right?
Because this dismantlement of the shuttle was always going to--
putting the shuttle to rest was always going to create this
break in our ability, this was known before this Administration
came into being. Well, it is being resolved through the
ingenuity of American enterprise, because the Administration
with the Congress has made a package of decisions about deep
space human flight, Commercial Crew and low Earth orbit, and
the investment in space technology, so that we can keep our
preeminence in space, right? So that is where we are headed.
I wanted to get back to this 238 plutonium. So when we
close the Savannah plant--and I am shifting gears now, I went
back to where we started at, right?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
PLUTONIUM-238
Mr. Fattah. When we closed the Savannah plant in '88, we
got out of the plutonium business, we got to somewhere around--
when you were in charge we had 35 kilograms of plutonium, the
DOE says we are going to get something done at Oak Ridge. I
went out to visit the plant at Oak Ridge and they have a $50
million contract with NASA to do this. In the meantime, we also
have a problem on the medical side of this with isotopes, which
we do not have any domestic capability in this regard either,
and the Department of Energy has launched an effort in that
regard. But this is very important, because if we are going to
power spaceships, we need this plutonium, right? So I just
wanted to clear up the record, it is Oak Ridge. And we need to
keep mindful of these connections between the subcommittees,
because you can speak to your colleague to make sure that that
program is robust. Right. But I thank you, we do not have to
get into it.
The bottom line is, we are in the lead now. Our lead is not
absolute, it is relative. And if we want to stay in the lead,
we have got to make these investments or, as some of my
colleagues would say, we have to spend--because they get
concerned if we use this word investment--spend money, because
we cannot lead the world on the cheap. But thank you very much.
General Bolden. Thank you.
CONTINGENCY PLAN AND FUNDING
Mr. Fattah. And I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. You know how committed our committee has
always been, we have always made sure to plus up and protect
NASA's funding levels. And my mention of the cancellation of
the Constellation, it is not political, it is a setback, no
matter who is in the White House. And it is a real concern, the
gap is a real concern. And I wish we did have a contingency, I
wish there was some way for us to get there more quickly, and
we will certainly do our best to help you do that.
I recognize Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you. And I share your concern, but I just
think that, you know, part of the problem is that we have to
fund these kinds of activities because the investment that we
make comes back in many ways in terms of the return on the
investment. And I think the subcommittee, we may have to be
more adamant with the process of the authorization part, you
know, I am just saying. On the International----
Mr. Fattah. This is the way we are going to work this. I am
going to work hand-in-hand with my Chairman and we are going to
walk this mile together. And I think at the end of the day,
there is one thing I am sure of, NASA is going to be in a
better position than it otherwise would be.
Mr. Honda. All right. And on that, I love the Europa
mission and I think that----
Mr. Culberson. That is music to his ears.
EUROPA CLIPPER MISSION
Mr. Honda. And, you know, with that kind of probe that we
want to be sending up there, we will have new insights on how
our solar system has been formed and the environment on this
icy world, and possibly even a probe for the potential for
alien life down there. Perhaps not the way we know it, but
there may be another form of alien life there. So the secondary
payloads offer relatively--is relatively cheap, a low-risk
opportunity for dramatically increased scientific capabilities
of that mission. The secondary payload on the Europa mission
could be used to fly through its geysers and water plumes to
directly search for life in the plumes and under the surface.
So what are NASA's plans to use secondary payloads on the
Europa Clipper mission to hunt for that alien life?
General Bolden. Congressman, I am going to take it for the
record to get you a formal response. However, what really
excites me is the mission to Europa has excited people all over
the scientific community, because the geysers of which you
speak, if I am correct, I think were first sighted by Hubble.
But they are not repeated, so they are not consistent. So we
are not sure that, we can--if you are going to send a secondary
payload in to fly through a geyser, then you need to know when
it is going to geyse. That is a word I just made up.
[Laughter].
We do not know how to figure that out just yet, so we are
studying. The planetary scientists are really trying to help us
understand, is there another instrument that gives us a better
idea of their frequency because what you would like to do, and
a college student could do this, was take a CubeSat. They call
them swarms. So with a mission that you sent to Europa, whether
it is the Clipper or anything else, you drop swarms off, and
they just go down near the surface. Where you would not send a
spacecraft there because the harsh radiation environment, it
would not survive, you send these little CubeSats through, and
they take all kinds of samples.
[The information follows:]
Europa Clipper Mission
At this time, nine instruments for NASA's Europa mission have been
selected. The instrument suite seeks to investigate whether Jupiter's
moon, Europa, could harbor conditions suitable for life and includes
instruments that could examine particles ejected from Europa, such as
plumes. Conceptual designs for a potential secondary payload will be
considered during the mission's early formulation.
Detailed information on the selected instruments can be found at:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-europa-mission-begins-with-
selection-of-science-instruments.
Mr. Fattah. And I hope return one to Earth.
General Bolden. So I think that is what you are talking
about. And that is really exciting when you think about it. But
that, again, is like everything, it comes from science and
technology funds, and those are the funds that we continue to
cut.
EVOLVING ISS INTO LEO COMMERCIAL MARKET
Mr. Honda. And so we need to bolster it and to be able to
move forward in areas that we want to move forward on.
Determine through the Chair, and that is the start of the
dialog with industry about how it may transition the
International Space Station from a pure government operation to
partial commercial ownership in this operation. Can you tell us
today about what your plans are? And I understand that Russia's
obligation is to 2024, so can you just give us some sort of
explanation of what the plans might be?
General Bolden. I will make it very quick. We were
disappointed. We went out with a request for information from
the industry, academia, everybody, that said we would like to
use the International Space Station. I mean, it is only going
to be there for a certain amount of time.
Mr. Honda. Yeah.
General Bolden. We would like for you to look at it and
tell us how this gives you confidence that you can go off and
position modules or other independent entities in low Earth
orbit. This is the infrastructure that I talked about.
Everybody said for the most part, ``Yeah, nice idea, but we
like going for free. We like having NASA do it, and so we're
not quite ready yet.'' We continue to pursue that however,
because we think that with the discoveries that are being made
now through CASIS, (a non-profit entity that we have put in
place to help us go out and recruit people to fly on the
International Space Station), that industry, academia,
international partners will begin to see the value of not
flying on the International Space Station, but what being in a
micro-gravity environment provides. So we just have to be
patient, but it was disappointing the first time we tried to do
it.
RUSSIA'S LAUNCH SITE RELOCATION
Mr. Honda. Very quickly, in the line of the Chairman's
question, I understand Russia is sort of winding up their
activities in Kazakhstan as a launch area, and they are going
to move back to Russia. How does that impact our programs, and
do we have a plan around that?
General Bolden. It is like everything else, where we
purchase a service. The service is getting our crews to orbit,
and it makes no difference whether they launch from Siberia or
whether they launch from Kazakhstan. It's a trip that the crew
has to take, and that will not change. The crew lives and
trains in Star City for long periods of time, and they have to
get on an airplane and fly down to Kazakhstan three days prior
to the launch. But it is the same thing we do in America. The
crew trains and lives in Houston, and they get on an airplane
three days ahead of time, and they fly down to the Kennedy
Space Center.
LOW EARTH ORBIT
But can I go back to the--because I don't want to leave
anyone mistaken--when we talk about science and technology, the
point that you made, it is critical, and we have to find better
ways to encourage industry and other entities to want to be in
low Earth orbit.
We are going to fly what is called a Bigelow Expandable
Activity Module (BEAM). It is a Bigelow. It is not inflatable.
Mr. Bigelow would get really upset if I say that. It is an
expandable module. This is an American entrepreneur who has had
dreams of putting stuff in space for probably 30 years, and has
the hardware in place if we can just find a way to get it
there. So he has two modules that have been on orbit for more
than five years now that were flown up on Russian spacecraft
with no instrumentation. So we can look at it. We can see that
they are still existing. We have no idea what is in it, whether
the air is clean or whatever. We are going to take one of his
smaller expandable modules and put it on the International
Space Station later this year, and the crews are going to be
able to go in and put logistics in there, play with it, do
whatever. What we are hoping is that there will be other
companies like some of these that are sitting on the back row
over here--I will put them on the spot--who will say, ``That is
a good idea. We want to do that also,'' and either buy a module
from Mr. Bigelow or go build their own module and put it in
another orbit. It does not have to be in the same orbit as the
International Space Station.
Mr. Honda. I think they should buy one from him. I mean, if
he has put out 30 years of effort in it, he should get a pay
off, you know.
Mr. Bolden. I don't know whether----
Mr. Honda. Anybody who builds their own, do not come see
me. You know?
General Bolden. He has built his own, and it has been a
while. But that is what, Mr. Honda, that is what we have to do,
and so we are taking the risk. We are saying we will fly you to
the International Space Station, and we are going to put you
there and then we are going to work with it and see what
happens. Our hope is that other companies will see that this is
a potential moneymaker, and they will take it and move off
somewhere else. So I did not want to go without making a note
that we were doing things.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. General Bolden, I want to go back
to the SLS.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM AND THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
Mr. Culberson. Because I am concerned about the
announcement that there has been slip in the launch date. There
has been a delay. NASA has announced a delay in the second
round of testing, a launch abort system. And the second round
of testing looks like it is going to be held in 2018. I know
that the budget request that the President submitted to the
Congress asks for a 12 percent reduction in Orion and SLS
funding, which concerns me because we have obviously got a
serious deficiency in the ability to reach low Earth orbit. We
certainly do not want to see any slippage in our ability to go
beyond low Earth orbit, and I want to make sure the SLS program
is robust, and that it achieves all of its milestones. We would
like to get it in ahead of time.
Could you talk to us about what is necessary, what does
this subcommittee and the Congress need to do, to help the SLS
prevent any more slippages? What can we do to help make sure
there are no more slippages? Why was the first launch slipped
by a year?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, if I can address the launch
abort system first. That is not a part of SLS. That's a part of
Orion, and your statement is a surprise to me. I will take it,
for the record, I will have to go back and find out. My
impression, my information, was we were getting ready to do the
test of a part of the launch abort system, at least the motors,
right over in a facility in Maryland sometime this year. But I
will go back and verify where we are there. So that had no
impact on anything about SLS.
What got us to where we are with SLS today when we say 2018
is its readiness to fly, was we went through the very formal
process of milestone evaluations and everything, and when that
was presented to Robert Lightfoot at a formal session that we
have on programmatic decision making, then it came out that we,
on our funding profile, SLS would be ready in 2018 at a certain
price. And so that was the first time that we really knew for
certain what its earliest launch date could be. But that is
only SLS in the ground system.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. That is what we are saying.
Mr. Culberson. And earlier I thought I heard you say at one
point that an initial launch capability would be late 2018, and
then I thought I also heard you say after 2018.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, what I may have said, I may
have confused things by referring to the system. I do not talk
about launch of SLS. I talk about the launch of the integrated
SLS and Orion to cislunar space. That means it is going to be
EM-2. So that is what, when I talk about important, really
important dates, because that is the way we are planning Orion.
We are planning a launch availability of Orion for EM-2. Then
we back away from that to say when EM-1 can be launched. You
know, we are trying to figure out what is the earliest possible
date that we can fly a human-rated mission on SLS and Orion.
Once we determine that--and that is what will come to you all
this summer.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. This summer you will get that to us?
General Bolden. The technical term for it is ``key decision
point two.''
Mr. Culberson. That's----
General Bolden. Key decision point C.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
General Bolden. So KDP-C. And that will not be until this
Spring or Summer. And once that occurs, we will come back in to
you and say, ``Here is the decision from KDP-C.''
Mr. Culberson. And NASA has told the subcommittee that
increasing the fiscal year 2016 budget for SLS would not result
in an advanced schedule or reduced life cycle cost for the
program, and yet you have requested a 12 percent reduction in
funding for Orion and SLS. That seems a little inconsistent. It
seems to me we are not adequately funding SLS and Orion. How
are you going to manage to stay on track if you are asking for
a 12 percent reduction?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we think we are asking for
adequate funds. We have a schedule that is built around what
comes out of the key decision point milestones. The budget that
we have in place today supports having the SLS, the launch
vehicle, and the ground systems available in 2018, the present
budget that we have in place today. We will have a budget
request, that will be refined next year once we get the KDP-C
for Orion, and I hope I am not confusing things here, but I
will get clarification back to you.
Mr. Culberson. So you anticipate you will be able to give
us an estimate of your first crewed mission by this summer?
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
DECADAL SURVEY PRIORITIES
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Let me talk a minute about the Decadal
survey priorities and see if my friend, Mr. Fattah has any
follow up, we will probably submit the bulk of these for the
record. The reason the Europa mission is so important is that
it was the top priority of the Decadal survey last decade and
the second priority this decade. And it, as you know, holds two
to three times more liquid water than all the water on Earth
and is the most likely place beyond Earth that if we are going
to find life, it is most likely right there in our own
backyard. That is why the planetary science community is so
excited about it and why this committee has supported it so
strongly.
The mission is still in its early planning phases, but I
would like to know, if you could, talk to us about the Decadal
survey in general. Are you satisfied that NASA is following the
direction of Congress in funding and flying the top priority of
the planetary Decadal survey? And talk to us about some of the
other Decadals. To me, that is the gold standard. That is what
NASA should be flying, the best recommendations of the best
minds in the scientific community, whether it be planetary,
heliophysics, earth science, or astrophysics.
General Bolden. Congressman, or Chairman, the best thing
out of Decadal surveys is the fact that it does represent the
thinking of the best minds in science, if you will, out of the
National Research Council in a specific discipline. What we
endeavor to do is follow the guidance of the Decadal survey,
and we generally try to focus on the number one and number two
areas there. We do not go down deep into the list, because the
Decadal surveys give us multiple projects that can be flown.
As the way the planetary said this past time when Steve
Squyres chaired it was, in fact, he made it very specific. The
Decadal survey was very clear. If NASA is going to fly a
subsequent Mars Rover after Curiosity and it is not going to
cache, then don't do it. I mean, they were very specific. Go to
Europa. It did not say to go to Europa and do this. But we have
decided that we can put enough funds in the budget to mount
another charge on Mars with Mars 2020, which we intend will be
a caching mission.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. The first step on that----
General Bolden. We will put samples in place----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
General Bolden [continuing]. For a subsequent return to
Earth and begin the formulation of a Europa mission. That is
what we are doing. I hate the term robust, but in general
terms, if you look at our planetary science program, Dawn is
closing in on Ceres. We are still learning from the abundance
of data that Dawn gathered in its year orbiting Vesta. New
Horizons is closing in on Pluto and is already imaging Pluto.
Juno will arrive at Saturn soon, and so--Jupiter, not Saturn,
thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, I thought that----
General Bolden. No, no, no, that is, yeah. You are right.
Mr. Culberston. It is Jupiter.
General Bolden. But every planet and major dwarf planet in
our solar system is either being investigated presently or
going to be investigated in the next two years. I know there
are people who believe we can do better than that, but I am not
sure we will make the planetary science community happy if
visiting every planet in the solar system is not good enough.
We are now talking about understanding planets in other solar
systems and other galaxies thanks to the work of Kepler. So we
are expanding the areas of investigation for planetary
scientists even beyond our own solar system. I think that is
good. I think it is great. Whether it satisfies everybody or
not, no it does not, and we never will. But it is like how much
money do you need? It does not make any difference how much
money you give me, I am going to tell you I need more.
Mr. Culberson. Well, this was the first Decadal survey I
think they had ever done where they used independent outside
cost estimates. Steve Squyres was very adamant and quite
correct in making sure that we had realistic outside
independent cost estimates on each one of those missions so
that Congress would have a good idea of what they would
actually cost.
Mr. Fattah, any follow up?
RANKING MEMBER CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Fattah. Just a closing comment, not a follow-up
question. One is, I want to thank the Chairman, and I think the
time clock thing is working. Except for me and you, it has been
working great. And I want to thank the Administrator, not for
all that you have done in terms of space exploration, but what
you are doing in terms of preparing future generations.
The Space Act Agreement with the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America, four million young people, four thousand clubs all
across the country, in getting these young people excited about
STEM education in general, but doing that through having them
learn about the exciting work of NASA, because that is how we
get people who want to be mathematicians and engineers and
everything that we need by getting them excited about this.
And I said this to the Chairman in private one day that all
of us do not have the benefit of having, you know, Cape
Canaverals or NASA Mission Controls in our district, but all of
us have these young people who want to live up to their God-
given potential, and NASA is the best opportunity to get these
young people excited about learning. So I want to thank you for
all you have done.
General Bolden. Absolutely.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda, any follow up?
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Honda. Thank you. And in the words of Leonard Nimoy,
live long and prosper. And if I may just ask one quick
question, I was really----
Mr. Fattah. That is more of a comment.
Mr. Honda. I know, but I could not resist. I just wanted to
share that, you know. I was really pleased to see NASA moving
forward with the competition-based cargo and commercial crew.
And I think that we are really concerned about that as a group.
Now that contracts with the Boeing and SpaceX are in place and
there is a clear path forward to restoring domestic crew space
transportation by 2017, under-funding this program will delay
crew flights and lead to continued reliance on Russia for
access to the International Space Station. So as a commercial
crew provider's focus on low Earth orbit, NASA would be able to
shift its focus into deeper exploration of space.
Can you just briefly discuss how the success of this
public/private partnership is shaping how NASA would be using
future missions to explore the solar system, and how do you
envision more cooperation with the private companies to explore
resources on the moon and near-Earth asteroids?
General Bolden. Congressman, we have always felt that
collaboration with private industry and entrepreneurs was the
right way to go. Commercial crew and cargo, commercial cargo
particularly, has demonstrated that that was in fact a good
plan, a good thing to do. We are now looking at collaboration
with industry and academia and entrepreneurial interest in
putting things on the surface of the moon. I tell people all
the time that we never left the moon. We have always been
there. We have orbiting vehicles right now, but in the near
future, and near is a relative term, my hope is that we will
enable humans to go back to the surface of the moon. NASA does
not have to be the organization doing it if we are implementing
it and supporting it.
We are going to be operating in cislunar space for ten
years at least when we go to the proving ground. With multiple
term trips back and forth to cislunar space, I think it is
inconceivable to me that we would not partner with some
entrepreneurial interest, or some industry, or some other
international partner who wants to build a Rover and, lower it
to the surface of the moon from the cislunar orbit in which we
happen to be. It is inconceivable to me that that will not
happen.
Mr. Honda. It could be like expanding internet, you know,
going to space and be that kind of thing. So, again, Mr.
Chairman, live long and prosper.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Honda. There is no
prohibition in current law against private companies mining----
General Bolden. Oh, I do not, Mr.--I get asked that all the
time, and I need to find an answer. I do not----
Mr. Culberson. I do not believe there is. I think, of
course, no nation----
General Bolden. I do not think there is, and that is the
problem. Everyone is concerned, and so one of the fastest
growing areas in the field of law today is space law.
Mr. Culberson. Well, no nation can claim sovereignty over a
asteroid or the moon.
General Bolden. I think you are right.
Mr. Culberson. I think that we treat it just like
Antarctica, however, though----
Mr. Fattah. Well, no nation except if we claim it, right?
Chairman's Closing Remarks
Mr. Culberston. I do think Mr. Honda raises a really
interesting, good question that I think maybe in the future we
need to think about NASA providing infrastructure and support
to the private sector to reach out, and whether it be mine
resources, make those resources as fuel stations for missions
out to deep space in the same way the highway department
provides infrastructure for commercial activity on Earth in the
future.
But we will certainly do everything we can to support you,
and it is a real privilege for me to be in this position to
help make some of those dreams of the future, of young people
come true, Mr. Fattah and Mr. Honda, and something we have
always worked together arm in arm in a bipartisan way.
I have got a lot of questions I will follow up with you
personally on as well as for the record. But it is a real
privilege for me to be chairman of this subcommittee. And I
hope as part of my legacy that I will, working with Mr. Fattah,
find a way to make sure that NASA's budget request comes
directly to us, you know, to bypass Office Management and
Budget. We ought to hear directly from you as to what you need.
We ought to give you the stability and support you need to do
multi-year procurement so that you can build spacecraft and
rockets the way the Navy builds aircraft carriers and
submarines. Mr. Fattah?
Mr. Fattah. I like the way you think, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. We----
Mr. Fattah. Directly to us. That is----
Mr. Culberson. We really do. We want to hear directly from
you, and I hope also as a part of my legacy, our legacy
together on this, I really want to see NASA focusing on those
Decadal surveys. I really think that is the proper map,
guideline, for future missions, relying on the best minds in
the industry.
It is the law today that NASA follow the planetary Decadal
survey. I would like to work with you, Mr. Fattah, in trying to
expand that to help make sure that NASA is following the
recommendations of the Decadal surveys in heliophysics and
earth sciences and astrophysics as well.
And when it comes to the manned program, that is a bigger
challenge, is how do you do a Decadal survey?
Mr. Fattah. I will say this publicly, Mr. Chairman, I love
the fact that there could be, one, a leadership role, someone
on the other team, that says you want to focus on science as
the guidepost. So it works for me. All right?
Mr. Culberson. That is it. That is my North Star, is to
make sure that we are following the recommendations of the best
minds in the scientific community in each one of these areas of
specialty.
And then also I hope to not only to make sure that we get
the SLS up and running, and get commercial up to low Earth
orbit, but for the long term, I just want to leave you with
this. I actually really think the asteroid redirect mission--I
would encourage you to focus on the development of the next
generation of rocket propulsion. That, to me, is the great
value of that mission. The fact that we are still flying a
rocket engine that has fundamentally been designed by Robert
Goddard in the 1920s is just inexcusable.
And the asteroid redirect mission, the great value there is
that for these young people that NASA touches and inspires, I
really hope it is part of my legacy in the time that my
district continues to rehire me, that I am privileged to chair
this subcommittee, that not only will we leave NASA with a
robust low Earth and deep space, manned space flight
capability, and a robotic planetary astrophysics/heliophysics
and earth science program designed and recommended by the best
minds in the industry, but also to leave for future generations
development of the first interstellar rocket propulsion system
that would carry us to Alpha Centauri and beyond.
That can be done. It is within the realm of our ability,
within the realm of the capability of the brilliant men and
women that work for you, General Bolden. And I, with the
support of my colleagues in the subcommittee, really would like
you to be thinking about, when it comes to the asteroid
redirect mission, focusing on development of the rocket
propulsion system that will take us to Alpha Centauri. To go
explore those exo-planets that are most like Earth, which
appear to be far more common than we ever realized.
I deeply appreciate it. Thank you for your indulgence and
the extra time, and I look forward to following up with you
individually and personally, as you can imagine. It will be in
great detail and very specific. I am looking forward to coming
to see you, sir, and thank you for your leadership and your
service to the country, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 17, 2015.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HON. FRANCE A. CORDOVA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Mr. Culberson. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you for your service to the country and to the scientific
community. We have, all of us on this committee over the years
have been strong supporters of the sciences and space
exploration. It is one of the great joys that I have had in
Congress to get to help, serve on this committee to help the
National Science Foundation and to ensure that the United
States stays at the cutting edge of scientific discovery in the
world. The impact that has I think on our quality of life for
this generation and generations to come is self-evident. It is
a real privilege for me to be here as the chairman and to work
with my Ranking Member Mr. Fattah and other members of the
subcommittee to do everything we can to help you achieve that
mission. Recognizing of course that we are in a very difficult
budget year with very tough constraints on the Congress to
fulfill all that is asked of us.
We are entrusted with the task of allocating very scarce
and precious, hard-earned tax dollars and it is vitally
important, of course, that we be very careful to ensure that
those hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely and targeted
very carefully. I can certainly think of few endeavors that are
more noble or worthwhile than investing in the National Science
Foundation. We do want to make sure, though, however, the money
is well spent and not wasted. So I will probably spend some of
my time in my questions talking about the Inspector General's
report. I know you are still fairly new on the job. But I do
have a lot of concerns about some of the things that the
Inspector General pointed out and I want to go over some of
those with you.
Your request for this year, for 2016 is $7.7 billion, about
a five percent increase of $379 million over the current fiscal
year. And I know that my colleague Mr. Fattah and other members
of the subcommittee feel as I do, that we certainly want to
make sure that we help you. But again, it is really going to be
a difficult, a difficult budget year.
I am delighted to have you here, look forward to your
testimony, and am happy to recognize my good friend Mr. Fattah
for any opening statement he would like to make.
Mr. Fattah. Well first of all let me thank the chairman for
hosting this hearing. I think it is very, very important that
the premier basic science and research entity in the world, we
have an appropriate understanding of your budget and we can do
that through this hearing. The work that is being done is
critically important. And I want to put in some, and if you
would as you talk today, in context what our friends around the
world are doing. Right? So I was with Judith Rodin at the
Rockefeller Foundation and she was saying that in China they
just opened up 100 science only universities, and 200 math and
science focused institutions. They have invested a great deal
in basic scientific research. Now that is a big and plus
populated country. But Singapore, which is a much smaller
country, less people there than in the Philadelphia region,
their National Science Foundation, which was built off of, you
were the benchmark for it, they have invested over $7 billion.
And this is a small, small, I mean, you know how big Texas is,
right? I mean, 4.5 million people in Singapore. I mean, the
fact that they could make such a huge investment.
And then our friends in the European Union with Horizon
2020, which is a seven-year effort, well over $80 billion
euros, focused just in six areas. You know, marine science,
neuroscience, which of course is my favorite, but agricultural
science. So I am wondering when we think about America and we
think about our leadership in the world, which was at one point
absolute and now is relative. That is, that we still lead but
there are people who are chomping at the bit and they want a
piece of the action. In fact, Singapore has been hiring away
some of our best scientists. So the head of the National Cancer
Center, and his spouse, and on, and on, and on. I mean, they
have been picking up pieces because they intend to be
indispensable in the world. So I am wondering when you talk to
us today about the work of the Science Foundation you could put
it in context so that it is not just a matter, I do not see it
as just a budget for an agency. I really see it as the
indispensable lynchpin to this innovation ecosystem in our
country. That if we do not invest in basic science research,
none of the other things that we want to do as a country are
going to be possible, including our national defense which is
so very important. A lot of the breakthroughs in our ability to
defend ourselves against the world's threats start at their
core from work at the, that has been funded by the National
Science Foundation.
So welcome, I thank the chairman, and look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. I certainly share Mr.
Fattah's feelings. And I hope as a part of your testimony today
you will talk to us about the other nations in the world and
their investment. I think Mr. Fattah is exactly right, to focus
our attention on that. Where are other nations in their
investment in the sciences? In the pure sciences and
engineering and where we are in relation to them.
Of course your statement will be entered into the record in
its entirety, without objection. And we welcome your testimony.
And we want to encourage you, if you could, to keep it within
about five minutes as a summary. So thank you very much and we
look forward to hearing from you today. Thank you, ma'am.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member
Fattah, and members of the subcommittee. I see Congressman
Jenkins, good to see you again. I am pleased to testify today
on behalf of the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 2016
budget submission.
In my written testimony I have addressed specific aspects
of our budget request, including funding for our four cross-
directorate programs, ``Understanding the Brain,'' ``Risk and
Preparedness for Disasters,'' ``The Interrelatedness of Food,
Water, and Energy Science,'' and ``Expanding Efforts to Broaden
Participation in STEM.'' NSF believes that this budget
comprises a strong request that is responsive to the national
interest in science as well as science in the national
interest.
In this, my oral testimony, I will address three more
general questions. First, why do we fund what we fund? Namely,
all fields of science and engineering, including the
sociobehavioral and economic sciences. Secondly, how does our
agency set priorities for funding? And third, what is NSF's
long range plan, our vision for science? And Ranking Member
Fattah, I will try to answer in one sentence your question
about international and then perhaps we can follow that up in
the rest of the testimony.
On the first question, why do we fund what we fund? Let me
quote President Harry Truman, ``I have just signed the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950. This Act is of tremendous
importance because it will add to our knowledge in every branch
of science. I am confident that it will help to develop the
best scientific brains in the nation. It will enable the United
States to maintain its leadership in scientific matters and to
exert a more vital force for peace.'' So he was addressing just
what you were talking about, Congressman.
NSF has long prided itself on adding to the knowledge base
for all science and engineering. That is by statute not a
narrow focus. Many of our important challenges require the
perspectives and knowledge of both physical scientists and
social and behavioral scientists. It is interesting to note
that the last 51 Nobel Prize Winners in Economics have been
supported by our Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate.
We believe that good research, often interdisciplinary in
character, can inform us in the face of big scientific
questions.
On the second question of setting priorities, we start with
input from the large community of scholars, scientists,
engineers, and educators. This can come in the form of decadal
surveys, which set priorities for a discipline. NSF sets its
priorities in part through these surveys. Examples include the
Decadal Survey in Astronomy, and the recent Ocean Science
Decadal Survey. We also support studies by the National
Academies and carefully weigh the advice of scientific
societies, NSF sponsored workshops, and universities and
research centers. We balance all this external input with the
input of our talented staff at NSF and then carefully put our
budgets together.
Lastly on the third question, what is the ten-year plan for
the National Science Foundation? I am reminded of a question
posed to Condoleezza Rice, long before she became Secretary of
State. She was asked what her strategic plan was for her
future. She said that if she had made a strategic plan when she
was young she would have been playing the piano at Nordstrom's.
She was a gifted child pianist. The point is that some people,
and for some agencies like the National Science Foundation
which pursues the most fundamental research, planning needs to
be highly flexible and adaptive to discoveries, insights, and
advances that are unpredictable. It is limiting to plan for a
future that cannot be envisioned. It is the opposite of what we
were funded to do, which is to pursue great ideas of creative
people.
I am an astrophysicist. When I was in graduate school,
there were no known planets orbiting other suns. There was no
detection of the Higgs boson. We had not discovered yet dark
energy, which we now know to comprise 75 percent of the matter
energy content of the universe. How could we not have known?
Because the basic science had not yet been done, and we could
not have predicted where it would lead us. Can we make a ten-
year plan for where our research in these wondrous new areas
will lead us? We can, and do, plan very carefully in as much
detail as our current knowledge permits.
Our plan, which we update every four years, has been
approved by the National Science Board. Additional details are
filled in by those scientists and engineers who pursue
fundamental research, wherever it leads. And exciting, new, and
unexpected directions can be pursued precisely because of our
flexibility.
And now let me just take--is the red light on there? Does
that say five? Just one second to open the door to discussing
international collaborations. As the recent report from the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences said, and they addressed
this in ``Restoring the Foundation,'' that the U.S.' place has
slipped to number ten in the world as far as the expenditure of
R&D divided by GDP. And we used to be number one or two a
decade or so ago. So there is a lot of good hard evidence for
our concern, in spite of the fact that we do spend substantial
monies in R&D, as you point out Congressman Fattah: the rest of
the world is relatively spending more, their first derivative
is just simply higher than ours. And they are bringing back
students and professors that we have had at our universities
and giving them good packages there.
And everywhere we go around the world, and especially in
Asia, we see the growth of universities and the growth of the
investment. Just yesterday I was with the Prime Minister of
Ireland, where we were celebrating St. Patrick's Day. And he
was pointing out, as was his Minister of Science who leads
their equivalent of the National Science Foundation, the
substantial investment that Ireland has been making and that
they have an enormous innovation product as a result of that
and they are very, very proud of that. Much credit was given to
the National Science Foundation for originally providing the
model for that investment. So I look forward to your further
questions in this and all areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to address you.
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS ON FACILITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Cordova. And I
want, if I could, to talk about the Inspector General's report
from last September in particular. Because we are all of us in
the subcommittee enthusiastic and very supportive of the work
that you do, and the awarding of grants, and the work that you
do in ensuring that the United States maintains its leadership
role in the world in scientific research. Particularly in the
pure sciences, which obviously include the earth sciences as
well. But the budget environment in which we operate is so
constrained that I am compelled to in the weeks ahead, follow
up with a visit out to headquarters to talk to you about this.
I am so concerned about what the Inspector General tells us
about some of the deficiencies and the ability of the National
Science Foundation to independently verify the cost of, for
example the Daniel Inouye Solar Telescope, the Large Synoptic
Survey Telescope.
The Inspector General points out that after over four years
of attempting to audit the proposed cost for construction of
the telescopes there continues to be a lack of adequate
documentation to determine if the costs are fair and
reasonable. And the Inspector General also points out that the
NSF's internal review, for example of the cost of the Large
Synoptic Survey Telescope, it was not possible for you all to
independently verify costs for any of the 136 proposal
expenditures sampled, including approximately $145 million in
direct materials. And after this critical report was issued the
Inspector General points out the independent proposal and
accounting system audits were clearly warranted to ensure the
adequacy and proper accounting of the proposed costs, but
instead of obtaining those audits NSF had a contractor perform
a sufficiency review which is a less rigorous assessment than
an audit. And in September, 2014 the Inspector General issued
an alert memo expressing strong concern that NSF did not have
sufficient information to establish a reasonable basis for the
cost of the LSST project. They have been urging NSF for the
last four years to strengthen accountability of your high
dollar, high risk cooperative agreements for large
construction, large facility construction projects. They point
out, quite correctly, that you do indeed apply your highest
level of attention and scrutiny to determine the scientific
merits of the projects that you attempt to fund. But it is this
independent assessment of the actual cost, to be able to verify
that and strong audit procedures that the Inspector General has
recommended apparently repeatedly. I understand you are still
fairly new on the job but I would like to, in light of the
difficult budget environment in which we operate, in light of
this committee's strong support for the work that you do and
our passion to help you do what you do, to assure our
constituents that their money is being wisely spent, what have
you done to comply with the Inspector General's
recommendations?
Dr. Cordova. I appreciate the question. And even though as
you said I am relatively new, I have been on this from the
first moment I stepped in the door, I can assure you. And from
my previous positions heading up a couple of our nation's great
universities, I take the responsibility of excellence in
management as seriously as I do our mission to further the
progress of science.
I will just say a couple of general things and then address
your specific questions. The Foundation is committed to working
closely with the Inspector General and her office. I meet
regularly with the Inspector General and we go over all the
issues that are outstanding. I truly do believe, as you do,
that it is only with the strong support of the Inspector
General and Congress that oversight of taxpayers' resources can
ultimately be achieved. And we are very appreciative of those
efforts.
I will also say in a general sense, and I will be happy to
send the particulars, that many of the Inspector General's, in
fact I would say most of their observations and recommendations
we have followed. We have saved the taxpayer monies in our
travel costs in the last couple of years, the way we are doing
virtual panels. We have saved in a number of other areas and I
can detail them.
Dr. Cordova. Now on your specific issues. Sometimes as you
know there is I.G. information that is given to Congress, and
that information perhaps is not reviewed for a period after
that even though NSF has responded to all the actions. So I
will say, again in a general context, that it is important that
we know exactly what you know from the I.G., when you know it,
so that we can respond to you in a timely manner that yes, just
two months ago we did such and such in response, or yesterday.
In the case of one recent memo we did, we have issued our
response, or we are going to in a couple of weeks. So there is
kind of a timing issue here because we have been on all of the
issues you have described and we have responded to each in
turn.
For example, with respect to the Large Synoptic Survey
Telescope, NSF did apply a formal response to the alert memo on
January 23rd of this year. With respect to two significant
deficiencies, prior year's significant deficiency related to
NSF's monitoring of construction type agreements, and NSF's
practices, I can assure you we properly follow the OMB's newly
clarified guidance pertaining to contingency funding and
awards. This notwithstanding, NSF is going to continue to
strengthen our controls for awarding and managing construction
type cooperative agreements, exercise an enhanced surveillance
in response to OIG concerns, and perhaps most importantly, we
have with the great help and blessing of the National Science
Board, represented today by its Chairman Dr. Dan Arvizu, who is
sitting behind me. We have co-asked an external entity to
provide us with a very thorough investigation, I would say
``study'', of our cooperative management vehicle. And we hope
within a few months time to get the first phase of the study
done. But it is a careful statement of work that addresses all
of these concerns and really looks at the details. And we think
that by putting it out in a very well recognized external
entity they can address it properly.
IMPLEMENTING INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Culberson. How about implementing the Inspector
General's specific recommendations that you strengthen the
accountability of your high dollar, high risk cooperative
agreements and have essentially an independent proposal and
accounting system audit in place? Have you begun to implement
their recommendations that they have been recommending now for
the last four years when it comes to your high dollar, high
risk cooperative agreements for large construction projects?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, we are. And I would be able to follow it
up with more detail. But we have it in our policy manual for
our large facilities. That office has a new leader and we have
really strengthened the policies and procedures in that manual,
Mr. Chairman. We are moving in that direction. Now that is not
to say we do not have areas where we disagree with the IG's
office about following exact guidance of the OMB. And that is
why we are asking an external entity to study this. But we have
really tightened up our procedures and policies. And very
recently we gave 292 documents to demonstrate this to the
Senate in response to their questions on these issues.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, thanks. I will follow up on this with
you. And I would love to come out and visit the headquarters
and I want to learn more about what is going on with the moving
of the headquarters. I want to recognize my good friend Mr.
Fattah, thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. I am in agreement with the chairman
on almost everything but when he said that he was concerned
about the telescope and he was going to come over to
headquarters, he really lost me there. I thought he was saying
that we would go to Hawaii and look at the telescope. So, see,
so you know, maybe as he follows up, you know, there will be an
opportunity for the subcommittee and we can go inspect this.
But no, on a serious note, you know, I want to get to my
point in a minute. But obviously we have a department in the
federal government that has not been able to be audited. It is
the largest recipient of discretionary money, the Department of
Defense. It has never been able to sustain an audit. We have a
bill I think now where we are saying they have to be audit
ready by 2025. But today's budget that will be released will
put another $90 billion into Defense. So it is, yes, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Culberson. I want to be sure to point out that the
United States Marine Corps----
Mr. Fattah. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Was the first to accept
generally accepted accounting procedures.
Mr. Fattah. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. So they can be audited independently, and
then the Navy followed suit. So the Marines are once again
first on the beach.
UNDERSTANDING THE BRAIN
Mr. Fattah. So they, in our lifetime we may get to a point
where the $600 billion or so we spend in Defense will be
auditable in any reasonable way. They lost $9 billion that they
cannot account for in Afghanistan. Now in, it is gone. Right.
So, I just want to make it clear, right? That these issues are
important but everything is relative within the context of the
world that we live in. And I appreciate the fact that we have
IGs. I, with Chris Shays, was one of the early cosponsors of
the bill that created the IG Act. But I think it is very
important that they focus, that we need to make the main thing
the main thing. Right? So and not get too, that sometimes I
think some of their work is not as helpful to focusing on what
is the driving impulse here, right? So I want to focus on what
I think, and I think everybody in this room knows, that I
believe is the main thing which is understanding the human
brain. And the chairman is going to, we are going to have a
hearing next week. But I see you list this as one of the cross-
foundation investments. And I want to make a point.
I was out at a university and saw a young lady who is 51,
she has lost complete control of any part of her body. But she
was able to move an artificial arm, give me a high five, give
me a fist pump, using her thoughts. And this is out of some
National Science Foundation research. Thirty years ago there
was a scientist, who was the same one I met 30 years later. He
got a grant from you because he said he wanted to see what
happened in the brains of a chimpanzee when the chimp moved his
arm. You know, what neurons fired off? And anyway, this
research has been funded, and funded, and funded. And now it
has interceded in the lives of people who are suffering from
debilitating diseases, where their brains are completely there
but their ability to control their body is not. So I want to
say that the work of the Foundation is very important. And I
want to, the point that I wanted to ask you about is it says in
the, this ``Understanding the Human Brain'' that the
administration's brain research, that sentence right there.
Because the members of this committee, we think that the
administration's brain research effort is really, has a
paternity that is shared in with the Congress. That we created
some language in 2011, I sent a member of the staff of this
committee, Darek Newby, over to the National Science
Foundation. He met unit by unit with the directorate around
what was being done about the human brain. Out of that we
passed some bipartisan language that created this brain
initiative. And I just want, when the administration comes
over, and I love the administration, is to make sure that they
are aware that this is a, this is an effort that is joined in
with the Congress. This is not something that the
administration just decided to go do.
And it is important because this administration, in 20
months or so we will have a new administration. So it is
important that you understand and the Foundation understands
that the Congress, Chairman Rogers has been very interested in
addiction issues. And the chairman and I, we have met numerous
times on this issue. That is one of the reasons why we are
holding a hearing on this. So I just want to make the point
that this is not an executive branch activity solely. This is
an activity that the United States Congress and the
administration share in, understanding how important this is.
So if you would like to respond, please.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you. Yes, the administration's brain
initiative that focuses on developing new neurotechnologies is
part of, but only a part of, NSF's efforts going forward, and
just a part of our Understanding the Brain cross-directorate
initiative, which includes cognitive science and neuroscience,
and always has. We have always funded brain research at the NSF
at the basic level
This time we are hoping with the new expanded initiative to
involve engineering. I have the Head of Engineering here,
Pramod Khargonekar, with me, and they are interested in a more
systems approach to Understanding the Brain. And also
physicists, and chemists, and getting more people involved,
because we think that new discoveries will come from that.
Mr. Fattah. I just want the record to be clear. So we have
created language in the report that required the creation of
the interagency working group.
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Fattah. It was co-chaired by NSF and NIH.
Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Fattah. And that the brain initiative is an outgrowth
thereof. So that I just think it as important so we can be as
supportive as we want to be, that you include an understanding
that the Congress shares totally in this effort.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
GREEN BANK TELESCOPE
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was taking a quick
look. The temperature in Honolulu is 64 degrees right now. At
Green Bank, West Virginia, where there is another telescope, we
are going to get up to 64. So it is not driven by the weather
that you are wanting to go to Hawaii. And I am excited to know
of your interest in visiting a telescope, because we proudly
have the Green Bank Telescope in my district. And it is only
four and a half hours away, so we will be happy to do a field
visit.
Good morning, and welcome. I am glad to have you. And for
the members of the subcommittee I had the honor of having
dinner with the EPSCoR folks and having an opportunity to sit
with and talk with the Director at that time. So thank you very
much.
I would like to delve in a little bit. I visited Green Bank
yesterday and had the opportunity to speak with the Director
there, Director Dr. Karen O'Neil. Give me if you would not
mind, Madam Director, the current NSF funding vis a vis that
project? Obviously I am most interested in the Astronomy
Portfolio Review Committee's recommendation from two years ago
and where this project sits vis a vis this particular budget.
Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm. So Congressman Jenkins, we do, as I
said in my opening remarks, really listen to decadal surveys.
And there is an astronomy, the most recent decadal survey, and
then followed up by as you pointed out the Astronomy Portfolio
Review, in which they, within the context of a projected
budget, set priorities. And because our budget is limited, we,
in an effort to do new things and expand our horizons, also
need to look with an eye to divest things that have been going
on for a long time and afford us, with a careful divestment, of
the opportunity of doing new things with limited dollars. And
so the Astronomy Portfolio Review did identify Green Bank,
among several other telescopes as you know, as being one to be
divested. But the astronomy group does not do that lightly. So
we have had an ongoing study, and we should have a report by
the middle of this calendar year, on what the environmental
landscape looks like, what potential partners could be. And we
would like to proceed in a very careful orderly fashion.
I personally have talked with the President of West
Virginia University about this and his deep passion for this
telescope, and also previously with Senator Rockefeller, of
course, who shared that passion. And we are, we are committed
to doing the right thing. And a lot of these telescopes, of
course, once they have been operating a long time are great for
raising new students and giving them an awareness of the
universe and an opportunity. And so we are looking at outreach
opportunities, we are looking at training opportunities. And we
will let you know just as soon as that study is done of what
divestment options are possible.
Mr. Jenkins. Is there a basic philosophy? What I am hearing
you say, and there is no direct correlation I assume between
the budget request as the chair indicated, the proposed budget
is actually higher than what you are currently funded at, is
that correct?
Dr. Cordova. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. So while you are seeking more money, what you
are saying philosophically is that through this process you go
in and evaluate projects and through this review structure you
then may divest yourself. So out with the old, in with the new?
Is this a process you go through? So regardless of where we
stand budgetarily, there is no direct correlation necessarily
between the funding you receive and the projects you are going
to fund over the course of the year?
ASTRONOMY FACILITY PRIORITIES
Dr. Cordova. Well Congressman, there is a great indirect
correlation. Because if we were, I mean, astronomy is a very
expensive field. And these telescopes we were talking about
earlier, LSST and DKIST among them, are big costly facilities
which are deemed appropriate by the scientists and really the
whole astronomy world comes together in this priority setting
exercise. And so the budget, as you pointed out the budget
request is 5.2 percent higher. That is not enough. It is over
all fields of science and engineering, as you know. So there
are budget numbers that are given, both constant and just a
little bit of increase, to these review committees when they
get together. And it is in that context that they make these
decisions.
Mr. Jenkins. What is your power and authority in the
funding mechanism? You know, after Congress, you know, passes a
budget, or through whatever mechanisms you are funded, it seems
to me the ball is then in your court and you are in the,
theoretically the bully pulpit. You are the holder of the purse
strings. People come to you through their application process.
You are the decider. What leverage, because I think you would
have a significant amount of leverage. Because I know Green
Bank, for example, works with NASA, they work with EPSCoR, they
work with the STEM emphasis in education, higher ed
institutions like WVU. I politely want to challenge the NSF to
take what I believe is an asset like Green Bank Telescope, the
only fully directional telescope in the world, and all of those
players around, and challenge them to step up to the plate and
engage in a collaborative way. Because I would think you would
want one plus one to equal three. Let us figure out how to use
your dollars, taxpayer dollars that are appropriated through
this process, to their maximum extent possible. Could I
challenge you to get the NASA folks, and the higher ed
institutions, and others to try to work collaboratively? And as
you, through this process, these coming months, let us see if
we cannot take a critically important asset and make it as
useful as possible so the next time we have a review committee
they say we cannot afford to lose this.
Dr. Cordova. Right. Well, I accept your challenge,
Congressman Jenkins, and look forward to working with you.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Madam Director. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I know that Mr. Serrano would feel the same
way about the Arecibo Telescope as well. And it is vitally
important that we protect these assets, and at the very least
that we are working to make sure that if indeed, they are shut
down that we have replaced them. But it is a vitally important
facility----
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. At Green Bank as well as
Arecibo.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. And I have talked as early as just one
week ago with Administrator Bolden about the Arecibo Telescope.
As you know, he has visited it recently. And so NASA is one of
the potential partners. And divesting does not mean that it
will not continue, it simply means that our share in it will be
different at the end of it. And that is, that is not an
unwelcome outcome if we have good partners and it can be
sustained to do good science.
Mr. Culberson. And my concern is the same as Mr. Jenkins,
and I know everyone on the committee, when I ask about the
Inspector General and the independent cost verification and the
audits. It is because it is so important to protect your
sterling reputation, and we do everything we can to make sure
that the public understands that you are spending their hard
earned money wisely and carefully and that you have done
everything you can to ensure that, as Mr. Fattah said, it would
certainly help with the Pentagon, you have got the ability to
have independent outside cost verification and audits. So let
me at this time recognize Mr. Kilmer.
SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE U.S. AND ISRAEL
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for being
with us. Last year Congress established a national policy under
the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act to pursue
opportunities to deepen the relationship between the U.S. and
Israel. And I understand the NSF is currently pursuing some
collaborative research between researchers and engineers in our
two countries. I am supportive of that and I would like to see
that level of activity expanded. Does the NSF plan to continue
supporting collaborative research between, within academic
research between the U.S. and Israel and plan on expanding the
breadth and depth of support for additional research between
our two nations?
Dr. Cordova. Good morning, Congressman Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
Dr. Cordova. NSF does support significant collaborations
between U.S. and Israeli researchers as you pointed out. In
fact, I went through the tables and counted 57 such
collaborations. These are typically as you know bottom up or
researcher driven. However, in some areas there are specific
opportunities that encourage U.S.-Israeli collaborations and
these are built upon clusters of excellence that exist in both
the U.S. and Israel.
I have made three trips to Israel myself, in fact I have an
honorary degree from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. And I
have seen the great technology prowess of many, many
universities in areas where mutual collaboration is definitely
warranted. So we look forward to, we do not set aside, as you
know, particular money to collaborate with particular countries
in general. But we are increasingly collaborating with
international partners at the forefront of science.
And let me add something of interest also in response to
your question, and to Ranking Member Fattah's question. Today
we are putting out a public press release that announces the
new head of our International Science and Engineering Office.
And this is an office which you approved in our spending plan
that to give it the proper attention I would separate it out as
directly reporting to me, and now we have a new Head. And I
think you will be pleased. I do not know if the notice has come
out now, or in an hour from now, but I think you will be
pleased to see who is going to be leading that and her
background.
SUPPORT FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH
Mr. Kilmer. I want to go to a different part of the world.
As the Arctic is becoming more and more navigable its
importance to our national security also rises in importance.
You know, I understand that NSF is making some investments to
study the Arctic, such as Sikuliaq, the Arctic Observing
Network. What are the NSF's plans for enhancing funding to the
Geosciences Directorate to utilize that infrastructure
investment and how does NSF plan to respond to the need for
enhanced arctic research and effective infrastructure
utilization within Geo?
Dr. Cordova. The NSF recognizes of course the importance of
arctic research and I am the Chair of a subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council, which is an
interagency committee devoted to research in the arctic. We
spend at NSF about $150 million per year on arctic research,
with about $100 million by the arctic section of Polar Programs
and the remainder distributed throughout other programs in the
agency.
OCEAN OBSERVATIONS INITIATIVE UPDATE
Mr. Kilmer. One final question. Can you give me an update
on the status of how the cables and sensors of the Ocean
Observation Initiative are operating, and what the long term
operation and maintenance plans are for the Ocean Observing
Initiative within the NSF?
Dr. Cordova. My understanding is that the cables are
working very well, especially in the Pacific Northwest region.
And they are a model for the investment. I personally am very
much looking forward to our OOI getting fully implemented,
which as you know will be very soon.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Mr. Jolly?
THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN STEM EDUCATION
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here. I do not think I have ever had the opportunity to have a
conversation with an astrophysicist, so thank you for being
here.
I had an opportunity to visit with your team earlier this
year on the broadening contribution of community colleges when
it comes to STEM. And I would like to talk to you just briefly,
get your thoughts, your vision, in terms of the Foundation's
mission when it comes to STEM, and the evolution of community
colleges from the fifties, when you know the original mission
of NSF was stood up. The community colleges today have become a
first choice institution for many students. The offerings, the
portfolio are now four-year degrees, many of them focusing on
STEM, many of them competitive with research universities in
terms of the education in the sciences, the ability to
contribute to the work force of the sciences, of engineering.
And you know, clearly they are not research universities, I
recognize that. But how has the mission evolved at NSF to begin
to recognize and include contributions from community colleges?
Particularly in the broader mission of having a population and
a work force that is trained in the sciences, but perhaps in a
way that does not reach the level of basic research, extensive
basic research I should say, but still contributes to how our
national STEM needs as well as our work force STEM needs, where
is NSF in that process? And what is your vision of it coming
from a research university background?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Congressman Jolly. Yes, I also have
a background in a system, the University of California system
that you might know has many, many community colleges. And I
spent a lot of my time as Vice Chancellor at U.C. Santa Barbara
and then Chancellor of the U.C. Riverside campuses being
concerned with students migrating from community colleges to
the University of California and the Cal State campuses.
I was also very much struck by a report that the California
Council on Science and Technology did which showed that fully
half of the science and engineers baccalaureates in the
University of California system had their start at the
community colleges. So that is a huge impetus. So that is one
thing.
Another is in our Broadening Participation initiative, and
as you know we have a big cross-directorate initiative for
fiscal year 2016 called INCLUDES, and one of its purposes, its
main purpose, is to broaden participation. As Congressman
Fattah said, many of the international folks are being called
back home. We have to further develop our own STEM national
workforce. And the community colleges are a great place for
this. They also represent, as you know from Florida, a
significant change in the demography and we want to capture the
hearts and minds. And from an astrophysicist, there is nothing
like talking about the universe to do that for our students.
So how have we actualized that? We do have programs. And I
have with me our Head of Education and Human Resources' Joan
Ferrini-Mundy, who can describe more in follow up information
on specific programs from community colleges. I know of a
recent one since I have come on board, which is two dear
colleague letters to these universities, especially the
Hispanic-serving ones, to have them make proposals to fund more
research experiences for undergraduate students at the
community colleges. There is nothing like an undergraduate
research experience. And I had such an experience and it
changed my life.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. And Dr. Varmus at the National Cancer
institute will tell you the same thing, that we both changed
from being English majors to becoming scientists because of our
research experience.
Mr. Jolly. And now you are here. I do not know if you have
done something right or wrong----
Dr. Cordova. Oh, I am here.
Mr. Jolly [continuing]. And we had a great visit with Ms.
Mundy, and I want to compliment your leadership team. And we
have talked about this. And the reason I bring it up on the
record is really, I represent a community that does have major
research universities nearby but the fact is it is a community
where because of the cost of higher education these days, and
because of the quality of four-year degrees now offered at what
traditionally had been two-year colleges in the fifties and
sixties when NSF was first founded, it is a different landscape
in higher education now and it is an opportunity to capture a
very different student base that perhaps we had not had the
opportunity before. I think it is a great opportunity for NSF
and for us as a country.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. And I completely agree with that. I have
been informed that we are investing $66 million in Advanced
Technology Education for community colleges----
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. In addition.
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
Mr. Jolly. Thank you. And if I, is my time up? Do I have
another--I just wanted very briefly on the brain initiative,
and I concur with Mr. Fattah's comments. What is your
assessment of where we are? What is the maturation in terms of
current resources, results to be expected? I mean, is this an
area that we are expecting breakthroughs? And if so, are the
current resources sufficient? Is it an area for dramatic
discoveries if we were to increase that investment?
Dr. Cordova. I think it is absolutely the area for the most
dramatic advances. You know, it is interesting that we spend a
lot to explore the first moments of our universe. We spend a
lot to explore the nature of matter and particle accelerators.
And the most complex organ that we know of in the universe is
ourselves, our brains. And we know the least about that. There
is a huge horizon for understanding it better. And I compare it
to the days, my early days, when astronomy changed to
astrophysics. The astronomers of yore collected photographic
plates of the heavens and they made a lot of advances. In my
own field, which is high energy astrophysics, so you have to
get above the atmosphere, the real advances came when the
physicists and engineers stepped into the picture. And they
said we can launch rockets and satellites and new kinds of
detectors, new sensors that we are developing through our young
brains. And they made incredible advances. The field I ended up
in, x-ray astronomy: we did not know there were x-rays given
off by other astrophysical sources. And we do now because of
technology. And so it is technology, I think in part, that will
give us a better understanding. And that is why the emphasis on
neurotechnologies, on how to image the brain in real time. And
in addition through our social and behavioral sciences we will
understand more about how people react and understand more
about the behavior of the brain. But both are necessary. We
need the technologies in order to really investigate the brain.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I
yield back my second round.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Dr.
Cordova. Thank you for joining us today. I would like to
commend you for your efforts to advance America's scientific
leadership. And for decades the U.S. has been seen as a beacon
for encouraging free thought, which you were just talking
about, and supporting fundamental scientific research. Students
and innovators from around the world have flocked to the U.S.
to study and do research. And the research they perform not
only pushes the bounds of our understanding of the universe but
also directly fosters U.S. prosperity and global leadership and
awards for the social sciences.
Much of this fundamental research, scientific discovery,
and promotion of STEM education supporting tech innovation is
supported directly by the NSF and the programs your agency
supports play a major role in keeping the U.S. on the cutting
edge of science and engineering and truly makes the U.S. the
innovation capital of the world. And so I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this committee to make sure that
NSF has adequate resources to continue to support scientific
research, from anthropology to zoology, through scientific
advances that will push the bounds of human understanding and
inspire future generations of innovators and power the present
and future U.S. economy.
Having said that, one of my staffers is an astrophysicist
from the University of Santa Cruz. So he was very excited about
your background.
Dr. Cordova. Wonderful. I have a t-shirt with Santa Cruz
and my own field on it, cataclysmic variable star with U.C.
Santa Cruz on it.
Mr. Honda. With that----
Dr. Cordova. I just want to connect.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
Mr. Honda [continuing]. Reclaiming my time, in the area of
high performance computing, I commend NSF for its important and
historic role in advancing our nation's competitiveness through
the support of a vast computing infrastructure and the science
and engineering applications it enables because that is
critical. The NSF should plan and commit its vision for
maintaining and modernizing this world class big data and high
performance computing that supports all areas of scientific
research and education, including the most demanding and
challenging science problems. And in view of the NSF's
considerable expertise in high performance computing for open
science, what is NSF's plan to maintain and modernize its high
performance computing infrastructure, software, and
applications?
Dr. Cordova. We have, as you know, a whole division that is
focused on computing infrastructure information for science and
engineering. And we have a lot of assets around the United
States in high performance computing. In previous testimony I
have talked about results from the Blue Waters computer, and
from the Texas Stampede computers. But those are only two of
the many facilities that we have. So I would be very happy,
Congressman Honda, to provide you with backup materials that
describe all of those assets and exactly what the plan is for
advanced computing infrastructure going forward.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING A WIDE VARIETY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Mr. Honda. Thank you. In the last Congress we saw an
unprecedented expansion of congressional interaction with NSF's
scientific grant award process. And the NSF was required to
share a large number of documents and correspondence relating
to projects that were funded by the Foundation. The intended
goal of gaining access to the information seemed to be to
demonstrate how some research programs, particular those in the
social and behavioral sciences, were not in the ``national
interest,'' and that it was wasteful and irresponsible of NSF
to fund them. This targeting and the mischaracterization of
social and behavioral science through a 15-second inflammatory
sound byte rather than being thoughtful discussions and in an
informed debate, was very troubling to me. And the funding and
publishing of scientific research needs to remain in the hands
of scientists and the peer review process and not subject to a
lot of the political pressures that we impose. Could you speak,
and you mentioned earlier, speak briefly to this point, and
perhaps give some examples to highlight the important of
funding a wide variety of sciences, including social and
behavioral sciences? And how is the funding of social science
in America's national interest, since you mentioned briefly
about neuroscience also? So I would be very interested in
hearing your response to that.
Dr. Cordova. Right. Well, thank you. Well, clearly we
believe that the social and behavioral and economic sciences is
a vital part of our whole portfolio. In fact, so vital that if
one looks in detail at our cross-directorate initiatives for
fiscal year 2016, one can see that the social and behavioral
sciences are very much involved in all of those.
The social and behavioral and economic sciences study with
scientific tools the behavior of institutions and individuals
and response to change. SBE is NSF's smallest research
directorate, representing less than five percent--
Mr. Honda. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Of the total of NSF's research
and related activities account, and around three percent of its
total portfolio. The impact of the social and behavioral
sciences has been enormous. You asked for a couple of examples.
I will just give you a very few. We contributed mightily in the
social sciences to the FCC's notion of spectrum auctions, which
have netted over $60 billion in revenue for the federal
government. That is the apportioning of the airwaves via a
practical application of game theory and experimental
economics. Almost 20,000 kidney transplants take place in the
U.S. each year and the waiting list continues to grow. A Nobel
Prize Winner funded by NSF led a team of researchers that
developed a computational technique that greatly expanded the
pool of safe exchanges in the chain of cooperating pairs of
donors and recipients. A third example would be in SBE-funded
research that studied nonverbal communication cues that has
been picked up by the Army, specifically the Army Research
Institute, which now incorporates nonverbal communication
education into soldier training. And you can imagine where that
would be very important. And then in the mid-1980s that
directorate, SBE, made a commitment to fund the National Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis at three universities.
I had the opportunity to visit one of those and see close
hand----
Mr. Honda. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. The tremendous things they are
doing. And it has really changed the whole development of the
multibillion dollar geographic information industry. So those
are just a few select examples.
Mr. Honda. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SAFEGUARDING THE TAXPAYERS INVESTMENT
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I completely agree that the work
that you do and the grants that you award, the scientific
research that is conducted by universities and researchers
across the country, should be driven by the facts and the
sciences and all of us should do everything we can to eliminate
political considerations from those decisions. But as each one
of us are responsible to our constituents to ensure that we are
doing our best to ensure our constituents have faith that we
are spending their money wisely. We are sort of, in a sense we
are trustees of the public treasury. I do think it is important
that the NSF do everything you can to be careful when the
awards that you give out. Do not do anything to damage your
sterling reputation. Always think about how would a taxpayer
see this research? If a taxpayer reads about this on the front
page of the New York Times, or reads about it, what would be
the reaction of the average taxpayers to how you are spending
their money? I think the reputation of the NSF is the greatest
in the world and we will do everything on this committee to
help protect you from political influence, whether it be from
the right or the left. But do be keenly aware--you have a
marvelous reputation to protect and be conscious that dollars
we spend are hard earned and very precious and very scarce.
From my perspective the most important thing is to ensure that
none of the grants that you give are going to do anything to
damage or diminish that sterling reputation, that you are
following the facts and letting science lead the National
Science Foundation----
Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. To discover the true nature of
the universe. The cutting edge research that you have, we can
continue to fund it and have the faith and trust of the
taxpayers.
Dr. Cordova. Great. Well, I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that
our recent instructions, our guidance as of the beginning of
this year--it came out at the same time as the new OMB guidance
at the end of December--our guidance to investigators to now
have a non-technical part of their abstract that will directly
address how the science that they are proposing serves the
national interest will really serve to have that moment of
focus in which we all take cognizance of what you just said,
how important it is to do just that.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield for just one
second, because I think that the Congress--and as President
Truman signed the National Science Foundation into existence--
the Congress set it up so that it would be a merit-based
process with the National Science Board and so on. I do not
think that is divorced from political guidance. So, when
President Kennedy went to Rice University in 1961 and said, you
know, we are going to put a man on the moon, given that is our
policy direction from an elected official about direction and
where we are going and what we are going to do; that is not
trying to be an engineer, though.
So, I think there is a happy mix. There are issues that are
important to the country and to the country's, you know,
challenges that the Congress needs to set appropriate
direction, but I do not think that we should ever get in the
middle of discerning, you know, from a merit-based process, you
know, what science might be. I mentioned this point earlier
about a scientist funded 30 years ago to look at what neurons
might fire in the brain of a monkey, that would have been
laughed at on the floor of the Congress, but nobody is laughing
now because it is helping people to be able to control movement
through their thoughts. But this is the same absolute same
researcher, research staff and focus from three decades ago,
so, you know, we have to find a happy marriage, and I trust my
Chairman, as we go forward.
Mr. Culberson. And we will do it together, arm in arm. That
is why I have also been such a big believer in the decadal
surveys as the gold standard----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. As the North star by which we
should guide our strategic plan for the decade ahead, whether
it be in heliophysics, astrophysics, the earth sciences, the
planetary sciences. I would love to--I really and sincerely ask
the subcommittee's help and anybody out there to help us figure
out how do you do a decadal survey for the manned space
program? I do not know how you conquer--untie that knot. The
decadal survey is designed to identify strategic goals for the
decade ahead that are apolitical, based on the merits, in a
peer-review process. That is what I know all of us on this
subcommittee want to see the National Science Foundation do in
the precious, scarce, hard-earned tax dollars that you are
responsible for spending. We want to make sure that you are
investing them carefully, following a strategic plan like that,
that is apolitical and I think that is the intent.
Mr. Honda is correct to point out, we do not want to insert
politics into your work. But, with President Kennedy's guidance
to the nation, that it was in the national interest to go to
the moon and do it first--we are delighted that you are leading
the agency.
And I have taken too much time. I want to recognize my good
friend from Alabama, Ms. Roby.
IMPROVING STEM EDUCATION
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Cordova, for being here today.
I do want to quickly point out I have some family members
with me, some cousins of mine from Alabama that are here
visiting, and we were walking over--I am dragging them to all
my hearings. I want them to see Congress at work, and I have
explained this is sometimes the only exercise we get, running
up and down these concrete halls in high heels.
But, we were talking on the way over, as I was explaining
what this hearing was about, they are the beneficiaries of STEM
education, which is what I wanted to talk about today, and I
understand my colleague, Mr. Jolly already touched on this a
little bit, but, you know, efforts to improve and advance
science and technology, engineering and mathematics is a top
priority for me.
And in my home state of Alabama, I have witnessed how STEM
education can be used as an effective and innovative tool in
the modern classroom. I was at a school in Huntsville, Alabama,
where the partner with the school, at a STEM elementary school,
and they were learning how to make a mechanical finger. It was
very impressive stuff. And I understand that in this year's
National Science Foundation's budget, you provide a total of
$1.2 billion for STEM education.
I am interested in learning more about your new initiative
to improve STEM and mainly, as it relates to traditionally
underserved students. So, I know Mr. Jolly touched on this, but
if you do not mind?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, he did.
No, I would be very happy to do it, and let me also welcome
your family members here.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Dr. Cordova. It is good to see you.
And I would like to point out to them that the leader of
our STEM initiatives, Joan Ferrini-Mundy--Joan, if you would
raise your hand--is here. Yes, is great that you brought them
here.
So, yes, we do--so, let me say to all that we--the NSF
spends considerable monies across all the directorates--it is
not just in Dr. Ferrini-Mundy's division--on what we call
broadening participation. And that is to encourage students at
all age levels, young and older, to get involved in STEM--
science, technology, engineering, and math--and perhaps just be
happy to be inspired by it, like I was inspired by looking at
the night sky when I was a young woman. And that encouraged me
to become an astrophysicist, where I could ask questions and do
studies of the stars and galaxies, or even become a scientist
or engineer.
And so we have many, many programs, and in the new budget
that we are proposing,--one of our four major initiatives is
called INCLUDES; it is an acronym, but it also just stands on
its own. It is to include more people in the whole science and
engineering enterprise. And what we are trying to do is the
following, we have a lot of great efforts going on everywhere I
go across the country, and I do make many visits to
universities and colleges and schools. I see wonderful outreach
efforts, everything from science fairs to very sophisticated
involvement of undergraduates and graduate students in science.
And what we do not see, what we realized is lacking, is
that other places do not know of these great efforts, and so we
are trying to build, as I know the Chairman has asked us to do
so, an online resource, for one thing, so that teachers--I have
a daughter who is a teacher of young students in elementary
school--so that they will have the tools that they need in
order to help students do more experimentation, enjoy science,
and really understand better, the scientific method that leads
to discovery and innovation.
So INCLUDES is an effort to network all the good stuff that
we are already doing across the country in a much more profound
way in order to raise the next generation to be more involved
and knowledgeable about science and engineering.
CYBERCORPS: SCHOLARSHIPS FOR SERVICE
Mrs. Roby. That is great, and I appreciate you taking the
time to go through that with me.
My time is going to expire, but very quickly, the
cybersecurity has become you know, very important, a major
career in this century and many of our youth are fully engaged
with cybertechnologies at a young age. Can you give us an
example of how, examples of how NSF's CyberCorps: Scholarships
for Service programs have allowed students to advance--and my
time is expired--to advance into careers of cybers?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, and we will be happy to give you the
details on that. We have made a big investment in that at the
urging of Congress, that our students who are getting more
cybersecurity education are then getting the opportunities to
work for those agencies that are really very involved in it,
and we think this is a great contribution to the nation. And
when I talk with university presidents, it has actually
encouraged them to have new curriculum in their universities
for students who want to learn more about cybersecurity. It is
obviously something that is incredibly important to us on a
very personal level, if you buy something online, and a much
bigger level, when it comes to agencies and companies and all
the assets that they have. We want to protect them, so, yes, we
have a big commitment there.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Roby. To international security, as well.
Mr. Fattah. If the Gentlelady would yield for one second?
Mrs. Roby. Yes, sir.
WOMEN IN THE STEM WORKFORCE
Mr. Fattah. One of your questions about STEM education, one
of the areas is how to get more young women. And as one of the
leading scientists in the world, you, obviously, are in a
unique position, but the Foundation has set up some additional
policies to make it more likely that researchers can stay and
do the work they do, notwithstanding some of life's
circumstances as they develop.
I was in Israel last week and I met with the head of the
Weizmann Institute and they have a very interesting program
where because sometimes when they are trying to track women
scientist, they have challenges with the family making a
decision, and so they just decided, Mr. Chairman, to do it the
old-fashioned way, and they increased the offer by fifty
percent and they have been very successful. I met some great
scientists there.
But if you would talk a little bit about some of the
policies that have been implemented and how that has helped the
Foundation in this regard, that might be useful.
Dr. Cordova. We do have a program called ADVANCE, which is
a program at universities to help women go through the whole
university pipeline. I was actually the principal investigator
for that program at Purdue University, and this has been
extremely successful in ensuring that women are given every
consideration in advancing along from being post-docs to
beginning professors and then eventually full professors.
We also have a lot of family-friendly policies that we have
adopted in our Career-Life Balance program, and that is
available to our young scientists called career scientists and
our post-docs. And I, again, in going around to universities, I
always meet separately with groups of young women or young
career scientists and minority scientists, as well, to listen
to their particular struggles and how well is NSF doing in
providing them with lifelines. They are very, very pleased at
the Career-Life Balance. This means if they are going to have a
child, we do some special things to give them extra
consideration for timing and extra money for technical support.
So we actually do give financial resources to help with their
balance of life and career.
Mrs. Roby. I guess I will yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Of course.
DR. CORDOVA'S EXAMPLE IN STEM
To follow up on those worthwhile questions, I would just
like to ask you an open-ended question. Tell us a little bit
about your own story, for the young ladies that came in with
Ms. Roby and other young people watching you here today. Tell
us a little bit about your early life and what led you to make
the decision to become a scientist and what led you to Stanford
and then what led you on to Caltech, two great universities.
Dr. Cordova. Let's see, so how much time?
Mr. Culberson. No, in thinking in terms of who is listening
to you----
Dr. Cordova. Yes, of course.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. These young ladies out here--
what inspiration, guidance, advice can you give them and other
young people?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
Well, first of all, I think inspiration can come from
almost any source, and it has been very interesting to me in my
own career. My first inspiration was--this was before we had
Google--was in something called the World Book Encyclopedia.
Anybody remember that? Yes. And so I was doing a science fair
project and I opened it up to the atom and I saw the Bohr model
of the atom, which any scientist will tell you is not a very
good model anymore, but it was the questions. When I saw that
the questions you ask are ``How do we know that?'' That is such
an important question. When you hear about discoveries that are
made and if you say that is amazing, how do scientists know
that that is true? Well, the whole pursuit of science is about
finding out the truth, and the truth is beautiful. I mean, that
is the other thing that you learn, is that when you discover
something for the first time.
And so to rapid, fast-forward my own career, in graduate
school, when I was getting all null results on a class of star
that I was looking at with telescopes on satellites, I was
notified by an amateur astronomer that one of my star systems--
they are binary systems--went into outburst. And I had enough
chutzpah to confront my advisor and say, Let's use the last
remaining gas on this telescope--it was managed by NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center--to point at this object because I think
you are going to see something extraordinary from it.
And he said, How do you know that? Well, fortunately, I had
done the reading of the theorists about what could happen, so I
crossed my fingers behind my back and I said, Trust me, I am
your graduate student, I know this. And they pointed the
satellite there and it was amazing--it was the first discovery
of soft x-ray pulsations from a close binary star, and the
signal-to-noise was something like 200, so it was not just a
little minuscule signal in the spectrum; it was an enormous
thing.
Mr. Culberson. You could detect it visually?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, visually by amateurs dating back to 1855
that would go into these optical outbursts. Nobody knew they
were binary stars originally, but then they surmised that, and
nobody knew that they would produce these copious x-rays
because you have a degenerate star accreting mass from another
star. So the degenerate star would, say, be a white dwarf that
would accrete mass from a red star that was very close by, as
close as the earth-moon connection. And all the physics that
you learn in that process is just extraordinary.
So like anything else, one thing leads to another. But the
process of discovery--so let me just share with you one more
detail. So I was at Caltech at the time as a graduate student,
and as I said, my thesis was all null results until that point,
and I was over the top. So I went home--my parents lived close
by in Pasadena--and my mother was in the kitchen. We have 12
children in our family; I have to set that stage. I came in and
I said, you know, Mom, guess what happened? And I told her
about these stars and the whole thing and she came up to me,
put her hands on me and said, France, I do not understand a
word of what you are talking about, but I understand that it is
terribly exciting and I am just thrilled for you, and gave me a
hug. So, you know, discovery is a beautiful thing and it leads
many other scientists on different pathways and that is what it
is really about.
Mr. Fattah. Well, it is fascinating, Mr. Chairman, it is so
fascinating that you asked this question. I am so happy, and I
am going to capture that and put that up on my Web site so that
school kids in my district can hear your explanation. But it is
really this intersection between observational and theoretical
astrophysics that really is your hallmark, so I think that for
us, it is, you know, we are in the same space, we are in a
different game, but it is somewhere between the observation and
theoretical that we are going to work through your budget
requests, and thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And you often do not know where the research
is going to lead, it may look like it is a dead end or a rabbit
trail, but it could lead to revolutionary new discoveries. And
particularly in this era of interconnectedness with the
extraordinary advances in communication using--I mean these
devices are now everywhere. I know that the work you have done
in high-energy astrophysics----
Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh.
Mr. Culberson. They have only recently, because of the
Internet, be able to tie gamma ray bursts when an amateur
astronomer spots a visual----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Outburst, because of the speed
of the Internet. Telescopes all over the world and satellites
are able to do today what you did intuitively as a graduate
student, and shift the satellite or the ground-based telescope
over----
Dr. Cordova. Automatically.
THE BEAUTY OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Culberson. To see what a gamma ray burst is. Talk to us
a little bit about and the value of the Internet and bringing--
tying together young people who you are talking to over the
Internet and these young folks, that their work that they are
doing as amateurs, can have a dramatic impact on----
Dr. Cordova. Could you hold that up once more so while I
talk?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Dr. Cordova. So this device [cellphone] that the Chairman
is holding has many technologies that make it successful--not
just one--everything from the plasma screens to the electronics
to the batteries and so on. And on every one of those, I
believe, the National Science Foundation has funded the initial
basic research that went into that.
What Steve Jobs did when he put together these devices
originally was to bring him and his team, bring all those
technologies together. And that is another amazing thing about
innovation, is it takes many different discoveries, and it is
this, what if I put this with this, And what could I create?
And also, I might say he was also an artist--he took
calligraphy in school--and so he developed this beautiful
optional choice of font systems and all that we have.
Mr. Culberson. Beauty is an important part of the design.
Dr. Cordova. Beauty is what makes it possible for a woman
to have that in her purse and you to have that in your pocket
and it does not take up, you know, as much space as a desk.
Mr. Culberson. Soon on our wrists.
Dr. Cordova. Yes, and soon on our wrists or on our glasses.
So this is very important to put together all of these
technologies to develop these products.
Mr. Fattah. Chairman, if you would just yield if just one
last second?
Mr. Culberson. Oh, no, please, continue.
Mr. Fattah. This is just because in the Chairman's state,
they have this event, South by Southwest.
Mr. Culberson. South by Southwest.
Mr. Fattah. Yeah, so we do not have that in Pennsylvania.
We have to work on that.
But to make your point, right, you know, there was a
company that rolled it just 48 hours ago, a flying car deal,
right, that puts together the Google self-driving car
technology with aviation's well-known automatic pilot take-off
and landing, and they have a concept that would have this car
in 800 yards take off and land somewhere, and you do not have
to have human interaction; that is, that the car self-drives,
and the aviation side is autopilot, and it is the combination
of technologies that heretofore, were separated, being united,
which makes your point, which is why we have--even though I am
interested in neuroscience, we have to invest in science
broadly in order to make real achievements, because we really
do not know in every instance what is going to come of it.
Dr. Cordova. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Honda. And you guys are talking about my district, you
know that. (Laughter)
You got to remember that GPS has a part of this, so we have
the aeronautics portion of being able to move cars around.
Mr. Fattah. Well, you started this with the T-shirt deal,
so this love-fest has been going.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Jolly, any follow-up?
Mr. Jolly. No questions.
NEW NSF HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Culberson. We have a couple questions about NSF
headquarters. I can certainly submit those for the record. I am
concerned about the slippage in about six months and $60
million, according to the Inspector General. Does your budget
request--I would ask very briefly--include that those costs
that you are expected to incur as a result of the move and
the----
Dr. Cordova. No, this budget request is for this [FY16]
year. Just a couple of sentences about the background. The
whole shell of the building will be built out by this fall, and
our current budget request is for information technology and
furniture and those sorts of things to get those all ready for
the move-in. Any costs incurred by delays, which actually, we
are now through a lot of work and a great head of that office
that I hired recently, has made a lot of progress in moving
back from the worst-case scenario. You were quoting kind of
worst-possibility numbers, so I am looking forward to this.
Those will come in the fiscal year 2017 request, those kind of
delays.
But this year's request has to do with the things that GSA
requires us to do in order to be ready for the building, which
will be all shelled out by this fall.
Mr. Culberson. Your 2016 request does not include any of
those increased costs that came about----
Dr. Cordova. No.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. As a result of the union
negotiations?
Dr. Cordova. No, and as I said, we are really trying--
working very hard to mitigate those, and as you can imagine,
GSA is a great partner in that.
Mr. Culberson. Do any of the--do you need all of the IT and
furniture funds requested in 2016?
Dr. Cordova. In 2016, yes; that is my understanding,
because they are long-term procurements.
DESIGNATING FUNDING BY DIRECTORATE
Mr. Culberson. There has been some discussion, some other
members of Congress have suggested that we recommend specific
science research directorate funding levels in your
appropriations. We typically have not done so in the past, and
would like you, if you could, to address that. Should Congress
designate funds by science research directorate and how would
that impact a peer-review process?
Dr. Cordova. Okay. This is a really big deal.
When we last did this, I believe it was in fiscal year--
when Congress last did that, it was in fiscal year 1999. Our
budget for NSF was half of what it is now; it was $3.69
billion.
Mr. Culberson. However, grant requests were far smaller.
Dr. Cordova. Far smaller. It was around half, around 30,000
proposals, as compared to over 50,000 now.
So that is one thing to really keep in mind, the whole
business of the merit-review process, the recognizing as we
have all alluded to: the decadal reports, and the workshops and
all the community input; that is a many-months long process. We
start thinking about our fiscal year 2017 requests and how to
do that starting in April, and that is at my level. The
directorates have already been thinking about how to put
together the budget, sweeping together all of these kinds of
inputs.
And so the other thing--it is a very time-consuming process
and I cannot imagine that if we had directorate-funded levels,
then, do you really want all of those scientists and engineers
in your office asking about--we will not use the lobbying
word--but asking about setting priorities? We have these
decadal types and other review processes, you know, in ocean
science and planetary science and astronomy and astrophysics
and so on. I have been tremendously impressed since I have come
to NSF at how cross-disciplinary and working together all of
the assistant directors who head the different directorates
are, and they make these decisions about what to do and how to
work together in order to leverage resources and make progress
in certain areas that are deemed of great importance by the
scientific communities, in a very rational, reasonable way.
And we have retreats on this. I went away for a couple
days, twice last spring/summer with the ADs to really mull in
detail how to put together a very good budget. We have spent
much of this hearing talking about the nature of discovery and
how one thing can lead to the other and you have to be very
responsive. And we are able to do that because we have the
flexibility in the directorates by working together to be
flexible to be cross-directorate, and also to put the budget
together through the wisdom of the program officers and
directors on staff, together with all this other input.
And I think it would really be a different situation for
Congress to have everybody in their door asking. I mean how do
you choose, Mr. Chairman, between one telescope and another
telescope? We have already had some telescopes discussed, at
least four of them, at this hearing; how do we choose the
priority in Congress without some, you know, decision-making
process of NSF between a telescope and a ship? And there are
just so many decisions going down to very small level in STEM
education to, you know, the biggest facilities.
Mr. Culberson. Those are all very valid concerns and we do
want to do everything we can do prevent politics from being
inserted into your decision-making process. And I think it is
also vital that we recognize that NSF, NASA, the scientific
experts that space--the space exploration and scientific
research that the nation does is a strategic asset to the
entire country, and I think it is important for none of us--
none of us should think that the work that you do or NASA does
as either a jobs program or a parochial or a local issue; it is
in the national interest. And by investing wisely and
sufficiently in both the National Science Foundation and NASA,
you are going to help all of those districts all over the
country. So I think those are very valid concerns.
DEVELOPING THE NSF BUDGET REQUEST
I would also like to ask about the--when you begin to put
your budget together, for example, for next year in April--you
are already beginning to kick that around right now--I assume
at some point during the year, you have got to submit what you
believe NSF will need next year to the Office of Management and
Budget and then the final recommendation that we receive in
Congress comes from OMB.
One thing that has always aggravated me is we do not get a
recommendation directly from the scientific community when it
comes to NASA or NSF; we are hearing from OMB, and we ought to
be hearing from you. Legal Services submits their budget
recommendation directly to the Congress.
Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh.
Mr. Culberson. What would be your thoughts on having NSF--I
would like to see NASA submit their recommendation directly to
us and bypass OMB, so we are hearing the best recommendation of
the minds in this space community, as to what this committee
should fund. What do you think about having NSF just submit
your budget recommendation based on the best recommendations of
your team and following the decadal survey, directly to the
Congress and bypass OMB?
Dr. Cordova. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to your----
Mr. Culberson. Speaking as a scientist. [Laughter.]
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Remarks as I----
Mr. Fattah. If the gentlelady would yield for a second?
Dr. Cordova. I always will.
Mr. Fattah. I think it was a social scientist named
Banfield who wrote a paper a long time ago called Metaphysical
Madness, right? And it was really the choice between what
political people would come up with and what empirical science
would, you know. And he figured out that we would probably end
up at about the same place, notwithstanding, you know,
whichever way you get to it, Mr. Chairman.
But, you know, I think that for administrative witnesses
and administration witnesses, it is difficult for them.
Mr. Culberson. It is difficult.
Mr. Fattah. Step outside of their role and speak, because
they are here representing the Administration.
So I just yield back.
Mr. Culberson. That is true. But speaking as a scientist--
Dr. Cordova. Thank you. Thank you. [Laughter]
Speaking as the head of the National Science Foundation, I
agree.
Mr. Culberson. I would sure like, as a matter of policy--
Mr. Fattah. It is a great paper; it is called Metaphysical
Madness. The scientist's name is Banfield.
Mr. Culberson. As a believer in letting the scientists lead
this work without political interference and then following and
funding the best recommendations of the best minds in the
business, I think it would be a wonderful thing for the future
for us to find a way to have the National Science Foundation
and NASA submit your recommendations on what you think your
funding level needs to be directly to the Congress and bypass
the green eye shades over at OMB, so we know what you need.
Dr. Cordova. For the record, I do not have any comment on
that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.
DEVELOPING DIVERSITY IN STEM
Mr. Honda. Or, you know, just jumping in this thing now. I
think Congress probably has a fiduciary responsibility to
produce a balanced budget that would reflect the entire values
and aspirations of this country first so that the different
departments and activities of this government will have
resources from which to operate. And I think that since 2009--I
may be wrong--but 2009, we have not had a, what you call a real
budget, and we have not had a balanced budget for the longest
time.
So I think operate on the CR, but we move forward based
upon past decisions. There is really a reduction in funding,
and if we want to see increased funding and a broadening of our
vistas to go beyond the moon and go towards Mars and Europa and
places like that, we are going to have to put up or shut up.
And I think that, you know, that is where the primary
responsibility lies; it is with us.
And I really appreciate the difficult position that all of
you folks find yourselves in wanting to do--to reach for the
stars without being tethered, and I think that the Chairman and
the ranking member also agrees that this is what we--this is a
dream that we would like to see because it really turns us on.
And you mentioned different programs and several were
touched on teaching and learning programs, and I think that one
of the areas that NSF is helpful is creating opportunities
through programs like LSAMP and Noyce that encourages STEM
majors to become K12 teachers, STEM teachers. Having said that,
and from your own background experience, I assume Latina, and
also the aspiration of this country when we say that we want to
have more underrepresented folks in the area of STEM, what are
some of the things that we need to look at as congressional
members to allow NSF to have that flexibility to move forward
and encourage, recruit, put yourself out in front of
populations that are underrepresented in the STEM field?
I don't know if this question is clear, but, you know, I am
just trying to meld, again, our understanding of society, which
is social sciences, and the need for more representation in the
STEM field.
Dr. Cordova. To be a competitive vibrant nation, we do need
to have all citizens engaged and certainly to have the access
to science and technology and learn about those wonderful
careers. So that is really what our initiative called INCLUDES
for the fiscal year 2016 budget is all about, taking the
different pieces, and you mentioned a few programs. We have a
number that either focus on minorities, women, the disabled, or
emphasize them more indirectly--taking all of those programs
and maximizing their efficacy by tying them together and
linking what we have learned in best practices so that
knowledge base becomes something that everybody can use.
So it is really about scaling up our efforts. That is the
biggest challenge that we have in the United States. It is not
that we do not have wonderful universities and high schools in
our various districts doing great things, but we have so many
that have no idea and could really benefit from what we are
learning.
So I have actually challenged our engineering directorate
to help us think about a more systems-approach to expanding
that knowledge base and those best practices. First, define
what we know through evaluation and assessment, what we have
learned, and then ensure that there is a network so that it
connects with others so they can learn about how to do
programs. Especially to marry programs to whatever their asset
base is in their communities.
This is also going to be a community-action approach where
we call upon local groups and mayors and even governors to work
with our science and education from kindergarten through
university to work on this.
Mr. Honda. Yeah. In the counts of equity, a lot of our STEM
programs start from fifth and sixth grade and I think that we
ought to look at neighborhoods and populations pre-K to third
and fourth grade where we lose a lot of the youngsters that we
say that we want to target. And in terms of equity, also, we
seem to go towards districts and schools where there are
programs already operating in, and with equity in mind, equity
and resources, having NSF target their resources, both
financial and human resources, towards school districts that
are underperforming, but we know that there is potential there
if you apply that resources that you have to schools like in
impacted neighborhoods.
And I think that is how we can bring NSF and Silicon Valley
to Philadelphia and other places that we need to put our
efforts in so that we can prove that there are youngsters there
that can be successful in the STEM area, but we just haven't
put the resources in there. And I think equity is one of those
things that may be a principle that NSF may want to look at in
terms of the distribution of the resources.
Dr. Cordova. That is a point very much on the mark and we
have been doing that, and actually, from the initial conception
of this, we have expanded it to include the whole socioeconomic
equation and equity, and I couldn't have more passion around
this having my own children involved as teachers in these kinds
of challenging school districts. So I have the vision of them
in front of me as----
Mr. Honda. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I will submit some questions for the record,
but thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. I just want to thank you again for your
service to the country. The National Science Foundation is a
national treasure and we will do everything we can to help
protect you, to fund you at a level that you need to continue
to do the great work that you have been doing.
OMB could certainly submit their own recommendation, but I
am certainly going to do everything I can to change the law so
that we get the best recommendations and the best minds at
NASA, the space exploration community, and the scientific
community when it comes to NSF, so Mr. Fattah and I and our
colleagues know you think you need for the future, not what
necessarily--does not matter who is in the White House--what
the bureaucracy thinks that you need, with as little political
interference as humanly possible. I deeply appreciate your
service.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, this idea is growing on me. It is
growing on me.
Mr. Culberson. No matter who is in the White House.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Cordova. Thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your service.
And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 26, 2015.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN NEUROSCIENCE AND
NEUROTECHNOLOGY
WITNESSES
JO HANDELSMAN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
JAMES OLDS, PH.D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STEVEN HYMAN, M.D., DIRECTOR, STANLEY CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
BROAD INSTITUTE OF MIT AND HARVARD
ZACK LYNCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEUROTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to
discuss Federal investments in neuroscience and
neurotechnology. Our ranking member, Mr. Fattah, has been a
champion in Congress on this very important issue for many
years. It has been my privilege to work with Mr. Fattah, my
predecessor Frank Wolf on this very important topic, and I
thank him for encouraging us to have this hearing today.
I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning, Dr. Jo
Handelsman, associate director for science at the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. We are delighted to have you
with us here this morning, Dr. Handelsman, thank you. And Dr.
James Olds, the assistant director for biological sciences at
the National Science Foundation; and Zack Lynch, executive
director of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization; and Dr.
Steven Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric
Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
I look forward to your testimony on this vitally important
and emerging field with exiting new developments taking place
all the I time, and I thank you sincerely, Mr. Fattah, for
helping put this together and making this possible and keeping
the focus of this committee on this cutting-edge and
extraordinarily important research, and I am looking forward
to----
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Your remarks, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just note that in this discussion about the
operations of the Congress and bipartisanship, that this entire
effort has been bipartisan from the beginning. And this hearing
is further evidence of it because the chairman has, in a very
tight window, you know, allowed us to go forward from where we
were last year where we had our first ever hearing in the
appropriations process on neuroscience.
We are to continue that this year, and I want to thank you,
but it is not surprising because the chairman and I worked
together on another subcommittee where we did some very, very
important work on brain health in terms of veterans. When he
previously chaired the Veterans and Military Construction
Subcommittee, you know, we worked together and made major
investments through the VA and Epilepsy Centers for Excellence
and post-traumatic stress and suicide prevention, and on and on
and on. And the VA, obviously, was one of the entities that--
the departments that worked with the Interagency Working Group.
So I want to welcome our witnesses. We have done a lot in
this committee since 2011 when we created the Interagency
Working Group, and we are now working aggressively. We have
doubled the amount of dollars through the National Science
Foundation focused on this after the creation of what is called
a budget theme, and the understanding of the brain, we are
going to hear more about that day.
And last year's appropriations bill moved to include an
important element of the Nation's scientific enterprise, our
National Labs, working with the National Science Foundation on
the development of a national brain observatory. So I am
excited. We are going to hear about where we are with the BRAIN
Initiative in terms of mapping of the brain. We are going to
hear a lot from your testimony today.
And, again, I thank the chairman because he has through--I
mean he has got a lot of interests in terms of space
exploration, but it has no way had him step back from a
commitment to make sure that we keep our eyes focused on the
greatest scientific mystery that we know of, which is how our
brains, which controls everything else, actually functions, and
so I thank the chairman and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
This is an extraordinary and exciting subject. We are
honored and privileged to have each one of you with us here
today to help keep us apprised of the cutting-edge work that is
being done in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
And we will of course enter your written statement into the
record without objection, and would welcome you to summarize
your statement as best you can.
Thank you, and we will start with you, Dr. Handelsman.
Thank you.
Dr. Handelsman. Thank you. Chairman Culberson, Ranking
Member Fattah, and members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to speak today on the Federal investments in
neuroscience and neurotechnology. The White House and OSTP
support several neuroscience and mental health activities,
including the Interagency Working Group in Neuroscience, the
BRAIN Initiative, the National Alzheimer's Project, the
initiatives to tackle mental health issues affecting veterans,
service members, and military families.
Diverse sectors of the American population face risks
related to brain health--from concussions in athletes to
Alzheimer's in the elderly. Recent studies estimate that as
many as 5.1 million Americans age 65 and older have
Alzheimer's; 18 percent of service members returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan have PTSD or depression; and each year
approximately 2.5 million civilians in the U.S. sustain a
traumatic brain injury.
Scientists have been exploring the underlying nature of
these brain disorders with the hope of developing preventive
strategies, treatments, and perhaps cures.
One obstacle has been the absence of sufficiently sensitive
neurotechnologies to see with precision what is happening
inside the active brain. The Obama Administration's BRAIN
Initiative intends to help overcome this particular obstacle.
Since its launch in 2013, the BRAIN Initiative has grown to
include investments from five Federal agencies--NSF, DARPA,
IARPA, NIH, and FDA. These agencies have refined the goals of
the BRAIN Initiative, developed funding opportunities, and
awarded initial grants.
Dr. Olds will share with you some of the exciting work at
NSF.
Work funded by other agencies is focusing on recording
activity in the human nervous system, enhancing and developing
new neuroimaging technologies, fostering developments in data
handling and advanced analytics, and understanding capturing
the brain's computational abilities.
Federal investments of the foundation of the BRAIN
Initiative but completion of the broad goals of this initiative
will require complementary efforts by a variety of
organizations outside the Federal government.
To date, private sector partners have made commitments
totaling over $500 million in just the first 2 years of the
initiative.
The Federal engagement in neuroscience is much broader than
just the BRAIN Initiative. With the encouragement of Congress,
including members of this committee, an Interagency Working
Group on Neuroscience was established in 2012 to coordinate
neuroscience research across the Federal government and
identify opportunities for international collaboration and
communication. The Neuroscience Working Group includes
representatives from more than 20 Federal agencies and
departments that have interests in neuroscience research.
I describe some of the working group's interagency
coordination activities in my written testimony.
With regard to international collaboration, for example,
last month the National Institute on Aging and its HHS sister
agencies convened a followup to the 2013 G8 dementia summit, at
which international partnerships for interdisciplinary research
on the causes, prevention, and treatment of Alzheimer's were
discussed.
Also, NSF and NIH, in collaboration with German, French,
and Israeli science organizations, have jointly funded
collaborative research in computational neuroscience to
facilitate international sharing of brain experimental data as
well as analysis tools.
On the domestic front, great strides have been made over
the past year in mental health care for our service members,
veterans, and their families, including improvements in
continuity of mental health care and mobilization of community
clinicians and peer counselors to increase access to services
and to assist in suicide prevention.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be here today. While
there is still certainly much to be done to meet the needs of
Americans facing neurological disorders and diseases, Federal
investments are already making progress toward improving our
understanding of the underlying neuroscience that will lead to
preventive strategies and treatments. I thank the committee for
its continued leadership and vigorous support for these issues.
And, of course, I will be pleased to answer questions of the
members.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Handelsman.
Dr. Olds, we look forward to hearing from you, and, you
know, not only is your work so important on helping veterans
and traumatic brain injury, it is also, I think, relevant and
it will be interesting to know what--if at some point during
the questioning you might be able to offer us any insight about
how would you potentially spot someone like this pilot of the
German aircraft that might be on the brink of doing something
terrible that it looks like his act was a deliberate act. And
it may indeed be work that is done by--by scientists like
yourselves that might be able to help airlines spot something
like that about to happen.
So we look forward to your testimony, Dr. Olds. Thank you.
Dr. Olds. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and
committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on this important topic.
My name is Jim Olds, and I am the Assistant Director for
Biological Sciences at the National Science Foundation. I am on
leave from George Mason University where I am a professor of
neuroscience.
Today I will outline the NSF's focus on understanding the
brain. I hope to make three overarching points. First, the
brain may be the most complicated system that we know of in the
universe. It is a big data problem. Second, neurotechnology has
advanced neurobiology to the point where we can explore new
questions that were previously unapproachable. And, third,
understanding the brain is an international effort that is
bigger than one country and requires coordinated resources.
Mr. Chairman, historically significant advances in brain
research have resulted from broad areas of research in
neuroscience and related fields. However, there remains much to
be discovered if we are to achieve a comprehensive
understanding of how the healthy brain's structural
organization and dynamic activities produce cognition and
behavior and how the brain can recover functions lost to
disease or injury.
Allow me to share one example. The current state-of-the-
art, noninvasive functional brain-scanning technology is off by
a factor of 1,000 when it comes to resolving the actual neural
code of human brains, both in time and space. If we are going
to truly understand the brain, we are going to need a next
generation of tools that will allow us to resolve brain
function at the speed of thought.
In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, NSF initiated
``Understanding the Brain,'' a multiyear effort that combines
cognitive science and neuroscience activities with NSF's
participation in the BRAIN Initiative.
NSF's overall goal with this activity is to enable the
scientific understanding of the full complexity of the brain in
action and in context.
Understanding the Brain will draw on existing research
investments to foster greater collaboration and to accelerate
fundamental research. We will invest in neuroscience, cognitive
science, neuroengineering, and the neural bases of learning,
and how the brain adapts to changing environments. NSF is
requesting $144 million in fiscal year 2016 for investments in
Understanding the Brain. This almost doubles NSF's historical
investment and builds on $92 million awarded in fiscal year
2014.
In April of 2013, President Obama announced the multi-
agency BRAIN Initiative. I know that Congress was very much
involved in its creation, and I want to specifically
acknowledge and thank this Committee's foresight in this
matter.
Since its creation, NSF has targeted significant funding
for the BRAIN Initiative. This is an exciting time because
neurotechnology advances are allowing us to pursue an
understanding of the brain that was opaque to us in the past.
NSF is uniquely positioned to advance research on understanding
the brain by bringing together a wide range of scientific and
engineering disciplines, each of which brings its own unique
perspective to the brain challenge.
NSF has consistently been a catalyst for transformative
breakthroughs. For instance, I mentioned earlier the limit on
functional imaging technology in representing brain activity.
Just this past year, NSF funded a novel project to develop a
new generation of brain measurement technologies, and if
successful, this will transform our ability to observe the
dynamic activity in living brains. This is a great example of
how rapidly NSF works to accelerate discovery.
In fiscal year 2014, five NSF directorates invested $11
million in 36 highly interdisciplinary proof-of-concept awards
called EAGERs that focused on neural circuit function. These
strategic investments in fundamental research and
infrastructure will transform our understanding of the brain,
reveal the neural basis of thought and behavior, and show how
to maintain a healthy brain throughout our lives.
To close, I want to note that understanding the brain is an
international challenge that is bigger than one country. Just
as modern physics needs CERN--the largest particle physics
laboratory in the world--neuroscience needs internationally
coordinated resources. This includes creating the ability to
share the vast amounts of data that will be generated by the
challenge.
I thank this committee for recognizing the size of the
brain challenge and encouraging NSF to work not only with other
agencies, but other nations. NSF will continue to work with
multiple partners and stakeholders to address important gaps in
our knowledge and to enable scientists working across
disciplines, institutions, and nations to collect, share, and
analyze the new data that will reveal the biological principles
that produce the functioning human brain.
Our goal, as always, is to provide the best possible
science for the country. Thank you, again, for the opportunity
to testify and for your attention.
Mr. Culberson. Dr. Olds, thank you very much.
As we go through the--in your opening statements, I would
particularly be grateful and we may do--we will certainly do
some of this in the questioning as well, talk to us about some
of the successes. We are very supportive of the investment.
That is why we are here today. Very supportive of the
collaboration. That is why we are here today. Really appreciate
the work that you are doing. Delighted to hear about the
collaboration and the money that has been invested in the past
and that needs to be invested in the future. We are supportive
of that. That is why we are here today. Tell us about some of
the exciting new discoveries. I mean, that is where we really--
that is what we want to hear about today, and what--what is
working and what is not, and where, then, do we need to focus
our attention, as you could, if you don't mind, in your opening
statement? We will get into that in some of the questionings
too, but I would love to hear it in the opening. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah, members of
the subcommittee, I am Zack Lynch. I am the founder and
executive director of the Neurotechnology Industry
Organization, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony today on behalf of NIO on how to maximize the
societal return on Federal investments in neuroscience
research.
NIO is a nonprofit trade association that works to
accelerate the development of treatments and cures for brain-
related illnesses. With over 100 members, NIO represents
emerging neuroscience companies, academic brain research
institutes, and patient advocacy groups across the United
States and the world.
Today more than 100 million Americans suffer from a brain-
related illness. That is one in three. These include
Alzheimer's, autism, addiction, depression, epilepsy, multiple
sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, stroke, and many more.
They also include post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain
injury, which disproportionately affects members of our armed
services.
The combined economic burden of all these diseases has
reached over $1 trillion a year in the United States alone. And
this economic burden is accelerating as the population ages and
expands, creating unprecedented demand for new treatments to
cure neurological diseases and psychiatric illnesses.
Now, in neuroscience, Federally funded research has always
provided the scientific foundation upon which the private
sector builds the next generation of therapeutic products. The
National Institutes of Health continues to be the largest and
most innovative funder of basic neuroscience worldwide. This
investment in brain science and the SBIR program is critical
for ensuring that the pipeline of neuroscience innovation
remains robust.
Accordingly, NIO requests that Congress appropriate at
least $30.7 dollars for the NIH in fiscal year 2016. This 2.2
percent increase keeps real purchasing power flat, adjusting
only for an increase in the biomedical research and development
price index.
When it comes to the brain, however, we must do more than
simply fund basic neuroscience research. We must improve public
health. We must stimulate broad economic growth. And we must
create new jobs.
Two years ago, recognizing both the unique challenge and
opportunity in neuroscience, President Obama launched the BRAIN
Initiative. This ambitious effort aims to invigorate investment
in neuroscience in much the same way that the human genome
project and the national nanotechnology have done previously.
Our industry is tremendously excited and optimistic about
this program and its prospect to spur innovation, and we thank
Congressman Fattah for his continued efforts in this
initiative.
I think it is most important to note that unlike any other
area of life science research, neuro--investing in neuroscience
will create direct economic benefits far beyond just reducing
healthcare costs and alleviating human suffering.
Let me give you two brief examples: Information technology,
a multitrillion-dollar-a-year industry that sits on the cusp of
being transformed by brain-inspired computing. Neuroscientists
are researching the human brain for clues on how to design
computers that can modify their hardware and software in
realtime and modify themselves based on experience, just like
the human brain does. As well as create radically efficient
computers, the human brain runs on less electricity than a
single light bulb. This area of cognitive computing represents
a competitive advantage for American companies and will
significantly impact economic growth and job creation and
national security if we choose to invest wisely today.
Education. Total expenditures in education have reached
over $1 trillion a year, and yet the results are not helping
our citizens remain globally competitive. Neuroscience can help
us leapfrog this education performance gap. By developing fully
personalized learning systems that tap into our natural
neuroplasticity, we can safely accelerate learning, knowledge
creation, and innovation.
Now, looking forward, the convergence of neurogaming and
neuromodulation with advances in self-learning computing will
open up an entirely new realm of value creation of purely
digital experiences that can be created and consumed with
virtually no impact on global physical resources.
For example, one could sell virtual experiences complete
with emotional stimulation with unique landscapes or immersive
health environments that enhance mental well-being.
NIO believes that the BRAIN Initiative can and should play
an essential role in accelerating the translation and
commercialization of breakthrough neurotechnology. Accordingly,
we ask that Congress allocate $300 million to the BRAIN
Initiative in fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, we recommend the consideration of a budget-
neutral program modeled on the Orphan Drug Act that will
increase private investment into much needed treatments for
neurological and neurodegenerative diseases.
Investing in neuroscience offers both treatments to
terrible diseases but also a grand opportunity for economic
revitalization and dramatic improvements in individual
resiliency.
Today's neuroscience funding is inadequate if we want to
lead the 21st century and beyond. I call on your subcommittee
to strengthen our commitment to neuroscience funding to take
advantage of the opportunities associated with the brain. I am
confident that this approach will provide new treatments to
terrible brain-related illnesses, transform industries, and
create entirely new economic drivers for growth and jobs if we
invest properly.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to take
questions when you open it up to the panel.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
Fascinating. Cognitive computing is exciting, but I share
some of the fear of others in the idea of artificial
intelligence. We want to avoid a Skynet situation. Dr. Hyman.
Thank you. Look forward to hearing from you.
Dr. Hyman. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah,
members of the subcommittee, my name is Steven Hyman, and I am
offering this testimony both in my capacity as president of the
Society for Neuroscience, and as a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. I am also director
of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad
Institute of MIT and Harvard, and serve as Harvard University
Distinguished Service Professor of stem cell and regenerative
biology.
The mission of the Society for Neuroscience is to advance
understanding of the brain and the nervous system. AAAS, of
course, has a broader mandate led now by newly installed CEO
Rush Holt, which is to advance science and engineering and
innovation throughout the world for the benefit of people.
On behalf of both organizations, I deeply thank you for
your support for neuroscience research and for the opportunity
to testify here.
In order to be responsive to the chairman, I will--instead
of summarizing my remarks--I will try to put in context some of
the advances that have come from the kind of funding we have
had if you will also forgive me for the errors which will
undoubtedly crop up from spontaneity.
I think something to put these needed successes in context
is probably well known to all of you, but that is not just the
economic cost or the numbers created by brain disorders--one in
three Americans is a very good number--but the impact. So while
brain disorders can kill, stroke kills, and, tragically,
suicide, suicide remains among the three leading causes of
death for young people in this country, most of the damage done
by brain disorders is through disability, whether it is a child
with autism who, if they are at the more challenging end of the
spectrum, may never succeed in education and won't be able to
work in ordinary circumstances; schizophrenia, which is perhaps
relevant to the incident with the aircraft that you reference.
We don't know yet what was going on. But particularly cruel
because onset is in late teens or early 20s just when families
and society have made a maximum investment in a young person,
getting them through college or technical school, and then they
become essentially disabled for the rest of their lives. And
our treatments are better than nothing, to be sure, but much
remains desired. And, of course, Alzheimer's disease has been
referenced already. But, again, we are facing a catastrophe
here not only in terms of the individuals but also caregivers
and families who get removed from the workforce.
Now, the problem--and I think Dr. Olds said this very
well--has been that the brain is not only complex, but I would
add one other factor which is a required technological advance,
which is it is inaccessible in life. Cancer is a very hard
problem, but we neuroscientists would say, perhaps unfairly,
that it is an easier hard problem because a surgeon does an
excisional biopsy and hands the scientist the disease, whereas
for the human brain, which is poorly modeled in animals in many
cases--not all cases, especially the thinking parts of the
brain--you know, we can't reach in and take tissue. And so we
have to examine the brain indirectly, which is why some of
these imaging initiatives are so important.
That said, based on basic science and tools and
technologies that have emerged in the last few years, there has
been to my mind really breathtaking progress, and it hasn't yet
led to treatments that generalize, but I think we finally are
beginning to see a path.
Let me give you just a few examples of these successes.
So, for autism and schizophrenia, these were very
mysterious illnesses. We could do brain imaging, but, again,
the--exactly as Dr. Olds said, we are really looking only at
ensembles of millions of neurons firing. We are not seeing what
is actually going wrong. We had always known these disorders
run in families. I mean, they don't--it is--they were not like
Mendel's peas. It is not like, you know, in any family if one
sibling has it, the other will have it. It skips generations
and so forth, but we have known that these are highly
genetically influenced illnesses.
The problem for common illnesses is that they are not
caused by a single gene creating a problematic mutation, as in
the case of Huntington's disease, but many hundreds of genes
contributing small effects. We had no possibility of detecting
these.
What has happened because of the--really the Federal
investment in research across NSF, NIH, Department of Energy,
is that the cost of sequencing DNA has come down about a
millionfold in the last decade. It is really quite remarkable.
Everyone has heard of Moore's Law about transistors on a chip.
The cost of sequencing DNA makes that look rather torpid. Where
I work now, the cost of a whole human genome is between $1,000
and $2,000. And I would add the bill we pay to Amazon for
putting the data in the cloud is $500. So these costs are
converging, and we need our colleagues to improve some of the
computing.
But the point is, based on this technology, we can now
afford to and accurately study many tens of thousands of
patients. And as a result, the community has created durable
global collaborations, and as a result, we now have the first
literally 110 genes that are involved in causing schizophrenia.
Now, these are--these are early clues, and there will be many
more, and it is very hard to put them to work, but all of a
sudden we have gone from a complete black box to light at the
end of the tunnel, and pharmaceutical industry, which has fled
this area as too difficult is now starting to dip their toes
back in the water.
One other really interesting example is something called
optogenetics. Optogenetics is a tool in which one can, using,
say, an injected viral vector in the brain of an animal or even
making a transgenic animal, another fantastic technology,
introduce an ion channel that comes from microorganisms in
invertebrates, so something discovered in basic science, and
then these channels get activated by light--I mean, all of us
know our house plants, you know, move toward the light. What is
the mechanism? There are all of these kinds of light sensitive
channels in nature, but we can exploit this with fiberoptics to
control--to turn on and turn off the cells in the brains of
animals and begin to really understand how circuits are
working. And this has absolutely in the last 3 or 4 years
revolutionized our understanding in animal models of behavior.
And while we are not going to put fiberoptic devices in human
brains, it has also inspired a number of investigators,
undoubtedly funded by both NSF and NIH but also involved with
the DARPA aspects of the brain project, to think about how
these principles might apply to human diseases, Parkinson's
disease and other diseases before we have begun to know the
circuitry.
It is a really exciting time, and I would just end by
saying that one of the things that the Brain Project does,
which I think I am really very--I have been in the government,
but I am really pleased with how the government has worked on
this--has created a bottom-up endeavor that is going to build
new tools--because we need these tools and technologies to get
inside our skulls, literally--and engage these broadly for
science but also ultimately in the service of human health and
also will bring new kinds of thinkers into all of our
portfolios. People who have been funded perhaps by the
Department of Energy who have never thought about biology or
the brain before, and so I absolutely, on behalf of the
organizations I represent and also personally, thank you for
your support of these endeavors, and I would be delighted to
take any questions.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Hyman.
It is an extraordinarily exciting field of research, and
you think about the size of the human genome and how little we
know about what those genes do. We don't know, what, over 90--
what is the percent--what percentage of the genes in the genome
do we know what they----
Dr. Hyman. Well, you know, that is even a tricky question
because often, you know, nature reuses the same gene in
different cell types for different purposes. And so even where
we know one or two purposes, we often don't know what they are
doing in the brain. We understand best the 1 to 2 percent of
the genome that codes for the protein building blocks of cells.
The rest, which when I was in college we were told was junk, is
actually quite, quite busy, and we are just at the earliest
stages of understanding what the other 98 percent of the genome
is doing.
Mr. Culberson. I suspect God doesn't do anything that
doesn't have a purpose.
Dr. Hyman. That is a very good maxim to live by. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Absolutely fascinating, but I noted also, and you didn't
mention this in your summary, Mr. Lynch, about the importance
of us making sure that we have got legislation encouraging
companies to invest in orphan drugs, which is something you
mentioned obliquely, but----
Mr. Lynch. Yes sir.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Really, really important
because a lot of these medications and these problems are--
involve populations that may be too small for the companies to
be able to see that there is an economic benefit, and that is
just vitally important.
Some studies have mentioned that many neurological
disorders stem from a misfolding of a protein in the brain
which can lead to a cascade of effects that result in ALS or
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological diseases. And
traumatic brain injuries apparently also cause a similar
misfolding of proteins with a cascading effect in the brain.
Has it been solidly established that this protein
malfunction is a potential root cause of these neurological
diseases. And if we have indeed identified the root cause of
these issues, could you tell us where we are in finding a cure
and being able to either stop or reverse the cascade effect in
the brain when these proteins----
Dr. Hyman. Yeah, it is really quite clear. I mean,
proteins, first of all, you know, come out--they are read out
as a linear structure. And then there are all of these
mechanisms inside the cell to make sure they have exactly the
right confirmation to do their job----
Mr. Culberson. And then some of the folding, I understand,
is just a result of random chance about where they are
positioned in the cell. They don't have enough elbow room to
fold correctly.
Dr. Hyman. You should teach biology. That is exactly--and
then but they get stabilized, depending on negative and
positive charges, or, you know, they will bounce around
stochastically. And then they will come to the right
confirmation. And then there are other proteins called
chaperones which help them, you know, stay in the right
confirmation. This is complex process that often fails, and
normal cells must have a mechanism to degrade and remove these
misfolded proteins.
Mr. Culberson. So complex, in fact, you have had to
crowdsource it. I have signed up for that project to do the
protein folding, and I let the computer run it in the
background, and you have really got--I also signed up for the
one classifying galaxies, which is--that is what I do for fun.
Dr. Hyman. But, well, the force is----
Mr. Culberson. But it is so vast a problem you literally--I
am sorry.
Dr. Hyman. No, no. No, I am sorry. No, no. I was going to
say gravity works--for galaxies--doesn't work at that scale----
Mr. Culberson. I mean, the scale of the problem is so huge;
crowdsourcing is one of the best ways and the size of the----
Dr. Hyman. Yeah. There are a lot of quantitatively talented
people who might be spending their lives in finance who, you
know, make--could really, you know, in their extra time do some
really good things here thinking about protein folding and
other problems.
But at any rate, you are absolutely right. It has been
extremely frustrating, to take one example, that the gene that
causes Huntington's disease, which is rare but not, you know,
terribly, terribly rare, invariably lethal, with a terrible end
course or some forms of--some of the familial forms of
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Mr. Culberson. My sister-in-law's family has it.
Dr. Hyman. Well, right. So you--I don't have to tell you
how awful these conditions are.
Mr. Culberson. She is clear, but her sister is not.
Dr. Hyman. Yeah. So, again, technological innovation has
given us--I don't want to over promise, but I think it has
given us some really promising clues. So you can think of these
mutations that cause protein misfolding or other mischief----
Mr. Culberson. Or injury.
Dr. Hyman. Or injury--as poisons in every cell, and the
idea that a drug will work in all of the--now, in ALS, of
course, it is really motor neurons, but they are affecting
other cells. The fact that--the idea that you could sort of
somehow neutralize this poison with a drug is very challenging.
A new idea, based on the ability to deliver RNA molecules,
which would interfere with translating from the DNA message
these aberrant proteins that--the mutant form of Huntington or
some of these familial forms of genes that cause ALS--and
literally try to shut that gene off in the brain or in motor
neurons is an entirely new, you know, last year or two this
idea of gene silencing, which I think is an, you know, unproven
but a really interesting idea, but we couldn't think about it
without the technological advance of how would we get these
neutralizing molecules into the right cells. Still an unsolved
problem, but something probably some of your members might even
be thinking about.
Mr. Culberson. The poison you were referring to could also
be thought of, I guess, in terms, perhaps, of like
inflammation. I have been a subscriber to the Journals Nature
and Science for over 20 years and don't pretend to understand
all of it, but I read them cover to cover and----
Mr. Hyman. I don't understand them.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. I know, but it is fascinating and
noted that there was an article I know a year or two ago about
the effects of chronic inflammation as a root cause of cancer,
for example, as just a constant source of irritation or causing
damage that then triggers an uncontrollable cascading mutation
of cells. Is that similar to what you are talking about here?
Dr. Hyman. Well, it is----
Mr. Culberson. Conceptually.
Dr. Hyman. It is conceptually similar. I think, in familial
ALS and Huntington's, there is actually a very precise target,
which is this mutated gene, that is leading to these terrible
symptoms and death. And we can at least know exactly what we
need to shut off, whereas in inflammatory disorders, there are
many, many molecules involved and----
Mr. Culberson. But to prevent the inflammation is to
prevent the underlying----
Dr. Hyman. That is correct. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And the subsequent problem.
One of my other passions--I am going to turn it over to Mr.
Fattah--a long-term passion of mine that I hope in the time I
am privileged to chair this subcommittee and work with you and
all our other members is to identify--be able to identify in
the future a genetic problem like that in an unborn child
through the amniotic fluid and whip up a protein fix that you
could then inject back into the amniotic fluid which the child
would then breathe and repair and cure the child's disease
before she is born. So that is absolutely possible. Isn't it?
Dr. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues--maybe they
want me to quiet down, but there is yet another exiting
technology called CRISPR/Cas-9----well, I will explain what
this is. So----
Mr. Culberson. CRISPR----
Dr. Hyman. CRISPR, C-R-I-S-P-R, hyphen, C-a-s 9, and it is
in the news because leading scientists have said, We better
call a halt on any human experimentation right now, see where
we are ethically and in terms of safety, which is not to end
the research. But let me describe was this is.
Bacteria get infections too. Viruses invade them and kill
them, and so bacteria need to have an immune system. And what
they do is they, in some cases, is they--they form a memory
of--they don't want to cut up their own DNA, so they form a
memory of what the DNA of the viruses that afflict them. And
they have invented basically molecular scissors to cut the DNA
that gets recognized. We as a community----
Mr. Culberson. When that DNA shows up, the molecular
scissors go into action and chop it up.
Dr. Hyman. Right. Something binds to it----
Mr. Fattah. Zombie immune system.
Mr. Culberson. Zombie immune system. That is nice. Got to
use that.
Dr. Hyman. Yeah, exactly.
Mr. Culberson. Can you plagiarize that?
Dr. Hyman. Mr. Fattah, if that is not copyrighted, you
know----
Mr. Fattah. I am a public figure. You can use it.
Mr. Culberson. Zombie immune system.
Dr. Hyman. But basically we can now use the same system,
and this is now widely used in both microorganisms and animal
models to cut DNA where we want because we can engineer the
recognition strips, these so-called guide RNAs, and cut DNA.
And then there are other well-known mechanisms to insert new
pieces of DNA.
So this is now an experimental tool that we are using to
put the genes we discover about schizophrenia into cell lines.
But the idea is that in a human potentially--and, again, this
is really fraught and it is really early--you could do
pregestational diagnosis. You could find the mutant gene for a
single--for monogenic disorders like----
Mr. Culberson. Huntington's or----
Dr. Hyman. Huntington's, that are caused by a single gene.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Dr. Hyman. You could design guide RNAs. You could cut out
that version and then replace it with a healthy version.
Now, there are all kinds of safety risks. There are all
kinds of ethical risks because people might want to use this
technology to make people taller or whatever.
And we really have to think deeply about this, but I think
we are entering an era where exactly what you have imagined may
become possible.
Mr. Culberson. Texas Medical Center, which I am proud to
represent, I have been pushing them for years on this. And they
tell me it is possible.
Dr. Hyman. Absolutely. And that is a great institution.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take so
much time, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, no. Thank you for your interest
in these and all matters of science. So you can see my chairman
is engaged. So it is very important.
I want to make sure we go back because, in order to respond
to the chairman, you kind of ad-libbed your remarks, and I want
to make sure that we put on the record--this is a very
important part of our process, hearings and public record--the
scientific challenge in front of us.
So the human brain, as best as we understand, about 100
billion neurons, 100 trillion connections. It runs on low
electricity and it does a lot, and we don't understand much of
it. Is that right, Dr. Olds?
Dr. Olds. I would say that we are very good stamp
collectors right now and we are working diligently on coming up
with a theoretical framing for a rule set for how those 100
billion neurons work with each other.
Mr. Fattah. I went out to Stanford and met with one of your
colleagues, Dr. Newsome. He says, you know, if we are talking
about looking at a map, we don't see the highways, the roads.
We don't really have a good understanding and, even if we did,
we don't understand the traffic that is on there. Right?
So Paul Allen came into Philly. He announced a major
investment into a cell institute. Now, he has already put a
half a billion dollars into a brain institute. The cell
institute is to look at the 50-plus trillion cells in the human
body.
But one of the things--the reason I was there--it was in
Philly, but the reason I was there was that, in the cells in
the brain, we don't yet know all of the cells in the brain and
the cell types. Is that accurate?
Dr. Olds. That is accurate. So a simplifying approach to
understanding the brain is to take the 100 billion cells and
classify them into their different types.
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Dr. Olds. And we are in the process of doing that, but----
Mr. Fattah. But we are not there yet.
Dr. Olds [continuing]. We are not there yet.
Mr. Fattah. Right. Because I want the chairman just to work
with me here so we have got a system in which there is a lot of
interactions with the neural network that we don't understand,
and we don't understand even the basics, the, you know, kind of
identification of all the cells.
So, the effort here is one of, you know, from just a task,
it is a gigantic task. Right? So one of the things that the
committee did in last year's bill was we did move to
internationalize and to create collaborations and we have
tasked the National Science Foundation with having--with
developing an international conference because there is these
efforts.
And the committee has supported my work, whether it is
Israel or the EU and others, to try to kind of cobble together.
The EU has now put a billion and a half euros on the table for
the Human Brain Project, Henry Markram. There are a lot of
interests in trying to work together because there are, based
on the World Health Organization's number, over a billion human
beings with a neurological disease or disorder. Right?
And the contention is that, at least as I approach this, is
that we need a basic understanding of how a healthy brain would
function as at least part and parcel to trying to figure out
what to do about some of the challenges.
So as the National Science Foundation is understanding the
brain, we saw the EAGER grants, which were great, and we see
your request this year.
The basic next steps, as you see it, where we need to go,
if you could talk to the chairman and I about that in terms of
the cost side. Right?
So, you know, we know on the health side we spent a lot of
money. We spent $210 billion last year on care for Alzheimer's.
Right? So I know we spent a lot of money.
We spent $500 billion on mobility challenged Americans. So
these are people who have suffered from stroke or some
traumatic brain injury. And so we are spending a lot on the
care side. We are spending a paltry amount of money in trying
to figure out any of this.
And the way I would phrase it, Mr. Chairman, is the Allen
Institute, which just spent a half a billion dollars, they have
now completed an essential framework for how the mouse's brain
works. Right? And it is about a million neurons?
Dr. Olds. No. Ten.
Mr. Fattah. Ten million. Right.
So they got this thing, so that is about where we are. Ten
million versus this 100 billion. And that is a mouse. And the
translation from animal to human is about 1 percent in
neuroscience, different from, in all other areas it is about 50
percent. So if you can find a cure in an animal, 50 percent of
the time it will work in a human being.
When you talk about the brain, it is 1 percent translation.
So even when you find something that makes a mouse, you know,
operate a little bit better, restore memory, whatever, you
can't bet the ranch that you are going to be able to translate
it to a human being. Is that correct?
Dr. Olds. Correct.
Mr. Fattah. All right. So talk to the chairman about where
we need to be going over the next, me and him are going to be
here for the next 10 years doing this, and we want to see at
the end of this or sooner major relief for these families who
have these challenges. Right?
We also are interested in the science and the sexiness of
this, but at the heart of this is human beings, a billion of
them worldwide, 100 million in our own country. And so talk to
us about how you see us not just this year, but over the next
period of time here what we need to try to get done.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Where we need to focus our efforts.
That is a great question, probably the best question----
Mr. Fattah. To make disruptive progress.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Dr. Olds. So in June we are going to be engaging in
something called an ``Ideas Lab'' in collaboration with the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute intramural campus at Janelia
Farms, just across the river.
Mr. Culberson. Where?
Dr. Olds. Janelia Farm of Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
It is just north of the Dulles runway.
And the goal of that meeting is to pull together scientists
from disparate fields to crack a very simple circuit in the
brain, the olfactory circuit. It is one of the most ancient
circuits in the brain. It is conserved across evolution.
It is tractable from an engineering standpoint because the
sense of smell doesn't go through a relay nucleus like the rest
of our sensations do. And the goal is to take a very simple
circuit, bring together scientists from a wide variety of
disciplines, and crack that simple mechanism.
Mr. Fattah. Can you yield for a second?
Dr. Olds. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Culberson. Oh, please.
Mr. Fattah. I was just at the Weizmann Institute in Tel
Aviv, well, in Israel, right outside of Tel Aviv, and they just
created this, they have been working on this bionic nose with
some funding from the National Science Foundation.
These 6 million neurons that are right up here, they are
below the blood-brain barrier. So they are very interested,
neuroscientists are very interested in them because they can
reach them.
But this nose is at University of Penn, they developed some
ability of getting dogs to sniff out cancer. So they have been
able to get this bionic nose to sniff cancer and, also,
explosives and illegal narcotics. And it is fascinating.
But go right ahead.
Dr. Olds. So the next steps would be to actually understand
how more complicated circuits work. This olfactory circuit is a
relatively simple one. There are more complicated circuits,
such as the mammalian hippocampus, that play a critical role,
for example, in Alzheimer's disease.
When we catch Alzheimer's disease, the cells of the
hippocampus die, and that is the same circuit that allows us to
remember episodic memories, the movie of your life, if you
will. That is a devastating symptom.
It is a circuit that we known an awful lot about. The input
and outputs are not as well known as with the olfactory
circuit, but it is a circuit that is tractable. And it would be
a logical next step.
So the goal is to actually develop an understanding of how
relatively simple important circuits work in the brain and then
bring together that understanding of circuits to actually see
how circuits communicate with one another in the brain.
So that yields a road forward where we can actually
understand how circuits that actually may be involved in
diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or autism actually, in
their communication, go awry and what potential therapeutic
strategies might be. But that all starts with an understanding
of the healthy brain.
Mr. Fattah. Well, Mr. President, it is good to see you
again.
As President of the Society for Neuroscience, you have, the
chairman mentioned earlier about this misfolding protein issue.
And there is a member of your group, Dr. Soto, who is at the
University of Texas at Houston, who has spent some considerable
amount of time looking and he has really been working, he
thinks that this, that the idea of this misfolding protein is,
you know, the key to a number of these different disorders.
I am trying to get, and I didn't get it directly from what
Dr. Olds said. We are going to try to start with one place and
move to the next place. I am trying to get a sense of where, if
we were going to make a major leap forward, you sense that we
need to be investing resources and efforts.
Dr. Hyman. Yeah. I think there are--one way of thinking
about it is there is a shared mechanism. Right? A protein has
misfolded and the cell chokes on it, doesn't--is unable to get
rid of it.
And that might be something across many different diseases.
But for each particular disease it is one or another protein
that is genetically producing a protein given to misfolding or
sometimes a disposal mechanism that isn't working.
So I think there are two major useful areas of focus. And,
again, I think there is some--there have been some very
important investigators in Texas, Huda Zoghbi's lab at Baylor,
for example, that has found a lot of these mutations that are
devastating in children.
So I think one important focus is to identify these genes
and figure out ways in which we can potentially silence them
or, if the CRISPR/Cas-9 scenario works out over time, even
replace them in an embryonic stage, again, with all of the
ethical concerns that need to be addressed first.
But the alternative, which is more general, not disease by
disease, is actually to better understand the mechanisms by
which cells clear misfolded proteins and to see whether there
are ways in which we can improve that set of processes in a way
that might work across many different diseases. I won't go into
the technical, you know----
Mr. Culberson. You see that as one of the root causes of a
lot of things----
Dr. Hyman. It is a very--there are a lot of--yes. Yeah.
Yeah.
And then, again, you mentioned something that is new, but
interesting, is that, in traumatic brain injury, this protein
Tau, which has also been implicated in Alzheimer's disease, may
not only create inappropriate tangles inside of neurons, but
when they die, it may be released and almost infect neighboring
neurons and spread some of the damage. Again, early, but
really, really interesting and important work.
Mr. Fattah. Last question for, okay.
Mr. Lynch, the Potomac Institute released a study on
neurotechnology 3 years ago, and they said that, from an
economic standpoint, the economics of this in terms of GDP
would be more impactful than any of the other economic
revolutions in our country if we were able to figure out some
of these problems, solve them, and build the industries that
would benefit from them.
So you are involved on the industry development side of
this. In terms of venture capital, in terms of the work, one of
the things that I have seen internationally is there is a lot
of action in this space--right?--people trying to figure out
diagnostic tools, people trying to figure out, you know,
treatments.
And where do you see America relative to the development of
the neurotechnology industry?
Mr. Lynch. Well, thank you for that question.
I would like to return, in answering you, to the point you
were trying to make earlier, which is these are exceedingly
complex problems we are trying to solve.
And to Dr. Hyman's points earlier, much of the
breakthroughs that we are talking about that he articulated,
whether it was neurogenomics, CRISPR/Cas-9, optogenetics, those
were all borne out of the Federal investment in the human
genome project. Right?
And so what we are talking about here is: How are we
actually going to solve these problems with the brain and
develop treatments and cures for individuals who are suffering
and alleviate these problems that are occurring with these
families and the drag on the economy as a whole? We need to
invest in fundamental brain research, in the BRAIN Initiative.
We need to step it up and push forward.
So what I represent is the neurotechnology industry. There
are currently 800 companies worldwide right now that are
developing treatments for neurological diseases and psychiatric
illnesses. About 450 of those reside in the United States
itself.
Last year this industry generated about $150 billion in
revenue in and of itself. That includes selling pharmaceuticals
for anxiety, depression, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis. So there
is a big pharma element to this industry.
But the breakthroughs--they have basically left the ``R''
in neuroscience aside because of the hyper-complexity
associated with developing these new treatments and are looking
to these gentlemen to actually find some new technology so that
we can get some insight into how we are going to develop these
next-generation treatments.
So from the venture capital side, we have been hosting a
neurotech investing and partnering conference for 10 years now,
and each year it brings together, you know, a modest number of
companies, you know, 250 people, you know, 50 companies
pitching their treatments, you know, to try and get venture
capital funding.
And what we have seen over the past decade is a continuous
increase in the interest of venture capital to fund these
companies. Now it is up to about $1.5 billion a year across
about 120 deals last year. Okay? But the problem that we are
beginning to see----
Mr. Fattah. That is what Potomac was saying, that, if
America misses the boat here, you know, it is kind of lights
out, that this is like the area in which, the next wealth-
building phase in the world is going to operate in.
Mr. Lynch. I couldn't agree with you more. Humanity has
progressed through an agricultural revolution, an industrial
revolution, and we are in the midst of an information
revolution.
And the next revolution, the technological revolution that
will transform how we all work, live and play on a daily basis,
will be the neurotechnology revolution. It will impact our
laws, how we do marketing, how we entertain ourselves, how we
treat each other, how we provide new ways for people to
experience life, and it will impact every industry in different
ways and create new industries like ``neurotainment''--right?--
completely new forms of entertaining far beyond the therapeutic
impact that it will have.
Mr. Fattah. One of the other jurisdictions we have is the
Commerce Department. So I have spoken with the Commerce
Secretary when she was here about Commerce developing a
neurotechnology focus so that we could make sure that American
industry is focused on this trade space and ways that we need
to, and she has agreed to do that.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.
Mr. Culberson. I think a big part of this is the cognitive
computing, I guess, that you mentioned earlier.
Let me ask Dr. Olds, if I could, on behalf of the National
Science Foundation, to talk to us about the number of grant
proposals you receive in the neuroscience discipline.
And of those that you receive, how many does the NSF fund?
Just ballpark. And give us a--Mr. Fattah and I an idea of where
the most productive areas might be for us to help you target.
Dr. Olds. So I can give you now ballpark numbers on the
number of awards that we have given per year. So from 2009 to
2013, when we were spending approximately $70 million a year,
we were making on the order of 150 to 200 awards per year.
In 2014, we awarded in the neighborhood of 250 awards. In
2015, this year, we expect to award something like 300. And if
the appropriation that the President requested for 2016 comes
through, that would be about 400 awards.
On the number of proposals, I would need to get back to the
Committee on that, and I will.
Mr. Culberson. Ballpark percentage that you are able to----
Dr. Olds. I would say we can fund about 20 percent--
somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the proposals.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, you were asking about
breakthroughs earlier. Let me interrupt your train of thought
and tell you I was.
Mr. Culberson. Oh, please. That is the benefit of this. It
is free flowing.
Mr. Fattah. Something that you will be excited about.
So Keith Black, who is the head of neurosurgery at Cedars-
Sinai, was doing some research that showed that you can use a
part of the venom from a scorpion that will only attach to non-
healthy cells in the brain, and it allows the surgeon to now
just go in and pluck out the tumor that otherwise is hard to
discern.
So this is where nature, you were talking about God's sense
of humor, whereas nature--there is a lot going on out there,
but this was a fascinating piece. I knew you would be.
Mr. Culberson. It is fascinating.
Mr. Fattah. So I wanted to share that with you. I am going
to send you the paper. They are doing the clinic trials now. So
it is working out quite well.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. So they can, you know, and Senator Kennedy, we
know lots of people who had these brain tumors not to a good
result.
But this particular technique enables the surgeon by
utilizing something called chlorotoxin 35, which is part of the
venom from an actual scorpion spider. It kind of lights up the
runway, you know, for the snippers to come, you know.
Mr. Culberson. Fascinating. It is extraordinary. And the
advances come from you all sparking off each other; so, I know
how important the collaboration is.
And you really often don't know where the advance is going
to come, and it is up to the Federal government to invest in
this basic research because the private sector just--either
cannot--they just simply don't have the resources. You can't
stay with it. You have got to make sure your shareholders'
expectations are met in the shorter term.
So it is up to us to invest in a lot of these. It may just
turn out to be dead-end rabbit trails, but otherwise wouldn't
get done.
I wanted to ask Dr. Olds about supercomputing. And National
Science Foundation had funded Blue Waters, one of the most
powerful supercomputers in the world.
And, if you could, talk to us about how this resource is
being used to support brain research. And how is the United
States holding up in the ongoing effort to build the biggest,
fastest, best computer on Earth?
Dr. Olds. So----
Mr. Culberson. The Japanese leapfrogged us, I know,
recently, but that is--I just want to make sure we are the ones
standing at the cutting edge of that work.
Dr. Olds. So thank you for the question. That is two
questions. I am going to answer the first one first and the
second one second.
Blue Waters, of course, is one of the most powerful
supercomputers in the world and is hosted in Illinois at the
National Center for Supercomputing. In the area of
neuroscience, it is being used in a number of really exciting
areas. One is brain imaging, where it is improving the
resolution of blood flow imaging, which is really important in
diagnosing stroke and ischemia in the brain.
It is also being used to elucidate the structure of ion
channels, which Dr. Hyman mentioned earlier. These are
critically important. These ion channels have three-dimensional
shapes, which is critical to their function and how they
interact with neurotransmitters and drugs. And so Blue Waters
is being used for that.
It is also being used to simulate and model the process of
vesicle fusion to the membrane presynaptically--that is
involved in neurotransmission. If you don't have a
neurotransmitter being released from the membrane, then you do
not have communication between cells.
And then, to me, one of the most exciting areas that Blue
Waters is working on has to do with gene expression in the
brain in the context of Alzheimer's disease.
We have been talking about misfolded proteins in
Alzheimer's disease, but, really, the important thing to think
about Alzheimer's disease is that there are about 8,000 brain-
specific genes that are expressed in the brain, and these
genes--you can think of their expression across all the brain
cells as being a dynamic network which is under exquisite
control.
When we are healthy, that network is operating in one mode.
When we have a disease like Alzheimer's, it is operating in
another mode that may require supercomputing to actually
understand. So Blue Waters is being used in that context, and I
think that is really important.
Getting back to the question of how we are doing in terms
of supercomputing, I would just go back to what Mr. Lynch was
talking about.
You know, we have a proof of concept--an existence proof in
the human brain--that we can have real high-performance
computing, exascale computing, if you will, functioning on 20
watts of electricity.
So there is something about the architecture of what is in
here that is fundamentally different from what is in, you know,
the laptop computer. If we could understand that, I think it
would be a gigantic step forward in terms of having a permanent
lead in high-performance computing.
Mr. Culberson. Well, how do we deal with the--once the
computer becomes self-aware and can learn--you mentioned
cognitive computing--it opens up all kinds of wonderful
possibilities, but, also, terrifying possibilities as well.
Talk to us a little bit about, if you could, each one of
us, some of your personal concerns about how we are going to
deal with that when we cross that threshold. You know, some of
the greatest minds in the country continue to talk about the
concern about AI, that it may not be a happy experience.
Dr. Hyman. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of
technologies that we focus on all for benefit with therapeutic
purposes to solve important engineering problems that have
other uses that we wouldn't be so happy with or that we worry
might get away from us.
And maybe the earliest experience of this country in
thinking about that is nuclear proliferation, which is, after
all, knowledge of certain advanced technologies. And we can see
the challenges there, but I think the challenges are going to
be even greater because these are going to be widely
disseminated not-classified technologies.
And one of the things that I have actually been involved in
is to help people thinking about inventing these technologies,
not--not AI, but invasive deep-brain stimulation for regulating
behavior.
So DARPA has these very interesting advanced projects
really aimed at servicemen and -women who have traumatic brain
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, but, also, chronic pain
syndromes who may have become addicted to pain medicines
because of their injuries.
And as an alternative to waiting for the development of new
medications, they are studying the ability to directly
stimulate circuits in the brain, something that has worked
very, very well for Parkinson's disease.
But they understand that, once you are stimulating brain
circuits, you know, this could be a good and therapeutic thing,
but it also could change personality, personal identity.
So they have appointed an ethical, legal, and social issues
panel to help them oversee this research that I am privileged
to serve on, and they take it quite seriously. But I think it
is a kind of model.
The Genome Project did that. They had an ethical, legal,
and social issues panel that actually Jim Watson, James Watson,
had initiated. And the idea here is not to stop these
technologies because they have so much benefit, but, really, as
a community, to think through the really difficult problem of
maximizing the benefit, but somehow controlling the risks.
Mr. Fattah. It is kind of like not to minimize, but it is
just like everything else. I mean, it is like the automobile.
You know, if used for its purpose, fine.
And that is why I think OSTP at the origins of this effort
with the Interagency Working Group put together a ethics group.
I know the president, Amy Gutmann, was involved and some
others.
So, you know, it is a big concern. However, as Newt
Gingrich said, it is the larger challenge for the country. If
we can't delay Alzheimer's by 5 or 6 years, you know, we are
going to go bankrupt.
Mr. Culberson. Well, I am not questioning that.
Mr. Fattah. We have got to figure out our way forward and
we have got to make sure that people don't misuse the
technology.
Mr. Culberson. You know, that is why we are here. Very
supportive of the work. But I just think, with your talent at
this table, it is important to talk about the ethical
challenges and what would lie ahead for the human race if we
actually develop a computer that is able to function at the
level of the human brain, can learn a task----
Mr. Fattah. But to get closer to your line, there are
issues here that are useful for us from an intelligence
standpoint and other things for national security that are also
beneficial and is closer to the line you are concerned about,
but have some utility.
Mr. Culberson. Well, that day is coming soon. And we have
got a panel of great talent here. I just want to get your
thoughts about AI and cognitive computing and what are we going
to do when we hit that threshold.
Mr. Lynch. Sure. I mean, with any new technologies, there
is both promise and peril. And we need to have extreme
vigilance as these technologies come to market and are being
researched.
I personally know right now that IBM, Facebook, Google, HP,
Qualcomm, all the major chipmakers around the world, some of
the major software companies, are hiring neuroscientists
because they see the competitive advantage that brain-inspired
computing can actually bring to their organization.
So, in a way, you know, the cat is kind of out of the bag,
and we need to have these public conversations around, ``What
are the limits to these technologies? And how do we design them
in initially?''
Mr. Culberson. Right. They just called a vote, and I want
to let Mr. Fattah close up.
But I really would also like to ask about what is this
device and the instant gratification that it brings doing to
our kids and the evolution of our minds.
Because this is changing us. And the human instinct for
instant gratification--you see the Google searches. If people
don't get what they find within a few nanoseconds, they are
switching. It is altering behavior, and I think it is really
worrisome.
Can you talk to us a little bit about that, any one of you
who want to dive in.
Dr. Olds. So Nicholas Carr wrote an article recently. I
think it was called Is Google Ruining Us? And----
Mr. Culberson. Well, in particular, these things.
Dr. Olds. Right. And----
Mr. Culberson. Sometimes I want to hit it with a hammer.
Dr. Olds. I think that he raised the point that, as we
become used to answering questions instantly without thinking
about them intellectually, that would change the plasticity of
our neural circuits and, potentially, would produce some long-
term change.
As I told Mr. Carr at the time he was researching his book,
I would be skeptical about that and I think we really need to
actually look at the evidence very carefully with regard to
long-term changes in human brains as a result of the IT
revolution that is going on.
Mr. Culberson. Physical changes. What about behavioral?
Then I want to let Mr. Fattah close up on this. But, I mean, he
has gotten me on another question.
But it worries the heck out of me because you don't see
kids playing in the yard anymore and looking for bugs or doing
things like all normal kids should be.
Dr. Olds. I agree.
Dr. Hyman. I mean, you are absolutely right. And, again, we
have got--we are not very good at having broad conversations
about how to control the downside of technologies where we are
all too good at sometimes having deadening regulation. You
know, you are not going to outlaw, you know, email or iPhones,
but we have to deal with cyberbullying. Right?
And so I think we really need to have more serious
conversations that somehow affect the way society handles these
issues or things that are really beneficial and wonderful will
then have very much unintended consequences.
Mr. Culberson. But you are seeing changes in human behavior
with this instant access to information and gratification----
Dr. Hyman. Yeah. Absolutely.
Dr. Olds. If I may, I think this is an example of why we
need research in social, behavioral, and economic sciences as
well as the basic biological research, because this is an area,
clearly, where we are looking at complex human behavior as it
interacts with machines. And that would be SBE.
Mr. Culberson. That is a social behavior headline no one
wants----
Mr. Fattah. Let me jump on the more positive side of this
for a minute.
So, you know, I was out in the Napa Valley, the Staglins.
They had a son who had some challenges with schizophrenia. And
since that time, he is doing great, but they engaged themselves
in this effort and raised a lot of money, over $250 million of
private money, particularly for schizophrenia-related research.
And they fund early investigators.
And part of what seems to be emerging as part of some of
their research is that some of this gaming activity can be
therapeutically useful and that part of the challenge--it is
not the totality of the challenge--but part of the challenges
of some of these young people. It is almost always young people
who face these schizophrenic circumstances and almost always
boys, not in every circumstance, but more so than not just
getting the brain functioning slightly more efficiently by
activity actually provides some benefit.
And then I was out in Tom Cole's backyard at the University
of Oklahoma's, got a program called a center called K20, and
they were developing these games that my teenager likes, these
sim games, but imbedding in the game, you know, things that we
would want, you know, interest in STEM education and going to
college and, you know, hiding these notions in nuanced sort of
ways inside the game so that even the kids are playing them
they are getting indoctrinated with positive messages.
So I think, you know, some of this we are going to have to
run with and just try to improve as we go, Mr. Chairman.
But I do want to, as we go to wrap up, I want to thank the
chairman again because it is not the norm in a majority-
minority situation that there would be a hearing like this, and
I want to thank you.
But it just shows that the interest in this matter is not
partisan and we intend, you know, well beyond this
administration, which has got, you know, 20 more months and has
done some important work--but this is work that we are going to
be engaged in for a long time going forward that we need to
deal with.
And we need to do it on all of the fronts. We didn't talk a
lot about traumatic brain injury today, but we have close to 3
million Americans--and I am not talking about servicemembers
now--3 million--a lot of them young people--not all of them--
but, you know, riding their bikes, playing games, who end up
with very serious injuries.
And the things that we thought we knew about traumatic
brain injuries in the past we now know differently, and there
is a lot more that can be done. And this is an area where we
want to do, that we need to, also look at because it is very
different from the disease side.
These are actually, we had our own colleague who was shot
in the head, Congresswoman Giffords, and, you know, in past
circumstances, you wouldn't see the kind of recovery that has
happened. But, you know, it is because of the great work that
is being done. But we need to work in this space more.
And I know that the chairman and I did work on this on the
veterans' side, but this is on the civilian side, it is a very
important issue, too.
So I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank our
guests.
Mr. Culberson. This is a team effort.
Mr. Fattah. It is a team effort, and we are going to keep
going. All right.
Mr. Culberson. It so important, and it is something we are
arm in arm on, as I have been a member of the subcommittee
since I first got on Appropriations in 2003 and always dreamed
of having the privilege of being able to chair it to be able to
help make sure that these--as Mr. Jefferson said, he liked the
dreams of the future better than the memories of the past.
And I will continue to do everything I can to help make
sure that these dreams of the future come true from our work
that we do arm in arm----
Mr. Fattah. Together. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And remembering, also, that Mr.
Jefferson liked to say that liberty is the firstborn child of
science, which is absolutely true.
So it is exciting and so worthwhile. And we will continue
to work together, Chaka, to make sure that we are providing you
the research, the support that you need, and get out of the way
as much as possible.
Because, as a Texan, we also understand that the less
government, the better, and get out of the way, and
particularly when it comes to the sciences, let you follow the
facts.
Mr. Fattah. And let me thank OSTP for shepherding this, and
you have done a great job, Dr. Rubin and Dr. Hogan and the team
there, because this is a massive enterprise stretching across
both the government and the private sector and private
foundations and academia and hospitals. I mean, there are just
a lot of people, including people focused on ethics, who have
to be part of this. So thank you and----
Mr. Culberson. Thank you for making this happen.
Mr. Fattah. Somehow I think we might be having another
hearing on neuroscience next year this time in the
appropriations process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Maybe a lot sooner.
Thank you very much.
And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Bolden, C. F..................................................... 87
Cordova, F. A.................................................... 253
Handelsman, Jo................................................... 321
Hyman, Steven.................................................... 321
Lynch, Zack...................................................... 321
Olds, James...................................................... 321
Pritzker, Hon. Penny............................................. 1
Sullivan, Kathryn................................................ 57
[all]