[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama GRACE MENG, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 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, Aschley Schiller, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 5
Page
Department of Commerce.......................................... 1
National Science Foundation..................................... 265
National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................. 327
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-225 WASHINGTON: 2017
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ 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
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\}Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
----------
Thursday, May 25, 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, and Science
Subcommittee will come to order. We want to welcome our witness
today, Commerce Secretary Ross. We deeply appreciate your
service to the nation and are grateful to you and everyone at
the Department of Commerce for the job that you do. Today we
are going to discuss the Department of Commerce's fiscal year
2018 budget request.
Secretary Ross, we anticipate this will be a very tight
budget year for the subcommittee and the Congress. We are all
going to have to work to find efficiencies and fund the most
important programs. I hope, Secretary Ross, that you can bring
some of your innovative cost-saving ideas from the private
sector to the Commerce Department to help us make this
department save our constituents' very precious, scarce, and
hard-earned tax dollars. You have proposed a lot of funding
reductions across the department. We will take a close look at
all of them and see what makes sense.
The Department of Commerce has several important missions,
including preparing for and conducting the Decennial Census,
enforcing our nation's trade laws, forecasting the weather,
managing our fisheries, protecting and exploring our oceans,
and administering our patent and trademark laws. The budget
proposes reshaping the Commerce Department to focus on the
highest priority missions. With the limited resources available
to the committee, we will work to make sure that you are
appropriately addressing the most important key priorities,
such as ensuring that the 2020 Census will cost less than the
2010 Census; making certain that weather satellite programs
meet their cost and schedule timelines; and strengthening cyber
and IT security at the department, an ongoing and serious
problem in the 21st Century.
Before we proceed, Mr. Secretary, I would like to recognize
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Serrano, for any opening
statements he would like to make.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to join
you in welcoming the Commerce Secretary. Mr. Ross, I just want
to know, is this the hearing that we were supposed to conduct
all in Spanish? Not this one?
Mr. Culberson. That is the one tomorrow.
Mr. Serrano. Tomorrow? The Department of Commerce is vital
in promoting job creation and opportunity for all. In doing so,
it must ensure that we have fair trade in which American
workers are protected and well compensated. As part of that
effort, we must also make sure that other countries enforce
labor laws and environmental regulations that help us combat
climate change, the very things that undermine fair trade if
not done correctly. In addition, the Department promotes
sustainable development and improves standards of living by
working in partnership with numerous stakeholders.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2018
includes $7.8 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is
a $1.4 billion, or 15 percent, decrease from the 2017 enacted
level. This level of funding endangers these core missions at
the Department. This budget very foolishly eliminates, in my
opinion, vital agencies and zeroes out important programs.
For example, it eliminates Economic Development
Administration Grants and the Minority Business Development
Agency. EDA is the only agency across the Federal Government
that focuses exclusively on economic development in
economically distressed areas around the nation. In addition,
MBDA promotes the growth of minority-owned businesses and helps
them compete in the world economy. I strongly oppose the
elimination of these two agencies because it will hurt small
businesses, workers, and economically distressed areas.
The President's budget blueprint for 2018 also seeks to
zero out funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
or MEP. It is estimated that for every one dollar of Federal
investment the MEP national network generates $17.90 in new
sales growth for manufacturers, and $27 in new client
investment. A survey by the Upjohn Institute in cooperation
with the MEP centers showed that the MEP program helped create
and retain more than 80,000 jobs in 2015 alone. In short, this
program enhances the productivity and competitiveness of small
and medium-sized manufacturers, and creates well-paying jobs
while reducing our trade deficit with other countries.
In addition to these cuts, the Trump administration
proposes to zero out funding for various NOAA grants and
programs that support coastal and marine management, and
education and research, and benefit industry as well. States
and local stakeholders are also involved. The Regional Coastal
Resilience Grants, for instance, ensure our states and
communities are prepared to face changing ocean conditions,
from acidification to sea level rise, as well as major
catastrophes. We need to make sure that we help our coastal
areas. We need to make sure that we help our coastal
communities remain resilient in the face of climate change and
allow NOAA's research programs to continue. This is necessary
for America's economic and environmental health.
With regard to the Census Bureau, a very important
constitutional mandate. As I stated a couple of weeks ago at
our hearing with Director Thompson, the proposed funding level
falls short of what is needed to help ramp up the ongoing
preparations for both the 2020 Census and the other important
surveys conducted by the Bureau. In fact, your requested total
is actually $136.6 million below President Obama's request for
the previous fiscal year. Underfunding and delays in the
enactment of the Bureau's budget have already had consequences,
and I remain seriously concerned that the Bureau will not be
able to match the historic levels of compliance from the 2010
Census. This is a critical time for the Census Bureau, and the
leadership vacuum in combination with this budget request
imperils a successful Decennial Census.
These proposals in total represent the betrayal of many of
the very individuals who voted for President Trump, individuals
who reside in areas that are hurting economically and that are
greatly helped by the programs that this budget seeks to
eliminate. However, Mr. Chairman, I remain confident, and I
want to say this to you personally because of our relationship,
that I mean this sincerely, I and my staff want a bipartisan
approach, want to be able to do the best for the Commerce
Department. Because if they succeed, America succeeds. So there
will be times when we disagree. It may fall apart. Who knows?
It is democracy. But my intent is to work with you to come up
with a bill that we can be proud of. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. We have always worked together beautifully
and we are starting in the right place. I look forward to
finding the way to do that in the weeks ahead.
It is my privilege to recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, our full committee chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any
remarks he would like to make.
The Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Chairman Culberson, and
welcome, Secretary Ross, to the Appropriations Committee.
Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight duties of
the committee and now we have formally received the
administration's budget, and I can assure you we will go
through each and every budget, including yours, line by line,
question witnesses, your good self, and other representatives
of the department and demand credible spending justifications.
And only then will we make our own determinations on the best
use of tax dollars.
The Department of Commerce of course serves as a voice of
America's businesses. And in my home State of New Jersey your
department plays an integral role in promoting job creation and
creating more economic opportunities. It is imperative that we
continue to make smart investments that protect American
companies from unfair trade practices, help foster and grow
domestic manufacturing, and promote U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness, and deliver more U.S. products to
international markets.
In a larger sense, many of my colleagues are concerned that
certain sections of your budget suggest that America may be
stepping back from many of its international relationships and
responsibilities. I for one am concerned about the optics of a
possible retreat into isolationism and protectionism. What I do
know, and I think we all know, we cannot isolate ourselves and
expect the vacuum not to be filled by the Chinese and others.
We have seen that in the military aspect of what we are doing
in the Middle East. If you step back, the vacuum is filled by
bad characters who will take that economic edge away from us.
But we are very pleased to have you here this morning and I
thank Chairman Culberson for the opportunity to address you.
Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Ross, we
are delighted to have you here today. And your written
statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, if
there is no objection. We recognize you for your opening
statement. And if you could keep your statement to within five
minutes, that would be appreciated. Thank you, sir.
department of commerce fy 2018 budget overview
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Culberson,
Ranking Member Serrano, and members of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss
President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request, a New
Foundation for American Greatness. And thank you all for your
previous support of the Department of Commerce.
When I was confirmed as Secretary of Commerce on February
27th, I took on the great responsibility of ensuring our
Nation's taxpayer dollars are targeted to our current mission
for keeping us safe and creating economic growth. The
President's 2018 budget request is $7.8 billion in
discretionary funding for Commerce, is a first step towards
achieving those means. Oh--it is on. Were people able to hear
what I had been saying or do I need to start back--it seemed to
me like everybody was following. Anyway, the President's budget
request prioritizes and protects investment in core government
functions. These include ensuring fair and secure trade,
preparing for the 2020 Decennial Census, and providing the
satellites necessary to produce timely and accurate weather
forecasts. The budget also reduces or eliminates often
duplicative or redundant grant programs.
The administration is devoting resources toward making
critical investments in our Nation's economic and military
security. The President's budget provides an additional $4.5
million to the International Trade Administration for its
Enforcement and Compliance Operations. These resources will be
directed towards the self-initiation of anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations. We will ensure that no
country or foreign corporation can take unfair advantage of
U.S. markets. This budget will create 29 new positions to
accelerate these cases and shield U.S. businesses which are
concerned about retaliation.
The President's budget also provides a $1 million increase
in funding for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The
requested funding will add 19 new special agents within BIS'
Export Enforcement Offices across the United States. BIS,
despite its current size of only about 120 special agents,
pushes far above its weight in defense of our country.
In March, we announced a combined civil and criminal fine
of $1.19 billion against ZTE Corporation, the second largest
Chinese telecommunications company, for illegally shipping
sensitive equipment to Iran and North Korea. BIS took the lead
in cracking this case open. So I am confident that these 19
additional agents and the bandwidth they represent will have
real impact.
The President's 2018 budget also requests $1.5 billion for
the U.S. Census Bureau, a two percent increase from the 2017
Omnibus Appropriations. This is a recognition of the important
work that the Department of Commerce does in fulfilling its
constitutional responsibilities of the Executive branch. The
President's budget funds key activities that prepare for the
2020 Decennial Census and in support of the Bureau's other data
collection functions.
As you are well aware, the Census Director has reported a
large cost overrun in one area of its operations. The Commerce
Secretariat and the OMB are jointly cross-checking these
numbers. In addition, we are retaining outside consultants to
conduct a third party review. We hope to have more clarity on
this issue soon.
The 2018 fiscal year budget also proposes $4.8 billion for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA's
budget is tailored to fund its core missions of data collection
and environmental stewardship. Within NOAA's top line, $1
billion is recommended for the National Weather Service.
Funding is also included for the Advance Weather Interactive
Processing System Cyclical Refreshment. This reduces the risk
of system downtime that can impede critical weather forecasts
and warnings. With its $1.8 billion request for the National
Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, NESDIS,
NOAA will continue its work to deploy the next generation of
weather satellites.
These items are just a small cross-section of our
department's overall budget. I hope that I have given you a
glimpse into the priorities set by President Trump and his
administration. I am glad for the opportunity to get into more
detail with you and to provide answers for any specific
questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I want to commend
you for the focus, as you indicated in your testimony, on the
International Trade Administration. We are delighted to be
joined by our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York. I
would be pleased to recognize her for any statement she would
like to make at this time.
Ms. Lowey. Well, thank you very much. And I am really
excited to see you again, and I wish you the best in your new
responsibilities. And I thank you so much for joining us today.
As you noted in your written testimony, the Department of
Commerce's mission is to ensure that taxpayer dollars go to
programs that will grow the economy, and that is why your
budget's elimination of the Economic Development
Administration, which helps struggling communities, does not
make any sense. And I hope we can have further discussion on
that.
I would say that investments in scientific and environment
advancements that keep our coastal zones and marine wildlife
safe also have an important economic impact. Given this
administration's aversion to science, unfortunately, especially
when it comes to climate change, your proposed eliminations of
the NOAA National Sea Grant Program and the NOAA Coastal Zone
Management Grant Program may not be a surprise, but combined
with significant decreases to NOAA climate research and NIST,
these cuts are dangerous. We need research to understand the
changes in the environment and weather patterns that put our
communities' safety and economies at risk. An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. I could name a litany of
natural disasters for which we could have been better prepared
to mitigate damage. Superstorm Sandy, for example, destroyed
homes, businesses, transportation hubs, and shorelines along
the eastern shore, including in my district. The Federal
Government provided $60 billion to help communities recover and
rebuild. Why in the world would we impede research to help us
understand and prepare for the havoc our changing environment
could wreak on our communities in both lives and treasure?
Finally I must note while this budget includes an increase
for the Census Bureau, it is shockingly insufficient with 2020
looming. We need an accurate and full picture of the population
to understand how to best serve the American people across
every Federal department and agency.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to a productive discussion
this morning, and I look forward to working with you to achieve
the Department's goals. And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
so much. As the chairman knows, we have had our roller skates
on today, there are so many hearings. Thank you very, very much
for giving me the opportunity.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. Delighted to have you
with us and it is always a pleasure to work with you.
Mr. Secretary, I truly do want to thank you for focusing on
anti-dumping and countervailing duties. And I want to
congratulate the department in particular for that long overdue
and very important $1 billion civil and criminal fine that was
imposed on ZTE. That is extraordinarily important. The Chinese
have been notorious in this area and I am really grateful to
you for that work. And I congratulate the agents in the
department that took care of that.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir.
census
Mr. Culberson. If I could, Mr. Secretary, start with the
Census. We had a hearing earlier this month with the Census
Bureau and they testified that their IT systems would be 48
percent over budget, which is unacceptable. What will you do to
hold Census employees and contractors accountable for that cost
breach, and what steps are you taking to keep the cost of the
2020 Census under control while reserving your ability to
perform that vitally important function?
Secretary Ross. Surely. Well the first thing we are trying
to do is to get our arms around what the real numbers are
likely to be. We have put together a task force consisting of
folks from the Secretariat and from OMB, plus two outside
consultants with a great deal of experience in prior Censuses
so that we can begin to identify what caused the huge overrun
that has already been reported and what are the implications
for potential future further overruns. Because that was just
one segment that accounted for it.
In general, the contracts that the Census Bureau has put
out have tended to be time and material contracts. My
experience in the private sector has been when you have a very
complicated situation with a large number of vendors and the
necessity to integrate them into a very massive software
activity, the potential for trouble is really quite
considerable. It is alarming that at this relatively early
stage when only a small portion has actually been spent, they
already are calculating for a very major overrun on the back
end of it.
We are going through the entire series of activities that
will be conducted as we keep two things in mind. One deals with
the budget course or budget requirements, and second, which is
outside the parameters, has to do with how bad could it get if
really things get totally out of control? Once we have those
two, we have to determine what can be done on a remedial basis
in each of the various phases to bring the current situation
back under control.
Our primary objective, though, is an accurate enumeration
of the population and we do not intend to sacrifice that at
all. If it is going to cost more, we will come to you, we will
explain why, and we will work with you on solutions.
I am just getting up to speed on all these contracts,
because, as you know, they were entered into before I was
confirmed as the Secretary of Commerce. So other than those
40,000-foot observations for the moment, we will get to ground
zero and we will report quite promptly once we do.
Mr. Culberson. I have faith you will get to the bottom of
it. I want to assure you that I will work with you, and this
committee will work with you, to be sure that you have the
tools you need to hold people accountable and to do what is
necessary to help control the cost of the Census while ensuring
its accuracy. That is a vitally important role of the
Department.
We are expecting votes about 11:30. So I am going to cut my
time a little short, 11:15, 11:30, and recognize Mr. Serrano so
we can move along.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. The President's budget request includes $800
million for the 2020 Census preparations. But while this is an
increase above the current level, it is still $131 million
below the amount that the Commerce Department had earlier
projected to be needed for fiscal year 2018. The Department is
now planning on delaying the opening of regional offices and
other issues that we need to set up. Mr. Secretary, how can
such an inadequate budget request for the 2020 Census be
justified? And will it not eventually lead to a situation where
the Census in fact will cost more? And how can we fix that?
Because as you know, the Census is one of the few areas which
is constitutionally mandated. We need to do it, and we need to
get a good count. It helps all the states. It helps all our
members. But we do not seem to be ready to do it, nor do we
seem to be able to pay for it properly. And secondly, having a
vacuum at the leadership position also adds to the problem.
Secretary Ross. Well, that is a whole bunch of questions,
sir. I will try to answer them as best I can.
I am committed to being transparent, totally transparent
with this committee regarding the financial requirements of the
2020 Census. And as soon as we really have a good handle on the
2020 Census requirements, whether it is more or less, whatever
it is going to turn out to be, we will promptly come back to
you with our detailed backup for why we are making the request.
So rest assured of that.
Rest assured, also, I have a historic reason for being very
interested in the Census in that when I was working my way
through Harvard Business School, I was a Census taker. I
literally was an enumerator with the big white belt and the
badge going around Copley Square in Boston. So I understand the
groundwork that is needed to be done. I also understand how
hard it is to manage that kind of a workforce. You are talking
about hiring hundreds of thousands of part-time people, who
know they are part-time, and who also know that there is no
permanent career opportunity for them at Census. So just
creating, hiring, and managing that kind of a force, all over
the country, and in the territories, dealing with Native
American Reservations, it is a very, very daunting and very
complex task. So I do not think I will be underestimating the
magnitude of either its importance or the magnitude of its
challenges. But as we sit here at this moment, I do not have a
totally reliable figure for you. When I return it will be an
amount that I can stand behind.
Mr. Serrano. OK. Mr. Chairman, do I have enough time for
another question?
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Yeah, but we are going to try to
follow the five minutes.
investigation of russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
Mr. Serrano. Well, this is a longer question. Mr.
Secretary, I have a number of questions about the
administration's budget request. But before we get to that, I
need to address something related to the cloud that is
currently hanging over much of the Federal Government right
now. And that is the investigation into Russian interference in
the 2016 Presidential Election.
Earlier this year numerous members of Congress sent you
written questions related to the Bank of Cypress and its
Russian investors. First, why has the White House refused to
permit the release of your written responses to these
questions? Second, are you concerned that the White House
refusal to release your answers contributes to the concern
expressed by many Americans over the White House refusal to
address the testimony by current and former intelligence
officials that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016
elections?
Secretary Ross. Well, I am aware of the letters that were
sent by various members of Congress. I discussed that as part
of my confirmation proceedings. What the White House decision
making was, I cannot tell you why. But that was the position.
Rest assured, though, the New York Times, which is not
normally a big friend of this administration, did a very
thorough investigative study of my own situation vis a vis Bank
of Cypress and Russia, and they came away with a very
affirmative conclusion in terms of me not having any real
involvement. So I hope that gives you some degree of comfort in
the situation.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Chairman
Frelinghuysen.
The Chairman. In my earlier life I was in Mr. Serrano's
position as the ranking. It is better to be in the majority
situation, I think.
Let me say, I commend you for taking a look at the Census.
It really begs the question, what has been going on over there
since the last Census? I mean, it is an expensive endeavor and
I think much of American business obviously depends on a lot of
the information that is collected. I know you are acutely aware
of that. And lastly, I would like to put a plug in. I have
always thought that NOAA has done an incredible job. I am
reminded of, what is it, 71 percent of the world's surface is
water. So it is important that we be aware of all aspects that
relate to it. And I want to put a plug in for NIST. Sometimes
in the overall scheme of things, there are a lot of acronyms,
but they do some remarkable things, too. And I have always
viewed it as sort of one of the crown jewels that is out there,
especially now because they have this sort of initiative on
cyber which I think affects just about every part of our
Nation. But certainly you know that in the final analysis this
House is going to put its imprint on your recommendations. And
we obviously will do that respectfully and look forward to
working very closely as we move ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Ms. Lowey.
noaa sea grant program
Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. And where our Chairman left
off, I would like to say that I look forward to working with
the Chairman and all my colleagues in producing a really good
bill, as we did in 2017.
So to my question, Mr. Secretary, you are proposing to
eliminate the NOAA Sea Grant Program, which received $63
million in the recently-passed fiscal year 2017 spending bill.
Its national network of colleges and universities conducts
scientific research in support of the conservation and
practical use of the coasts, the Great Lakes, and other marine
areas. There are several universities and research institutions
in our home State, New York, that are part of this network--in
fact, I would love to take you at some point to Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory--but so are a
number of universities in other states that voted for President
Trump because they believed that he would deliver for their
economies: Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina,
and others. If the Sea Grant Program is eliminated, as
President Trump proposes, these states will lose this very
valuable program. This does not make sense to me and if you
would comment on this, I would really be appreciative, and I
would love to take you to Lamont-Doherty one day.
Secretary Ross. Well if permitted by the Office of
Government Ethics, I will take you up on your invitation to go
there.
In terms of the substance of it, the administration's 2018
budget prioritizes rebuilding the military and making critical
investments in the Nation's security. It also identifies the
savings and efficiencies needed to keep the Nation on a
responsible fiscal path. To meet those goals, some difficult
decisions needed to be made. The administration prioritized
programs that provide a good return to the taxpayer, as well as
those that serve the most critical functions while
consolidating or eliminating duplicative, ineffective, or less
critical programs.
NOAA'S Sea Grant Program is a successful program. But it is
one that primarily benefits industry, State, and local
stakeholders. Those programs are a lower priority than the core
functions maintained by the budget, such as surveys, charting,
and fisheries management.
Ms. Lowey. Let me just say that I look forward to having
you visit this program, because although some wisdom may come
from some in the administration, I think that analysis is
misguided. Because if you look at the creation of jobs, the Sea
Grant Program is absolutely key. So thank you very much, and we
will move on and I will save my other questions for another
day. But we really have to analyze each of these programs. And
the person who briefed you may not be aware of the job creating
opportunities and the knowledge we gain from these outstanding
programs. So I look forward, I will take you up on your
acceptance. Thank you.
Secretary Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. It is my privilege to
recognize the chairman of the full committee in the last
Congress, and former chairman of this wonderful subcommittee,
the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers.
ita enforcement and compliance for steel
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for being here. Congratulations on
your elevation to this post, or demotion as the case may be. So
good luck to you.
Recently, U.S. steel companies have had to close plants and
lay off their employees at an alarming rate due to unfair trade
practices. In December of 2015, AK Steel temporarily laid off
about 700 employees at Ashland, Kentucky, just outside my
district. And AK Steel pointed out that one of the reasons for
that temporary lay off was, ``the onslaught of unfairly traded
imports.'' AK and several other domestic steel producers filed
a complaint with the International Trade Administration and the
International Trade Commission at Commerce. And in 2016,
Commerce imposed a 209 percent duty on imported Chinese
corrosion-resistant steel and leveraged separate anti-dumping
duties on hot rolled steel products from seven other countries.
And then in March of this year, ITC determined that countries
under de facto Chinese government control had in fact sold
stainless steel sheet in the U.S. at far less than market
value, injuring U.S. companies. And they imposed a 58 percent
duty on these Chinese products.
But the AK Steel plant is still idling, its Ashland
furnace, as are many of the other steel companies. In recent
years, this committee provided several funding increases for
the ITA Enforcement and Compliance Division. I am pleased to
see that the President's request in his budget continues this
trend with an additional $3 million.
[The information follows:]
``Clarification: There are two requested increases for
Enforcement and Compliance: 1) $3.9 million for strengthening
current programs, and 2) $4.5 million for Self-Initiation of
Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duty Investigations and
Administration Reviews''
The question is, how do you plan to spend that money and
stop this insidious wasting of American jobs?
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir. Well as you are probably
aware, I have spent a good deal of time in the steel industry
myself, with International Steel Group and Bethlehem Steel and
LTB and some others. So I am acutely aware of how we got to
where we are.
What we are doing is a number of things. We have stepped up
the pace of enforcement. Already the department has almost 400
orders, I think it is around 389 or 390, about half of which
alone relate to steel. And about half of those relate to
Chinese as one of the participants. So we are very much focused
on both the geography and the magnitude of the problem. And
just yesterday we held a hearing under Section 232 exploring
the national defense and national economic security
implications of the steel situation. It was a very, very
interesting day. We had 37 separate witnesses come to testify,
Steel Worker's Union, just about all the American steel
producers, some of the consuming industries. And interestingly
several representatives of foreign governments, the Chinese
Government, the Russian Government, Ukrainian Government, and
maybe one or two others testified that they did not feel that
there was any national defense or economic security implication
to steel. Representatives of our domestic industry by and large
took a quite different view.
We have been studying this industry within the department
for quite some time since the executive order. Having completed
the hearing, we have allowed another week for written
submissions beyond those that have already come in. Once we
have had a chance to review yesterday's oral testimony, plus
the written, we will complete our report. Also, we will
recommend to the President whatever course of action the facts
suggest. And then he will make his decision. We technically
have 270 days to complete this report. We are not going to take
anything like that. Sometime during the month of June I expect
we will render the report. My guess is the President will act
very quickly on the report once it is submitted.
Mr. Rogers. Well as the gentleman knows, steel is the
backbone of American industry. So many other types of
industries feed off it, such as coal in my district.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Rogers. And of course others. So we wish you well in
your job and in pushing these proposals to stop this insidious
wasting of American jobs. We want to make steel great again.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. Well steel is very important to
our national defense. Even though it is only a small percentage
of total steel production, it is the same mills that make steel
for civilian purposes that make it for military purposes. The
famous big bomb that was let loose in Afghanistan would not
have been able to do the job without a lot of steel. Neither
would the Navy have ships, neither would the Air Force have
planes, neither would the Army have tanks or armored personnel
carries, or rifles, or anything. So steel, is an essential
ingredient to many of our industries and products.
Particularly, the higher quality special alloys are extremely
important from the point of view of armor, armor for vessels,
armor for vehicles, armor for everything. So we are focusing
quite intently on it. And the questions we posed to the people
who testified yesterday were, one, do they agree that it is a
national emergency? Two, if it is, what is it we should do?
Should a tariff> imposed? Should it be quotas? Should it be
some combination of the two? Should it be broadly based,
covering a multitude of steel products? Should it be more
narrowly focused? How should we deal with the relationship in
steel between the U.S. and its two immediate neighbors, Canada
and Mexico? We actually have steel surplus with Canada and
Mexico. So that puts them in a little different position, as
well as the fact that they are participants in NAFTA.
So my reason for going into that detail is this is a very
serious situation and it is the first systematic study of the
real implications of the import problem, the global over
capacity on steel. And that will be followed up very shortly
with our response to the President's other executive order
about aluminum. We are going to be conducting a very similar
study on aluminum. And there may well be other industries that
need the same treatment. If it comes to an affirmative finding,
Section 232 gives the President very broad powers as to the
kinds of remedies that he might impose. So that is one of the
merits of using that very rarely used provision in the 1962
Act. So we are on board with that investigation.
But we are not letting up on the normal enforcement
matters. In fact, recently, we did a case called Tenaris in
which the problem was not steel as such--am I over time?
Mr. Culberson. They just called a vote, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ross. OK. My goodness.
Mr. Culberson. Excuse me, but we have a vote. Forgive me
for interrupting because you are talking about something we are
all in agreement on, focusing on the strategic importance of
our steel industry and protecting it in the United States. Mr.
Cartwright, if you can be brief we will recognize you. We will
then recess and come back, Mr. Secretary. Excuse me for
interrupting you.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Ross,
welcome to our subcommittee. I am Matthew Cartwright from
Northeastern Pennsylvania. My hope is that you share my
commitment to the goal of creating and preserving family
sustaining jobs in our economy. Something that is horribly
troubling to me is that the administration proposes the
complete elimination of the Economic Development
Administration, the EDA, one of our greatest job creators in
this Nation. I believe if anything we need to expand the work
of the EDA to help the communities that need it most. For
example, the past two budget proposals from the administration
included a power plus plan, which would focus money on
communities that have been hurt by the contraction of the coal
communities.
I am proud to be the lead Democrat on a bill called the
Reclaim Act, introduced by the former chairman, Representative
Hal Rogers here, and Senator McConnell, a brilliant piece of
legislation that would inject $1 billion to benefit those
communities. Mr. Secretary, will you support the Reclaim Act
and similar efforts to inject funding and help create jobs
where they are needed most?
Secretary Ross. The administration is committed to bringing
jobs back and to building jobs here in existing businesses. And
I very, very much share his commitment to those activities. And
a lot of the reason why we have become so much stricter in
enforcement than had been true before, is that is where a lot
of the problems are coming from, is from dumping of product.
You have, take the steel industry, a global over capacity
that has set the unused excess capacity is several times that
of total U.S. consumption. So it dwarfs our whole economy. So
we really need that.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Cartwright. Well thank you for that. I want to move on
to manufacturing, which I think is one of the keys----
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. To creating and preserving
family sustaining jobs. Mr. Secretary, the administration
proposes eliminating all Federal funding to the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, the MEP, as was originally intended when
the program was established, they said. But in 1998 Congress
changed course and has continued to appropriate funding for MEP
in every single subsequent year in strong bipartisan fashion.
MEP centers need Federal support because they serve
manufacturers that are too small to attract private sector
investment. Over 60 percent of MEP beneficiaries cite MEP
centers as their only resource for technical expertise.
Now my question is a full 85 percent of Department of
Defense awards go to smaller manufacturing firms. This is the
very market the MEP program serves. Have you analyzed the
potential threat to DOD's manufacturing and readiness needs if
you eliminated the program that allows DOD suppliers to be more
productive, efficient, and innovative?
Secretary Ross. Well as I mentioned, this budget
unfortunately has to be about priorities. And the MEP has
certainly performed a good function. We believe that even with
the elimination of Federal funding the MEP centers would
transition to non-Federal revenue sources, which as I
understand it, was originally intended when the program was
first established, that it would eventually transit to non-
Federal sources.
Mr. Cartwright. Could you be specific on what the plan is
for transitioning to non-Federal sources?
Secretary Ross. Well they have partnerships with a number
of local institutions. We believe that there is community
support for funding coming from private sector to them. We
certainly do not mean to imply that manufacturing is not
critical. It is. We understand that. But you have to make
difficult choices when you are in a stringent budget and
unfortunately this is one of the choices that had to be made.
Mr. Culberson. We are running pretty tight.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Cartwright. I recognize Judge Carter.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Carter. Secretary Ross, welcome. Thank you for being
here. I chair the DHS Subcommittee on Appropriations and I
often hear about threats we face concerning cybersecurity. And
actually the outright theft of intellectual properties and the
growing cyber threat we face concerning our critical
infrastructure, such as the grid. Tell us about what changes
you are making in the cybersecurity realm to protect our
critical infrastructure. And have, we have seen general nods to
increase cybersecurity and tightening of intellectual property
security in the budget, how can American business, especially
small and medium enterprises, expect to see these initiatives
working for them?
Secretary Ross. Well as you know, part of the Department of
Commerce's function is to take a leading role in the
interagency activities relating to cybersecurity. That is a
problem that I think will be with us for the rest of our lives
and our grandchildren's lives. It is a never ending struggle to
try to keep pace with or even get a little bit ahead of the
hackers. You saw this very recent instance on a huge, huge
scale.
So this is a very serious problem. We take it very
seriously. And I feel that the work that the people within
Commerce are doing is very, very valuable to it. I think they
are acknowledged as playing a leadership role, along with
Homeland Security, along with other entities of the government
in doing so. And they will continue those efforts. We are very,
very supportive of that.
Mr. Carter. Do you feel like that small businesses and
medium sized businesses are being considered? Because we know
that the targets and the big target areas out there are, make
the news. But the reality is, those smaller entities have less
ability to secure their own information.
Secretary Ross. No----
Mr. Carter. And it would seem to me that would be something
that you would have to be challenged by.
Secretary Ross. Yes. That is certainly true. It is also
true, though, that at least some of the hackers are more
interested in getting blackmail money or protection money. And
so they tend to go after the larger targets because there is a
bigger check that they can get for the same hacking. So it is a
problem for small businesses. And it is something we are very
aware of. So is the Small Business Administration,
Administrator Linda McMahon is aware of it as well. It just is
a struggle we are going to have every day as we go forward. And
we are doing the best we can to cope with it.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge. Mr. Secretary, I think we
will recess at this time because the vote is down to the last
three minutes. There are three votes, so I do not expect to be
too long. We will come right back into session. So with that,
the committee stands in recess. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Chairman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Culberson. The hearing will come to order.
Ms. Meng, you are next. If I could, I would like to briefly
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Serrano, for a brief
statement.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Secretary, don't be shocked, but I am
going to praise you for something. [Laughter.]
I have been in Congress 27 years and you are the first
Secretary to mention the Territories, I was born in Puerto
Rico, without having to be prodded by me to mention the
Territories. [Laughter.]
So I appreciate that personally. Thank you.
CENSUS DIRECTOR
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Serrano is a true gentleman.
Ms. Meng, I am pleased to recognize you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and
congratulations as well.
I wanted to follow up on questioning about the census. As
you know, Director Thompson recently retired from the U.S.
Census Bureau; where are you in the process of hiring a new
director?
Secretary Ross. Well, we have been actively recruiting and
we would welcome any suggestions that members of this committee
might have as to who would be a good successor. We are looking
both within Census and outside Census to try to find both the
Director and the Deputy Director.
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (MBDA)
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
My other question is about the MBDA. Your budget submission
to Congress proposes eliminating the MBDA. It is the only
Federal agency tasked to create new jobs by expanding the U.S.
economy through our Nation's 8.1 million minority businesses.
Based on current census data, it is estimated that by the year
2050 minorities will represent 54 percent of the total United
States population. Minorities currently represent 29 percent of
our population, but own only 7.5 percent of our Nation's
businesses.
How can we ensure if this agency is eliminated that we are
giving them opportunities to grow?
Minority-owned businesses are twice as likely to export
their products and services, for example, as non-minority-owned
businesses.
My questions are, what message does the elimination of a
program like this send to our minority communities across
America, and how will this administration ensure that for
minority-owned businesses that they have a level playing field
in access to capital, contracts and markets?
Thank you.
Secretary Ross. Thank you. That is a very important
question.
The administration's general focus is trying to help
everybody in the economy with the tax reductions, with the
regulatory reductions, with unleashing our energy resources,
and with getting rid of inappropriate trade practices. Our hope
is that that will make a much better environment for all
businesses, whether minority businesses or not.
As to the MBDA itself, it is a relatively small entity, as
you are aware, and a grant-making entity, and in general those
have been targets in this budget proposal. Small, grant-making
entities have been targeted. And part of the reason is there is
some duplicative activity between the MBDA and the Small
Business Administration in their district offices and in their
small business development centers.
But the President's proposal to eliminate the agency should
not be viewed as an abandonment of the agency's core mission.
Rather it is in a strange way an acknowledgment that the agency
has succeeded in creating an environment that is more
supportive of minority businesses today than it had been before
the agency was founded in 1969.
So in a sense that is a factor in it, but our hope is that
the overall lift to the economy will make a lot more room for
minority businesses and other small businesses.
Ms. Meng. Thank you for that.
As you know, the SBA programs would address small
businesses, not all minority-owned businesses are necessarily
small businesses. I am just concerned and would love to hear
more details. And I appreciate you addressing issues like tax
regulations and cutting down on regulations. I am just
concerned if the MBDA is eliminated, and the 30-plus centers
around the country are eliminated, then the employees won't be
there in certain communities to be able to help minority
communities. Outside of the SBA, if businesses don't fit into
that category, how are we going to ensure that the core mission
of the MBDA is fulfilled?
Secretary Ross. Well, as you know, there also are similar
efforts at the State and local, as well as private sector
efforts to encourage minority business development, presumably
those will go unabated by the demise, if it occurs, of the
MBDA.
Also, you probably are aware, I serve on the board of OPIC
and of the Export/Import Bank and I have been encouraging those
two institutions very aggressively to help smaller businesses
and particularly minority businesses, because only two percent
of all American businesses ever export anything. And I think
part of the reason is, it is a daunting challenge to arrange
foreign transactions, letters of credit, all the things that
are essential to the international market place. So I have been
trying to get them to focus more on the small business
situations in this country.
Ms. Meng. If I could just finish by saying, if I could work
with you and have your commitment on ensuring that our
government is fulfilling the core mission of the MBDA as we
work through this budget, and is working with the State and
local governments to make sure they have the resources that
they need.
Secretary Ross. Surely. Well, we had to make a lot of
difficult decisions in this budget process and this was one of
the more difficult ones.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I know the University of Houston has a very successful
program to coach and guide minority business owners and small
businesses into the equity market. Also I know you have got 55
years of experience in this area.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. So it is an area you know well.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. I want to recognize Mr. Palazzo.
NDAA-COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHING
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, having been at least a part-time Florida
resident, I think you understand very well that commercial and
recreational fishing in State and Federal Gulf of Mexico waters
is very important to the national and our regional economies.
And as everyone here knows, NOAA announced earlier this month
that the recreational fishermen along the coast would have a
mere three days to fish for red snapper in Federal waters. Over
the past decade, the recreational private sector has seen
annual seasons reduced from 194 days in 2007 to just 11 days in
2016, to three days in 2017.
Now, I am not going to get in the weeds on this one with
things like total allowable catch or State versus Federal data
collection. I think my Gulf Coast colleagues and I have
outlined those issues fairly extensively at this point in the
several letters that we have sent you and your department in
2017.
I understand that in the absence of legislation the
agency's purview is limited; however, going forward can you
assure us that you will use whatever tools you have to provide
some relief to our recreational anglers right now and down the
road work with Congress to develop a long-term solution to
address these issues impacting our recreational fishermen and
coastal communities.
Secretary Ross. I am quite aware of the situation and those
letters sent by some 15 Congressmen on the topic led by
Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and just last night Earl Comstock
from my office, who is our Director of Policy, had a meeting
with many of those members. I don't know, Mr. Palazzo, if you
were----
Mr. Palazzo. Yes, sir, I was in attendance.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. Part of it. I think there he
pledged and I pledge again that we will try to make sure that
there is an equitable solution to the conundrum of recreational
fishing versus commercial fishing. But you are quite right in
saying that our resources in the sense of powers is relatively
limited in that area.
So we are going to be making a very fulsome request of NOAA
for the underlying data on which they base the decision just to
give that one three-day weekend for recreational red snapper
catching. It seems on the skimpy side, but we are not the fish
experts. So I promise you we will follow up and we will do the
best we can to balance the needs of the recreational with the
needs of the commercial.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that, and I
look forward to working with you and your team to help the
recreational anglers be able to enjoy what pretty much, you
know, is their heritage and what they enjoy to do, and be able
to get out on the waters and make memories that will last a
lifetime.
So thank you, sir.
Secretary Ross. Well, when I was a little boy, my
grandfather and I used to fish a lot. So I have a history as a
recreational fisherman.
Mr. Palazzo. And you never forget those memories.
Secretary Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to express
my agreement with Mr. Palazzo. This is a thorny issue. Red
snapper is a tough issue. But three days are on the skimpy
side. And the commercial fishermen have done a good job, the
stocks are rebounding because there were reasonable limits put
in place to protect red snapper. There has certainly to be a
way to open up the Federal waters to recreational fishermen in
a way that will preserve the fishing stock. Maybe just limits
in the Federal waters like you have got in the State waters.
Secretary Ross. Sure. Well, the fishing whole scene is very
intriguing to me in that I am obsessed with the problem that we
have a $13 billion deficit, trade deficit in fish and fish
products, and it doesn't seem to me with all the water
surrounding us and all the lakes and rivers, it seems weird
that we should have a deficit. So that is one of the areas we
are going to be focusing very much on.
It is not directly on the point of recreational, but the
whole fishing topic is very, very complex and fascinating.
Mr. Culberson. And especially important in the United
States, as you say, with our coastal waters are so prolific. We
have done a good job of protecting and managing those assets
and there are few people in Congress that know more about it
than the former State Senator from Washington, Mr. Kilmer. We
look to him and Mr. Palazzo for advice on this.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (EDA)
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. Thanks for being with us, Mr.
Secretary.
Before I came to Congress, I worked in economic development
professionally, and I worked often with the only agency at the
Federal level whose sole purpose is economic development and
that is the Economic Development Administration.
I represent a district that has a lot of areas that are
really struggling. My hometown of Port Angeles is one of those
distressed communities and with the help of the EDA's Regional
Innovation Strategies Program just started up a composite
recycling center in that town with an investment of just
$500,000, which is a drop in the bucket for the Federal
government. The recycling center is going to establish a new
industry and bring much-needed jobs into an area that needs it.
And I am perplexed that the department would choose to
eliminate one of the Federal government's strongest supporters
of job creation.
I know that the rationale is stated as it being
duplicative. I guess I would love to understand what programs
is the EDA duplicative of and what is the rationale for
eliminating it.
Secretary Ross. Well, thank you for that question.
First of all, I am proud of the investments that the EDA
has made historically. I think their record over the last 52
years has been exemplary both in terms of the help they have
provided to distressed regions and of the way that the
investments have turned out. I think it has been a very well-
run program because there were locally driven strategies and
needs that it succeeded as well as it did. Those investments
did spur local innovation and entrepreneurship, saved jobs and
leveraged private investments.
Now, the good news about the decision is that there will be
a continuity of the administration of the grants, because there
is a large portfolio. There are approximately 1,400 grants
outstanding that total $1 billion. So there is going to be a
several-years during which those grants will be administered
and that therefore will assure at least that the existing
grantees are not left out in the cold; there will still be the
relationship with them.
Mr. Kilmer. So who is going to fill the gap afterwards?
Secretary Ross. There are other programs that at the State
level and at the local level in a variety of communities that
perhaps could fill some of that gap.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND REGIONAL COASTAL RESILIENCE GRANTS
Mr. Kilmer. Just in the interest of time, I will move on. I
mean, I would just say I think communities like the one where I
grew up are looking to the Federal Government to be a partner
in those efforts.
Other areas that are looking to be partners are coastal
communities. I represent the coast of Washington State. And,
you know, I know you have a long background in business and can
appreciate return on investment. The Coastal Zone Management
Program and the Regional Coastal Resilience grants are good
examples of return on investment.
And in your own budget justification it says, ``Over the
45-year history of the Coastal Zone Management Program,
participating States and Federal agencies have partnered to
streamline permitting and regulatory processes, reduce the
costs associated with disasters, and address environmental
risks with potentially catastrophic economic impacts.'' By the
most modest standard, they say that there has been more than
three-to-one return on investment.
I represent a district that is already dealing with the
impacts of more severe storms, with sea level rise, with
coastal hazards, including potential tsunami. So I have to say
the elimination of these programs I think would be very pound
foolish, I can't even say it is penny wise.
You know, I know our own chairman from Texas, you know,
there are 27 refineries representing 29 percent of the Nation's
refining capacity in Texas, some of them are on the coast, a
lot of them are. Countless ports. We have a lot of defense
installations that are on the coast. Forty percent of the U.S.
population lives in coastal areas. These programs actually help
make our communities safer; they help us protect critical
infrastructure, they help us shore up those national security
assets.
So can you explain to me and to our subcommittee why you
believe NOAA's Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Resilience
Programs should be eliminated? Because I have to be honest, the
justification that is in the budget I just don't find
compelling at all.
Secretary Ross. Well, again, to get to the administration's
priority goals, which were rebuilding the military and making
critical investments in national security, there had to be an
identification of savings that could be made in order to keep
the Nation on a responsible fiscal basis and, unfortunately,
that requires some very difficult decisions to be made.
I certainly agree with you, there is nothing inherently
wrong with Coastal Zone Management, it is not a criticism of
the functions that they had performed, but you have to cut
somewhere and it seemed to us to be something of a lower
priority than the core functions of NOAA such as the surveys,
the charting, and the fisheries management activities that they
have. So it was a question of trying to rank priorities rather
than any editorial comment against Coastal Zone Management.
Mr. Kilmer. I would just mention, I think the Defense
Department does a stupendous job of keeping us safe, but so do
programs like this; they keep coastal communities safer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NOAA SATELLITES
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I know we do record--you know,
the deficit is at tremendous levels, the military really does
need to be shored up. I have heard, you probably heard the
numbers, about the Marine aviation. Marine airplanes cannot be
flown because of inadequate spare parts, about half of the
Navy's planes are having difficulty staying in the air because
of a lack of spare parts. We really do have a critical problem
with the Nation's military at a time of a crushing national
debt that we just can't pass on to our kids.
So it is going to be a really difficult budget year for all
of us. We are going to have to really work hard to be sure that
our constituents' very scarce and hard-earned tax dollars are
wisely spent and targeted. With your experience in banking and
equity, we look to your guidance on how we can shift minority
business, small business, and coastal community programs we see
laid out in the President's budget, over to the private sector.
An area that is also of concern, in terms of managing
precious and scarce hard-earned tax dollars, is in NOAA's
weather satellites. NOAA's three biggest weather satellite
programs are slated to cost nearly $30 billion over the next 15
years. They are absolutely essential to the Nation's economy,
to protecting lives, to ensure that we can accurately forecast
the weather, but this $30 billion price tag is quite frankly
going to put intense pressure on the rest of the department's
budget.
As we move forward, Mr. Secretary, what options are you
examining to reduce the cost of the weather satellite program
while maintaining accurate and reliable forecasts?
Secretary Ross. Well, clearly the number-one purpose is the
accuracy and the reliability of the forecasts. So we don't want
to compromise those activities at all.
One of the things we are looking into is NOAA has done a
good thing buying in bulk and getting some savings in the cost
of satellites. Satellite is not like Navy fighter planes or Air
Force planes where it is a big, long program that is going to
go many, many years. These are pretty much a custom designed,
very limited market, and they have found that by bunching
together a couple of purchases they get a much cheaper price
than they would have to pay if they just ordered one and then a
couple years from now ordered another one, and their statistics
on that are pretty compelling.
So even though it seems strange to order a thing years
before you will actually need to use it, they make a very good
case that that actually does save, because the amortization of
the special designs now goes over more than one unit rather
than just have to be recovered in one single unit.
What we are discussing with them, though, is what are the
implications of the fact that the satellite lives now appear to
be about six years longer than had previously been forecast,
but what are the implications that that has for how much
duplication do you really need, how much overlap do you really
need. And we are trying to get our arms around that so that we
can get a more precise thing.
So it is good news that the lives are proving to be longer,
because even if nothing else changes that will mean a longer
period when we are safe, we are going to have proper forecasts.
But they are on schedule for the September, 2017 launch, that
is going to happen, and they appear to be within their budget
for that one.
Currently there doesn't seem to be a big economic overrun.
The latter satellite is being postponed to 2023, so there is a
little gap there. But I do think that they have done a pretty
good job figuring out in what unit increments to make the
orders so that they do minimize the price.
You also, of course, have to be aware that there is a need
for some redundancy, because there is always the danger of a
catastrophic failure and while that may only be a one or two
percent probability, if it happens then it is a hundred percent
probability. So that is a tricky thing for them to balance and
so far it feels as though they are doing a pretty good job of
it.
Mr. Culberson. And since the GEO satellites are lasting
longer, should we slow the pace of buying more GEO satellites
if the existing ones are lasting longer?
Secretary Ross. Well, that is exactly the question I was
just raising. That is something we are exploring with them, but
there still is the danger of the catastrophic failure. There is
also the danger of a launch failing. Now, they have not really
had that, but as you have seen some of the private sector,
SpaceX for instance, have had some severe problems with
launches.
So it is a very complicated question and my work so far
with them has suggested they are doing a pretty good job
balancing all of these variables.
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. To follow up on these questions,
Mr. Secretary.
As you know, the Minority Business Development Agency was
established by a Republican president, President Richard Nixon.
This agency received 34 million dollars in the final fiscal
year 2017 Appropriations Act. This is a successful program with
locations around the Nation, including in my district, yet the
administration seems intent upon destroying it.
In his signing statement on the Appropriations Act that we
just concluded, President Trump asserted that the provisions of
this agency's appropriations would be treated, quote, ``in a
manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal
protection of the laws under the due process clause of the
Constitution's fifth amendment,'' unquote.
Would you please explain this? In what ways will the
Department depart from the approach of previous administrations
of both parties as far as implementation of the funding for the
development agency? And secondly, did the White House or OMB
officials consult with you in advance about the President's
signing statement?
Secretary Ross. As I said, it is not meant to be an
editorial comment on the quality of the agency or the
performance that it has had over the years. It simply is a
question there is a limited amount of funding, very, very
difficult decisions had to be made, very uncomfortable
decisions. And we had to cut somewhere and this seemed to be
something that did not destroy the fundamental missions of the
Commerce Department.
In an ideal world, we certainly would have preferred to
keep it going, but we are in a stringent budget period.
Mr. Serrano. I am aware of that, Mr. Secretary, but my
question further is, if you agree that in an ideal world we
could keep it going, then what harm could it cause once we
remove it, you know?
Secretary Ross. What harm could it cause once we remove it?
Mr. Serrano. When we remove it, you said that you don't see
that it is a--it sounded to me like you say it is not that
important to the ongoing operation of the Commerce Department,
but yet it has value and a lot of people----
Secretary Ross. It does have value, there is no question
about that. But what we are trying to do is to improve the
whole economy for everyone and by reducing taxes, curtailing
inappropriate imports, unleashing the energy, all those
measures are designed to make the economy better for everyone.
So what we are trying to do on a macro scale is make less
the necessary functions on a micro scale to help things. If the
economy gets stronger overall, businesses will thrive.
CENSUS
Mr. Serrano. Let me move on to another area, Mr. Secretary.
Again, we go to the census. The budget requests to save
money, proposes to save money, by scaling back several of the
Census Bureau's most widely used surveys. For example, the
budget would reduce the sample size of the Survey of Income and
Program Participation, or SIPP.
Now, the census collects a lot of information that a lot of
Americans I think look at and say why did we ask that question,
and yet it really is necessary because it speaks to who we are
as a Nation, what we are as a Nation, what we have, what we
don't have. You know, when we say the average American has,
whatever, three television sets or so on, that wasn't just made
up, you know, there are people who work at that.
Why get rid of that or scale back the SIPP part of the
form? Of the study, if you will.
Secretary Ross. Well, the census, are you addressing the
issue of the content of census?
Mr. Serrano. Yes.
Secretary Ross. It is my understanding that there was a
hearing in the Congress, a different committee from this one on
content, and that the final content of the census will be
determined by next spring. I don't believe there has been a
final determination as to what will be the content of the
items, the questions asked.
What complicates it, though, is that the more questions you
ask and the more subcategories within those questions the lower
the response rate tends to be, because people don't want to put
an infinite amount of time to dealing with the census
questions. So there is a balancing attempted between having
maximum content and getting maximum response, because we are
clearly better off to the degree we can get actual responses
rather than interpolated or estimated responses.
So it is also a balancing act between a response percentage
and content.
Mr. Serrano. I would just close this question by saying
that I hope as a person of your background you keep an eye on
this, because this is more important than we think. This gives
us or I have been told by Census Directors before it gives us
indications on economic trends and on situations that we need
to know also.
Secretary Ross. True.
Mr. Serrano. As you know, I am sure you know, we work a lot
with census information to make decisions. The best decision, I
think, or the worst is that is how they redraw our districts,
but we are not going to discuss that painful one right now.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Ross. Well, over the years I have been a very big
consumer of data put out by the census, so I have a great deal
of respect for it. I am very happy that they have done a lot of
things to improve the accuracy of the preliminary forecasts
versus the revised ones, because the preliminary forecasts are
getting better and better as they find more and more reliable
data sources on a timely basis.
So I have a very keen appreciation of the importance of the
census data and I think they are the gold standard in the world
for accuracy and for the breadth of content that they provide.
I don't believe there is another country that does the census
at all as well as we do either in terms of breadth of content
or accuracy.
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CUBA
Mr. Serrano. One last question, Mr. Secretary.
I have spent a lot of time in my 27 years here talking
about a new relationship with Cuba, and we do have a new
relationship, but it is not on the front page anymore, so a lot
of people are wondering what that relationship is. Is the
Commerce Department involved in any way in opening up Cuba and
opening up the U.S. to Cuba in a way that we didn't do before?
Secretary Ross. Well, as I understand it, so far there have
been a number of hotel chains from the U.S. that have made
arrangements to operate facilities in Cuba and that is probably
one of the best things for that economy in that it used to be a
very big tourist economy, and then obviously that changed quite
considerably during the difficult periods.
So I think that has been the number-one initiative so far
is the tourism initiative. And there has been consultation
between the travel industry and parts of Commerce on a very,
very active basis. That is the main thing of which I am aware
at this point.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Cartwright.
NOAA--NATIONAL WEATHER MODEL
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, while the administration's general position
on the cause of our changing climate flies in the face of
science, we can agree that the Earth is warming and extreme
weather events are occurring with more frequency. 2016 was the
warmest year on record and out of the last 17 years fully 16 of
them have been the warmest on record to date.
Now, specific to your mission, sir, new scientific analyses
find that the Earth's oceans are rising nearly three times as
fast as they did during the 20th Century. Sea level is not only
real and an imminent threat, but it is accelerating.
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
has been gathering and analyzing climate and weather data since
1970. I appreciate that during your confirmation hearing you
said in regard to climate science that science should be left
to the scientists, I can't tell you how much I appreciated
hearing that. But the administration's budget proposal
significantly decreases the funding that allows these
scientists to do their essential work. You can't leave the work
to the scientists, but not give them the resources they need to
do that work.
My first question relates to the administration's call for
a 52-percent decrease in funding for its National Water Model,
NWM. The NWM has proven significantly to improve flood
forecasting. Now, with heavy downpours increasing across the
Nation, the need for accurate and timely flood forecasting is
more important than ever. Why does the budget proposal reduce
flood forecasting, which can help save lives and money,
Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Well, you are right that the National Water
Model has been reduced. Fiscal year 2017 was at $6 million,
fiscal year 2018 it was planned to be at $2.9 million. And the
Regional Climate Center, fiscal year 2017, $3.65 million;
fiscal year 2018, $650,000. These are level-of-effort
activities. No centers are being closed. It was an
affordability decision, not a policy decision.
NOAA--REGIONAL CLIMATE CENTERS
Mr. Cartwright. You anticipated my next question, which is
the RCCs, the Regional Climate Centers. Actually, the
administration's budget request is an 82-percent cut to the
RCCs.
Now, these have been around for more than 30 years, helping
local communities on the ground work with National Centers for
Environmental Information's data records and apply them to
solving many real-world problems posed by climate change.
Businesses and farmers rely on this information, the RCC data;
what are they going to do when you cut this funding? Your
budget states that, quote, ``With this reduction, NOAA will
rely on State and local service providers to cover the
necessary services,'' unquote, and that is a phrase that has
been in tone several times in today's hearing.
My to question is, really? Who might it be that steps in
and replaces this funding?
Secretary Ross. Well, as I indicated, no centers are being
closed. So there is no region that will be left without a
center, it is just the level of activity will be diminished
somewhat. And within the levels of activity, they will try to
prioritize the ones that are the most crucial.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, if the implication is we are going to
push it off on the states, states have a State climatologist
who generally has a very limited budget, and these State
climatologists typically share and receive information with the
RCC----
Secretary Ross. Right
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Especially for regional
concerns that affect larger tracts of geography than just one
State.
So again, who are these State and local service providers
who can apparently fill the funding gap that you are creating?
Secretary Ross. I don't know that they will be able to fill
the funding gap, but all that is happening is there is a little
lower level of activity in each of these regions, no center is
being closed. So the level of activity will go down, will go
down considerably, but no one will be left without a center.
Mr. Cartwright. And I take it that the overall answer
comports with what you have been saying today, that the big
reason for all of these cuts is that we must cut.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We are in a very
stringent period and with the big increases in defense and
military and national security, cuts have to be made somewhere.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
We are indeed in an era of $20 trillion in debt and
extraordinary annual deficits. We have to find areas where we
can save money. I would welcome your suggestions where else we
might find savings within our summary judgment, and I
appreciate very much your work in that area.
Mr. Serrano. Not in the Commerce Department. [Laughter.]
Mr. Culberson. There is undoubtedly somewhere we can save
some money within the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Secretary, I really appreciate your service. I have got
a number of other questions that I will submit for the record
for you to answer in writing.
Secretary Ross. Surely.
Mr. Culberson. We will submit those to you for your
response at a later time.
Above all, I want to thank you for your service to your
country and for your time here today. We look forward to
working with you to find savings to make sure we spend our
constituents' very scarce and hard-earned tax dollars wisely
and frugally.
Secretary Ross. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, ranking member and Members.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The hearing is
adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, June 7, 2017.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
FRANCE CORDOVA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. We are
delighted to have with us this morning the Director of the
National Science Foundation, Dr. France Cordova. We sincerely
appreciate your service to the nation, Dr. Cordova. You have
had a distinguished career both in government and academia. We
share a common passion for astronomy and astrophysics. I know
that is your area of specialty. I am looking forward to hearing
you talk to us a little bit today about this most recent
extraordinary detection of a third gravitational wave. That is
right up your alley.
We have on this subcommittee always enjoyed bipartisan
support when it comes to investments in fundamental research at
the National Science Foundation and NASA. Everyone on this
subcommittee is here because we share a common passion for
ensuring that the United States maintains the world's best
space program and the world's best fundamental scientific
research. When it comes to peer reviewed scientific research,
the National Science Foundation does a superb job. And your
budget is extraordinarily important as the National Science
Foundation represents about 60 percent of the Federal
Government's annual investment in basic research that is
conducted at U.S. colleges and universities, not including the
research that is done by the National Institutes of Health in
the extraordinarily important work that they do in fighting
cancer and other dreadful diseases.
In many fields the National Science Foundation is the
primary source of Federal academic support. May 2017, just this
past month, marked the National Science Foundation's 67th
anniversary, an extraordinarily important milestone. We are
looking forward to more successful discoveries in the future
when it comes to understanding the fundamental building blocks
of the universe.
In fiscal year 2018, the National Science Foundation is
requesting $6.7 billion, which is a decrease of $819 million,
or about 11 percent below the current fiscal year. We do not
know yet what our subcommittee's allocation is going to be for
2018. The budget process has unavoidably gotten off to a slower
start than normal. But the committee is going to work arm in
arm to ensure that NSF is appropriately funded and we preserve
American leadership in scientific research.
I would like to add that while we wholeheartedly support
NSF's basic research in sciences, all of us are mindful of the
fact that our constituents' tax dollars very scarce, very
precious, and hard-earned. So we are counting on you to be good
stewards of that precious resource.
Before we proceed I would like to recognize the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Serrano, for any remarks he would like to
make.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
Cordova, for being with us today. It is good to have you with
us today and as the chairman said, you have a distinguished
career and much more to come.
The National Science Foundation is vital in promoting basic
research and education in science and engineering. In doing so,
it is a major source of Federal support for U.S. university
research in the STEM fields. NSF's investments in STEM
education also help train the next generation of scientists and
engineers. As you know, Dr. Cordova, I am a strong supporter of
NSF and believe that its programs help our nation be the world
leader in major discoveries, innovations, and scientific
breakthroughs.
The President's budget blueprint for fiscal year 2018
requests $6.65 billion for NSF, which is an $822 million or 11
percent decrease from 2017. It is the first time in the 67-year
history of this agency that a President has proposed a budget
below the previous fiscal year. The result is deeply troubling.
Within the total the President's budget also proposes $5.63
billion for the Research and Related Activities Account, which
is a cut of $672 million, or 10.6 percent. This level of
funding endangers the core missions at NSF. For example, if the
requested amount is enacted into law the number of competitive
awards for fiscal year 2018 would go down from 11,900 awards
per year to 10,800, a reduction of more than 1,000 awards. In a
given year NSF grants awards to over 1,800 colleges,
universities, and other public and private institutions in 50
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Cutting
funding for NSF will leave many schools without much needed
education and research funding. I strongly oppose this proposed
budget cut.
Another area cut by the President's request is the
Educational and Human Resources Account, which is requested at
$760.6 million. This represents a cut of $123.5 million or 14
percent. The President's budget proposal accomplishes this by
cutting initiatives that increase STEM participation, including
programs that help underrepresented minorities. The request
also cuts reducing the number of graduate research fellowships
by 50 percent. No funding is requested at all for a program
that I worked to authorize, the new Hispanic Serving
Institutions Program.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong support of Hispanic
serving institutions and minority serving institutions since I
arrived in Congress more than two decades ago. Last year
Congress mandated the NSF establish a new HSI program and we
appropriated $15 million in the fiscal year 2017 bill for this
effort. Notwithstanding the clear evidence that HIS's need this
funding, the budget proposal does not fund this program in
fiscal year 2018. This negatively affects constituents, by the
way, in both Republican and Democratic districts alike.
Another issue of importance to me is the Arecibo
Observatory in Puerto Rico. The President's budget for NSF in
fiscal year 2018 proposes a total of $7.72 million for the
observatory, which is a reduction of $480,000 from 2017. Due to
the quality of work taking place at the Arecibo Observatory and
the need for maintenance and repairs, I strongly oppose this
proposed cut. I know the NSF is currently debating the future
of the observatory. But I believe the Federal Government must
maintain an adequate level of involvement and support for
Arecibo.
Overall the NSF's budget request for this year is an
extreme example of the problems with the President's proposal
to increase defense spending by $54 billion at the expense of
domestic priorities. There is little justification for cutting
vital agencies, like NSF, simply to fund a Defense Department
already receiving more than half a trillion dollars each year.
The discoveries attained by investing in NSF help our
economy grow, sustain our economic competitiveness, and enable
us to remain the world leader in innovation. I would note that
countries like China are not cutting back on their involvement
and investment in the sciences. And unless we shore up the
NSF's ability to invest in research, our global leadership in a
large number of scientific fields will be threatened. That is a
serious national security threat. Unless we have the funding to
promote our nation's values beyond defense, our leadership in
the sciences is not the only thing that will be threatened.
That you once again, Dr. Cordova, for being with us. And
let me just tell you something. You are before a committee that
is unique in one way. When it comes to this agency, the
chairman and the ranking member agree totally. It is a great
agency and it is one that should be funded properly. He has got
his limitations with the budget. I have my bully pulpit. I am
not chairman right now. I was, and then I had the problems with
the budget. But rest assured that we have an interest that is
not seen on many other committees where we agree on one agency
as much as we agree on this one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. You bet. And Mr. Serrano is exactly right.
We are arm in arm. This whole subcommittee is arm in arm when
it comes to our support for fundamental research, the
spectacular work done by the National Science Foundation and
NASA. We are all of us committed to preserving American
leadership in fundamental research and in space exploration.
I also want to express my agreement with Mr. Serrano when
it comes to Arecibo. We have had previous budgets recommend
cutting or reducing, even eliminating Arecibo and we have
always stood behind it. It is a national strategic asset. It is
a unique radio observatory that has unique capabilities that we
simply cannot permit to fall by the wayside. I know you are
looking at options about what to do about Arecibo in the
future. But Arecibo and Green Bank in West Virginia, we
strongly support the preservation of those vital facilities and
frankly the expansion of the great work you are doing in
astrophysics, whether it be in radio or visible light or in the
area I am looking forward to hearing you talk about, the dawn
of the era of gravitational wave astronomy. We are looking
forward to hearing you talk about that this morning.
We are delighted to have you with us today. We thank you
for your service to the nation. Your written testimony will be
entered into the record in its entirety, without objection. And
at this time we would welcome your brief summary of your
testimony. Thank you very much.
Statement of France Cordova
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member
Serrano, and members of the subcommittee. I am very pleased to
be here today to discuss the National Science Foundation's
budget request for fiscal year 2018. And thank you both for
your heartfelt remarks.
NSF is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of
basic research and education across all fields of science and
engineering. We support research that enhances our nation's
security, drives the U.S. economy, and advances our knowledge
to sustain America's technological leadership. And the results
of that research enhance the lives of millions of Americans
everyday.
The President's NSF budget request for fiscal year 2018 is
approximately $6.6 billion, a reduction of over 11 percent from
the fiscal year 2017 appropriation.
You already have my full written testimony so I would like
to use this time to give some specific examples of how forward
looking NSF investments are benefitting the American people.
NSF has long been a leader in information technology
research, funding foundational research in computer science,
helping to launch the internet, supporting advances in high
performance super computers, and investing in cyber security
research and education. On the first page of your handout that
is in front of you, it looks like this, you will see Dr.
Rajkumar of Carnegie Mellon University loading software into an
NSF funded self-driving automobile. This research builds on
decades of NSF-funded research in precision sensors, computer
vision, real time data analytics, and artificial intelligence
or AI. Researchers estimate that driverless cars could reduce
traffic fatalities by up to 90 percent by mid-century.
NSF-funded AI research also has broad impacts for health.
For example, page two of your handout shows Dr. Suchi Saria,
Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins, who recently developed an
AI program integrating data from patient health records to
identify factors capable of predicting septic shock. Septic
shock is a rapid immune response to infection that can cause
organ failure, leading to more than 200,000 U.S. deaths
annually. Early symptoms are notoriously difficult to spot, but
with Dr. Saria's combining and analyzing of numerous health
factors her program can accurately predict septic shock 85
percent of the time, often before organs are harmed. Imagine
the impact this NSF funded tool will have on people's lives.
These two examples from transportation and health of the
power of artificial intelligence and machine learning to
transform lives are at the heart of the shaping of the future
at the human technology frontier, which is one of our ten big
ideas.
Similarly NSF's investment has led to breakthrough
manufacturing technologies, as illustrated on page three of
your handout. NSF provided critical early support for the
techniques behind additive manufacturing, sometimes called 3-D
printing, that were discovered and patented during the 1980s
and today 3-D printing has become a $5 billion a year industry.
In this image you see Harvard's Jennifer Lewis, who uses
materials such as hydrogels, to create architectures that mimic
those found in nature, such as bone and spider webs and
vascular networks. Such advanced 3-D printing techniques
suggest we may soon be able to grow organ replacements using a
person's own tissue. Just imagine the lives that will be saved.
Finally, as an astrophysicist myself I cannot resist citing
NSF's pivotal role in advancing the era of multi-messenger
astrophysics. It is already enhancing our understanding of the
universe and revealing its mysteries and is another of NSF's
ten big ideas. With ground-based telescopes and particle and
gravitational wave observatories in the U.S. and abroad, we are
hopeful that some of the biggest discoveries are in reach,
unveiling for example the nature of dark energy and dark
matter.
Because of the ingenuity of inventors and dreamers such as
MIT researcher Nergis Mavalvala, who is shown on page four of
your handout, we increasingly have the capabilities to address
these profound mysteries. The NSF-funded LIGO facilities
detected gravitational waves, which are ripples in the fabric
of space time, for the first time in 2015. And just last week,
as the chairman referenced, they made a third detection of
gravitational waves, this time from a binary black hole source
about three billion light years away. Without NSF's consistent
funding over the past four decades, we would not have been able
to make these kinds of discoveries. It is important to note
that these types of projects are made possible because of our
country's unique ability to perform complex systems
engineering, integrating the talents of scientists and
engineers who work together to achieve such results.
Mr. Chairman and members, these are only a few of the
thousands of trail-blazing awards that NSF funds every year. On
behalf of those talented scientists and engineers and the
employees of the National Science Foundation, I would like to
thank this subcommittee for its longstanding support of our
agency and our continued goal to keep our nation at the very
forefront of the global science and engineering enterprise.
And I would like to acknowledge the presence of the
National Science Board Chair Maria Zuber and Vice Chair Diane
Souvaine in the audience, and I am open to your questions.
Thank you.
LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL WAVE OBSERVATORY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Cordova. We wanted to ask
about the black hole merger and the gravitational waves. It is
a great illustration and, if you could, I would ask you to
expand a little bit on the importance of the Congress providing
sufficient funding to NSF over a sustained period of time for
projects that might not immediately appear to have benefit or
gain. The LIGO detection, if you could talk to us about the
investment made and what the hope was. Christmas Day of 2015
was the first detection of a gravitational wave and the
discovery that was just announced last week is the third
detection. How long was the Congress' investment in the Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory? And what sum of
money was involved? And what significance does that hold for
the future, this discovery?
Dr. Cordova. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. The NSF has been
investing in gravitational wave observing and its potential,
for four decades. Since the early nineties we have been funding
this particular experiment and more recently an advanced
version of it. But integrated over those four decades we have
put in $1.1 billion. And significantly our international
partners, and there are 14 other countries that participate
with us in the LIGO consortium, have put in $400 million. So
about $1.5 billion has been invested over a very long period of
time.
Much of that money, of course, has gone to observers and
students, post-docs, all through that time. And in developing
the technology, which as you know this was a huge achievement
that Einstein himself when he predicted it now over 100 years
ago never thought would be realized because the sensitivity
level that needed to be achieved was so very, very great. And
he could not envision the kind of technology that would need to
be developed to actually detect a gravitational wave. But the
scientists and engineers working together did achieve that.
It was a slow progression over a couple of decades to
finally get the LIGO facilities to be at the right sensitivity
to detect just in time a huge event that happened a billion and
a half years ago and then was detected during the first
actually engineering run of the LIGO observatory in September
of 2015. And then to detect on January 4th the third detection
that happened three billion years ago. So we are ready now to
observe events that happened billions of years ago.
And the other thing, Mr. Chairman and members, that is so
very important about this result, it is not only about
achieving an amazing goal and over a long period of time which
only the Federal Government can invest in. It is not only about
building the kinds of technologies that will have huge spin
offs because these are very, if you could look inside the LIGO
tubes, the 4-kilometer-long tubes, and see the sophistication
of the instrumentation and all that that has entailed over
decades to build that and appreciate how impactful those can be
in other regimes. But it is also about how we actually
identified what those sources of gravitational waves were. They
turned out to be something that was totally unexpected.
And that is the whole business of opening up a new window
on the universe, it is that you might just see something that
you never realized was there before. And in this case, with all
three LIGO detections, they are due to binary black holes,
which are large in mass, on the order of 20 to 30 solar masses,
each component of the black hole. Because they are orbiting
each other they are losing angular momentum and eventually they
fall into each other and form a single black hole. And when
they do that they lose a lot of energy. In the most recent case
two solar masses worth; in the first case three solar masses
worth. And that is a tremendous amount of energy we cannot even
envision. More than the whole universe is putting out is
integrated in one instant of time, in just a fraction of a
second. And so finding a whole new population of astrophysical
phenomena and then thinking about what that could mean for the
evolution of the universe is also another tremendous aspect of
these discoveries.
Mr. Culberson. The first astronomers were using visible
light, obviously their eyes, and then telescopes----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Unaware of any electromagnetic
radiation outside the visible spectrum. Then we moved into the
era of course of radio, infrared astronomy----
Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Ultraviolet astronomy----
Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. X-ray astronomy. Talk about the
meaning of this new era that we are entering into, the era of
gravitational wave astronomy and what it is when you say that
the holes merged, very quickly, is a very rapid event.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. The merger of these holes. This----
Voice. This is the long one. And this is the shorter one.
And now for the increased pitch.
Mr. Culberson. That is the first one.
Dr. Cordova. That is the sound of the universe, yes. That
is great. So you have your chirps on your cell phone.
Mr. Culberson. Extraordinary. Talk to us about----
Dr. Cordova. Are you going to make this your ring tone?
Mr. Culberson. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson. Talk to us about the significance of what we
are hearing. We are seeing a very narrow band of----
Dr. Cordova. Listening to the universe now, which is just
great. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we first were
investigating the universe through electromagnetic means, all
the way from the radio to the x-ray and gamma ray parts of the
electromagnetic spectrum. And then we built particle detectors,
like the great detector that NSF is involved in at CERN, and
the neutrino detectors. We have one called Ice Cube at the
South Pole so we can also look at the universe and the high
energy particles that come from exotic sources. And now we have
opened up a third window, the gravitational window. And as I
said, we are observing new phenomena. And yes, you are
absolutely correct. That just as the electromagnetic spectrum
is very large, embraces a lot of frequencies or wavelengths, so
does the gravitational spectrum. And with the particular
configuration of the observatories that we have on Earth and
their size, we can only observe a narrow portion of that
spectrum. So who knows what could be observed, what kinds of
phenomenon if we could build larger detectors? And those are
certainly under conception in space to observe other parts of
the frequency spectrum. And on the ground in explorations at
the South Pole we are re-upping and improving the cosmic
microwave background detectors so that they can go after
identifying what is called the B polarization or polarization
from the gravity waves embedded in the microwave background. So
that is looking back to the big bang.
So yes, there is a huge amount of spectrum in gravitational
waves alone to examine through various means.
Mr. Culberson. Well I thank the members for allowing me a
little extra time. But the significance of this discovery I do
not think can be overstated. And how vital it is for the
Congress, for the country, to stand behind NSF and make sure
that you have got the support, the financial backing over a
sustained period of time to continue to unlock the mysteries of
the universe. Because the universe is always more extraordinary
than we can even imagine. Thank you very much. Mr. Serrano.
IMPACTS OF REDUCED FUNDING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating. Now when
you get a call it will be the universe calling you. The budget
request, Dr. Cordova, we have before us is the deepest cut in
NSF history. According to Science Magazine, prior to this year
no President, as I said, had ever proposed cutting NSF below
its previous year level. Beyond the numbers in terms of
dollars, how far does this cut in funding set us back? Can you
give us an idea of how many fewer grants will be funded and
graduate students trained? Do we endanger our global leadership
in the sciences at this level?
Dr. Cordova. The reduced funding, Congressman Serrano, will
of course have an effect because fewer researchers, including
students, will receive grants. We estimate that we, with this
budget, would have the wherewithal to fund approximately 8,000
grants whereas in our current 2017 budget we can fund 11 or 12
percent more than that. And the public also will have less
benefit from the Federal investment in science.
That said, the current budget still has considerable
resources and we will do our best to select excellent science
to fund using input from the National Academy of Sciences,
among others, and relying on the efficacy of our merit review
process.
We are used to making difficult choices. Even in the
current year we are leaving up to $4 billion worth of
excellently funded proposals on the cutting room floor that we
simply do not have the funding to make and the fiscal year 2018
budget makes our choices harder. We would see a lower funding
rate, with perhaps $5 billion of excellent proposals unfunded.
Mr. Serrano. Mm-hmm. Let me ask you a question that is on
the mind of some people as we look at the 2017 budget. The
budget you have proposed for NSF is frankly quite bleak. I
along with several of my colleagues here on the subcommittee, I
imagine, are interested in making sure that we do not see a cut
like this to your budget. After all, it is the Congress who has
the final say in funding matters. With that in mind, I am
concerned that the NSF may be taking steps to begin reductions
now that have been proposed in fiscal year 2018 but not
enacted. Can you assure me that fiscal year 2017 funding, which
we just completed recently, will not be held back in
anticipation of a cut that may or may not come in the future?
Dr. Cordova. I can assure you that we are not holding back.
Our fiscal year 2017 budget was a robust budget for fundamental
science and we are not anticipating what the 2018 budget looks
like. We very much understand that Congress is in the driver's
seat on the fiscal year 2018 budget.
Mr. Serrano. So we should have no fear that 2017 will be
used to cover for 2018 at this point?
Dr. Cordova. I can assure you that we are not using 2017 to
cover for 2018 and we are letting Congress make the decisions
about the 2018 budget of course.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Let me ask you something about the
grants. You spoke about the reduction that this budget would
reduce or would bring about. Are we seeing an increase in
requests for grants? Or has it leveled off?
Dr. Cordova. We get around 50,000 proposals a year and that
number, we are anticipating it could go a little higher, just
depending on the situation with all agencies. There are some
principal investigators that apply to multiple agencies for
their funding. But it is hard to anticipate until we actually
see a budget to estimate how many people will apply for grants.
I do know that from going around to universities, I was
just at a university yesterday talking with a lot of their
faculty, that the funding climate can actually discourage
people from applying for grants. So we do not really understand
the full consequences of whether we will get more or fewer
grant proposals right now. But 50,000 is a lot of grants to
manage and we do that well, I think.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Mr. Chairman, I am at three. So
thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Mr. Jenkins.
GREEN BANK OBSERVATORY
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Cordova,
wonderful to see you. Thank you for our good working
relationship over these last couple of years and I enjoyed our
phone conversation yesterday. I am glad you made it back
safely.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this opportunity. And
Director, you and I have had multiple discussions about an
asset in my district, Green Bank Observatory, a world class
radio observatory. You have mentioned, and the chairman has
mentioned, radio astronomy several times. So thank you for your
commitment to that. Over these number of years it has received
steadfast support from NSF, literally for decades and I
appreciate that very much. I do believe it is a key resource
for radio astronomy and does contribute significant
groundbreaking exploration. And in your testimony you mentioned
the important aspects of NSF, such as maintaining global
leadership in science and in investing in STEM fields. And I
firmly believe, and I think we all would agree, that Green Bank
does both.
It gives students hands on experience in STEM at literally
every level. And two of the most compelling stories that I have
heard over the last couple of years serving in Congress
representing this wonderful asset is some of the work that
Green Bank's education programs have been doing from students
literally from around the world who pursue STEM careers.
What I would like to ask is while I see the budget, as we
have talked about, does maintain and support the GBO, the Green
Bank Observatory, at level funding for next year, it has been
suggested that potentially in the future NSF plans to divest.
Can you share with me what the steps of NSF is at this point
vis-a-vis this next year and the potential for divestment
moving forward, which concerns me greatly?
Dr. Cordova. So Green Bank is one of the observatories that
the National Academy of Sciences, at the beginning of this
decade in its decadal report, suggested that in order to do new
things, at what was at the time looking at a flat budget
scenario, we would have to consider divesting ourselves of some
assets. And so a couple of years later, namely in 2012, a
portfolio review committee, gathered of astronomers nationwide,
recommended that NSF divest itself of the Green Bank telescope,
among others.
And so since that time, and that has been reaffirmed in a
mid-decadal review as well, that is not saying that it is not
doing wonderful science. It is only in order to do new things
in a constrained budget that we have to let go of some of the
things that we have been doing for a longer time.
So right now we have undergoing an environmental impact
study on all of the potential divestments, and the results from
the Green Bank environmental impact study that we'll present to
the National Science Foundation with options for divestment.
Those results should be in by the beginning of the next
calendar year, early 2018. We do expect a draft report of the
environmental impact study in late August or early September
and there will be a 45-day comment period for that.
As you also pointed out in fiscal year 2018 our budget for
GBO is approximately the same, even a little bit more, than our
fiscal year 2017 estimated budget and that assumes that the
ongoing partnerships continue, like the partnership with the
Breakthrough Prize Foundation.
Mr. Jenkins. In my 30 seconds I have left let me summarize
and make sure I understand. Based on the fiscal year 2017 that
we are in, based on the fiscal year 2018 that is before us, we
should be safe and sound for the fiscal year 2018 period. We
have the EIS study scheduled out early next year, but a draft
with public comment may be in the coming months of this year.
We have got some hurdles but at least at this point in time
with the budget that is before us we should be good for the
next year and we will address the issues moving forward after
that.
Dr. Cordova. That is right, Congressman. And I think you
also know that NSF is working with others to see what other
possibilities there are.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. I recognize Mr.
Kilmer.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
with us. You know, you touched on it in your opening remarks:
the work NSF does around cybersecurity. Your organization has
helped advance our cybersecurity efforts and has provided
awards to outstanding schools like Tacoma Community College--in
my district--that train the next generation of cybersecurity
workforce and actually conduct research in this space.
I am concerned about the level of budget cut and what that
would mean in terms of NSF's role in regard to our
cybersecurity as a nation writ large. To what degree has the
administration reviewed the additional risk to local, state,
and our federal government, not to mention private industry, if
we invest substantially less in cybersecurity?
Dr. Cordova. All I can talk about is what NSF is trying to
do, realizing how important cybersecurity is. I think you know
we have a big investment in CyberCorps: Scholarships for
Service, which aims to develop just what you are talking about,
a well-educated cybersecurity workforce. And we also have a
number of other programs like our Advanced Technical Education
program for community colleges to develop the technical
workforce.
I think absolutely we understand at the agency that
cybersecurity is one of our biggest challenges going forward.
There is enormous interest on the part of universities to
provide curricula. I was, as I said, at a university yesterday
which has developed along with many others a curriculum for
involving their students in learning more about computer
science so they can produce the cybersecurity workforce for the
future. Our Social and Behavioral Sciences Directorate is very,
very involved with our Computer and Information Science and
Engineering Directorate in encouraging interdisciplinary
collaborations of researchers to understand the behavioral
practices that are also involved in conjunction with computer
practices to provide for a cyber secure world.
Mr. Kilmer. Do you think that that progress is going to be
eroded based on the cuts that the NSF faces?
Dr. Cordova. Well, as I said, the reduced funding does
present challenges and we have had to make a number of tough
choices in our budget. And there will be impacts from reduced
funding, yes.
GEO SCIENCE AND EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH
Mr. Kilmer. Let me switch gears and ask about geoscience.
Some folks may have read the article about the really big one
that could hit on the Cascadia subduction zone, and the impacts
that that would have on the West Coast of the United States. We
know a lot about the Cascadia subduction zone but there is a
bunch that we do not know. That is why the NSF funding grants,
like the M9 grant awarded to the University of Washington four
years ago, is so vital.
We have heard arguments made that geoscience and earth
science research could be funded by other agencies, like NOAA.
Unfortunately, within NOAA, the office that is responsible for
the bulk of that extramural research is also slated for a cut
of more than 30 percent. NASA Earth science is slated for a cut
as well. So my question to you is this: If NSF is cutting back
in geosciences, and NOAA and NASA are cutting back on research
in related fields, who is going to do this?
Dr. Cordova. We are, as you said, one of the major agencies
that is involved in the geosciences and our work that we do,
often in conjunction with those other agencies, is extremely
important. And I think your question is probably a rhetorical
question?
Mr. Kilmer. Actually it is not. I actually am curious. Who
is going to do the work? I mean, if the funding is being cut by
everyone, who is doing this work, and where is it going to
happen?
Dr. Cordova. Well there will be less wherewithal in order
to do that important work. We will continue to do the best we
can with the budget that we have and subject it to the best
merit review processes. And we think that that work is very,
very important.
Mr. Kilmer. I do, too. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer served in the State Senate, I
believe, in Washington State. They are very familiar, very
familiar with the coastline there, the geology of the area. Is
it my memory there was a tremendous tsunami in the 1600s, they
found evidence? What was the size of that tsunami? And what
effect would that, what kind of an earthquake caused that
tsunami, and what would be the effect today, Mr. Kilmer, if you
have a similar earthquake and a tsunami of a similar size?
Mr. Kilmer. I wish I had a science degree like Dr. Cordova.
But the potential, you know, in the article that came out last
year I think was definitely not night reading because it
suggests that there would be massive devastation. The potential
for an earthquake at the Cascadia subduction zone could trigger
a very significant tsunami. And that is why I think this
research is so important.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, I would certainly agree. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Palazzo.
BROADENING PARTICIPATION
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Director Cordova, for being here today. I echo the comments
from my colleagues on the important work the National Science
Foundation is doing across the board. Earlier this year I
cosponsored the Inspire Women Act, which was a bill that
directs NASA to encourage women to study science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics and to pursue STEM careers,
especially aerospace. That bill passed the House alongside the
Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act, which authorizes NSF
to support STEM entrepreneurial programs aimed at women. As you
know, these two bills were among the very first signed into law
by President Trump.
I have long been a supporter of STEM programs, especially
those geared towards women, not only because I had the
privilege of serving as the Chairman for the Space Subcommittee
for five years but also because I have a teenaged daughter at
home that I hope pursues a STEM field as a career one day.
Your budget proposes calls for providing opportunities and
support for those pursuing STEM programs and it aims to produce
measurable, sustainable progress geared towards diversity and
inclusion. What is your plan on providing these opportunities,
especially as it relates to the Inspire Act and Promoting Women
in Entrepreneurship Act? And how do you plan on measuring
diversity in STEM programs?
Dr. Cordova. The National Science Foundation is very
committed to broadening the participation of women and
minorities in STEM. And we have had a lot of programs over time
in order to further those goals. One particular one is the
ADVANCE Program, for advancing women faculty at universities. I
in fact was a PI on that when I was at Purdue University. We
have more recently an INCLUDES Program and we are currently
funding 40 pilot programs around the United States in order to
encourage women and minorities, everyone really, to have more
access to STEM careers. And some of these programs are for K
through 12, others are for other age groups, and many different
disciplines are involved. There is much diversity in the kinds
of programs that are being piloted around the country.
All of them have the goal of broadening participation,
broadening access to STEM. It is hard to be a STEM entrepreneur
without first being STEM literate and then being involved in
research and then being inspired to go on and start to be an
entrepreneur perhaps in a startup company. And so those pilot
programs are going on. INCLUDES is one of our ten big ideas.
And they are showing tremendous promise. We will be funding
more of those proposals in the fiscal year 2018 budget. We will
be forming alliances of groups, because what we really want to
do is to scale up this effort so that it connects the whole
United States in an effort to make progress in this area. And
then more particularly in our SBIR programs, our Small Business
Innovative Research programs, where women can actually, can be
encouraged and funded to start their own business, we are
upping our efforts to reach out to potential prospects and to
encourage a larger number of women to want to start their own
companies.
Mr. Palazzo. Well thank you, Director Cordova. And I think
promoting women in STEM careers and fields and education is a
sound Federal investment. I think you make an outstanding role
model for inspiring young women to pursue STEM careers as well.
So thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Cartwright.
IMPACTS OF REDUCED FUNDING
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Cordova, thank
you for joining us this morning. And I congratulate you on a
stunning career and I wish you all the best in the future.
I am not the first one to say it. The Chairman has said it.
My ranking member has said it. This is the first time in the
history of the NSF that we are talking about reducing the
budget, 11 percent lower than the previous year. I will cut to
the chase, that was not your idea, was it?
Dr. Cordova. The NSF is an executive branch agency of the
administration. This is the President's budget.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. Well NSF of course is wholeheartedly
and full throatedly supported by both sides of the aisle here
in Congress. It is credited with unimaginable discoveries that
have increased social welfare and long term economic benefits.
American Sign Language, facial recognition software, fiber
optics, and the MRI all have roots from NSF funding to
promising researchers at institutions like Penn State, where my
district is in Pennsylvania. You know this all too well having
worked there yourself. Institutions will be gravely damaged by
this budget.
I want to focus on climate change for a moment. Last week
the President announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris
Accord. Although unfortunate it was not unexpected from an
administration that denies climate change and denies that human
activity has an effect on as the primary cause of climate
change. As the head of the Nation's premiere scientific agency,
you must have a scientifically informed view on this issue.
I am equally concerned that we might lose our best and
brightest, our most talented researchers, to other nations
because of these cuts. Just recently French President Emmanuel
Macron actually invited American climate change scientists to
move to France. You saw that, did you not?
Dr. Cordova. I heard about it, yes.
RETAINING RESEARCHERS
Mr. Cartwright. Yes. How does NSF, in this climate, plan to
retain our best and our brightest? Our talented researchers,
not just on climate science, but in all scientific fields
within the U.S. in an environment where we are cutting the
budget for the first time ever, this time by 11 percent? How do
you keep your best people in this kind of environment?
Dr. Cordova. I think the budget does, as I said, present
impacts and challenges. The budget is not final until Congress
weighs in on the budget and I am sure many prospective
scientists and engineers are anxiously waiting for how it all
unfolds.
Meanwhile, as I also said, we have a lot of money to do
good science. We have $6.6 billion proposed and presently we
have $7.5 billion. And our goal is to do the very best science
that we can and continue to fund researchers that are talented
and that are presenting great proposals, continue to invest in
them.
We will do everything we can to be more efficient and
effective as an agency in order to make those dollars go
farther. We will continue to increase our partnerships, and I
mentioned partnerships in the context of Green Bank and the
context of Arecibo, to leverage the Federal investment. And I
will continue to go around the country. And just last night I
spoke in D.C. to a lot of very young people and their mentors,
about the importance of STEM careers. And I do think that
emphasizing broadening participation and welcoming more women
and minorities into the fields of science because it is just a
terrific thing to do for one's self and for the country, for
the world, the future.
FUNDING DETERMINATIONS
Mr. Cartwright. Not to interrupt, but I want to follow up
with another question. There is a movement afoot on Capitol
Hill to selectively fund programs at the NSF. You are aware of
that, I believe? A movement to pick and choose here in Congress
of what programs to fund at NSF.
Dr. Cordova. Sure.
Mr. Cartwright. Which I believe would unnecessarily and
detrimentally inject politics into questions of what science
projects should be funded. How do you feel about that?
Dr. Cordova. I feel the same way, that the science
community is best equipped to set the priorities for science
and engineering. We rely on the advice of the National Academy
of Sciences and its reports and our advisory groups. And we
work with Congress and the administration, of course, to
integrate all of those priorities to come up with the very best
strategic plan for investment. But I have often said that as
the world is changing and evolving; the grand challenges
require more disciplines, not fewer, to aggregate around those
challenges and to give their best input in solving them. And we
found the most effective solutions come from interdisciplinary
groups that converge on an important question. We never know
where the next discovery is going to come from or who is going
to make it. And so it just behooves us to continue to fund, as
has been our mandate for these 67 years, all of science and
engineering.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director Cordova, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. I am pleased to
recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Meng.
STEM WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director
Cordova, for all your wonderful work. America's economy cannot
deliver on its full potential and cannot continue to be great
if we do not have STEM workers to fill open STEM jobs.
Neglecting to invest in new generations of scientists will only
further this problem. Our research shows that STEM fields face
persistent and dramatic worker shortages in this country. And
for example on the STEM unemployment rate category a study
shows from the years 2010 to 2016 unemployment rate within the
STEM fields went down from 5.9 percent to 2.7 percent.
So I believe, as I think many of my colleagues do, that at
a time when we should be developing STEM expertise and
encouraging the pursuit of these advanced degrees we are
cutting funding. And by doing this we will be limiting, cutting
back on entire generations of scientists. Because those in
these fields will be more prone to leave and less students may
want to enter into these fields and will have less support if
these cuts go through. So how does the NSF intend to deal with
consequences of these cuts and the decreasing numbers of people
going into these fields in the first place?
Dr. Cordova. I hope that there is not decreasing numbers of
people going into these amazing fields. Because the country
really needs them to remain a global leader. And we will do
everything we can to promulgate the importance of science and
engineering and to fund programs all the way from K through 12,
K through my age, for people to get more involved in science
and engineering. And we will try to leverage those programs
with partnerships from foundations and scientific societies in
the private world and industry, which are becoming ever more
involved in working with us.
STEM EDUCATION
Ms. Meng. Colleges and students in my district, which is
one of the most diverse districts in our country, are now
receiving many NSF grant funds supporting STEM faculty
training, teacher recruitment, development. These are schools
such as Queens College and Queensborough Community College in
Queens, New York, York College, and the CUNY system in general.
And they have been doing a lot of work in this area. Are you
concerned that the NSF budget cuts may decrease effectiveness
in terms of NSF's ability to support these important efforts
moving forward?
Dr. Cordova. They are important efforts and by the way,
just your mentioning Queens, that is where my mother was born
and raised. So it was nice to hear that. But absolutely, the
reduced funding will have an effect and fewer researchers will
be able to be funded. Yesterday I was in St. Louis at
Washington University and one of the things I did was to have a
round table with some two dozen young faculty who were CAREER
Awardees, which is a very special competitive award that we
give. And every time I go to a university I meet with the
CAREER Awardees because they represent the bright, up and
coming, the people who are going to make the LIGO and other
discoveries of the future. And they represented all of the
disciplines in science and engineering. And they were so alive
with the transformative nature of their research and part of
the CAREER Award is that they must also do educational outreach
in addition to the research. And they said that doing that
education, and it is usually in a school system in K through
12, has transformed even the way they think about their future.
So it was very heartening to hear them. As for impacts, a
reduced budget does have impact.
Ms. Meng. I too have been having conversations with both
private stakeholders and nonprofit organizations who are very
concerned about STEM education and want to ensure that they are
doing their part to bolster these efforts. So if we could ever
have a larger or a further discussion on how to collaborate in
light of these potential cuts, I would love to continue this
conversation. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
DANIEL K. INOUYE SOLAR TELESCOPE
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. All the members of the
subcommittee have expressed our strong support for the National
Science Foundation and your mission on the importance of
continuing the nation's investment in fundamental research. But
I wanted to be sure to add because we have an opportunity
through our hearing today, Dr. Cordova, to talk to the
scientific community at large.
I know that the general sciences here, I see Jeff Mervis, I
assume some of the major publications from around the country
are here. And the scientific community I hope will join, and my
colleagues will join with me and certainly on our side of the
aisle to focus the attention of the country on the urgency of
bringing down the national deficit, of bringing down the
national debt. The fundamental problem that is devouring all of
these precious resources that our constituents work so hard to
earn, that the 70 cents out of every federal dollar goes out
the door immediately, as soon as it comes in, for Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, under the
Obamacare program, the Affordable Care Act, principal on the
debt, and interest on the debt. Seventy cents goes right out
the door. And the Appropriations Committee is responsible for
that remaining 30 cents. And 15 of the 30 cents goes right out
the door to help our men and women in the military ensure that
they can fight and win, ideally two battlefronts on two sides
of the world. But because of underfunding in previous years for
the military, 70 percent of the Marine Corps aircraft cannot
fly because of lack of spare parts. Half of our Navy's
airplanes cannot fly because of a lack of spare parts. It is an
unacceptable situation.
Our military urgently needs a shot in the arm to bring them
back up to the level of readiness and preparedness that we
expect the United States military to have to ensure that those
young men and women come home safely. So we, all of us, have an
obligation in educating our constituents, working with our
colleagues, to ensure there is enough money for the National
Science Foundation, for NASA, for the other critical work in
law enforcement, all the important work that the Federal
Government does. We have to address the bigger problem of money
flying out the door to the programs that are on automatic pilot
and devouring our annual Federal spending to such an extent
that this subcommittee, the Appropriations Committee is going
to be reduced to a smaller and smaller percentage of each one
of those Federal dollars. And we just simply cannot pass this
massive debt onto our kids.
Donald Trump was elected because the country wanted to see
these problems dealt with. They wanted to see the debt
resolved, the deficit resolved, spending brought under control,
the military restored. They wanted problems solved. And we have
got a CEO in the White House who is dealing with these urgent
problems and has laid out a budget proposal that we may not
agree with all parts of it but fundamentally we have to
recognize that our military needs help. We have got to get
spending under control in order to make sure that the National
Science Foundation has got the help they need.
I encourage the scientific community to do all they can to
speak to their members of Congress, their members of the
Senate, to focus on the bigger problem. Let us balance the
Federal budget, save the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and
Social Security, and that will free up a vast amount of money
and allow us to get the deficit under control and get back to
balance and ultimately pay down that debt so we are not leaving
that to our kids. So we have the money to invest in critical
work that, expanding the STEM grants for example, is so
important; making sure that the tsunami detection network is
safe and sound; that you have got the money that you need to
invest in really important work like the Daniel K. Inouye Solar
Telescope, which has a $20 million line in the budget to
continue building this, the world's most powerful solar
telescope.
And the total cost I understand for the Daniel Inouye Solar
Telescope is about $345 million. Could you talk to us about the
current status of the program? Is everything proceeding as
planned? And when it comes online in 2020, how will NOAA be
able to access the data to fulfill its space weather prediction
responsibilities?
Dr. Cordova. Sure. May I make just a comment related to
your remark about the military?
Of course a lot of what the military can use today traces
its roots back to science and technology investments, and
whether it is GPS or prosthetics and new materials that are
used on the battlefield or above it have their roots in
science. So we look at science beyond funding a telescope or
instruments as really creating a pathway to the future and that
has tremendous impacts for all aspects of life, including
national security and health, transportation.
So on DKIST, and that is the Daniel K. Inouye Solar
Telescope, which will be the world's largest telescope, we
expect it to see first light in the middle of 2020, and we
welcome any members who would like to see how the telescope is
progressing. It is really, besides its promise of being a
scientific marvel, it is an engineering marvel.
And I took members of the National Science Board, two of
whom are in this audience today, there several months ago and
they were just in awe. It is like building, really, a satellite
on the ground, but one that has enormous capabilities.
So it is on track to fulfill its promise of having first
light very soon. Everything is going very smoothly.
SPACE WEATHER
Mr. Culberson. Well, the Space Weather community, have they
begun discussions on how this solar telescope can be exploited
by both NOAA and NASA to inform their operational or research
roles?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. I don't know the details of that, but
could provide them to you. But clearly we advertise that this
telescope, because of its incredible sensitivity in observing
the sun and magnetic flares, will be very, very useful for
Space Weather and Space Weather predictions of substorms and
the like from the sun, and those can of course affect the
electric power grid.
And so I am quite sure that those discussions with other
agencies have already taken place, because the world is really
looking to us to have this extraordinary capability to do this.
[The information follows:]
Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
NSF's DKIST will be the world's most powerful ground-based solar
observatory poised to answer fundamental questions regarding the Sun
and its magnetic fields. DKIST will be used by scientists to explore
the fundamental physics behind the solar magnetic fields that drive
phenomena like solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and the solar
wind, all of which constitute the space weather that impacts the Earth.
DKIST, however, will not have the cadence or field-of-view
capabilities to make it an operational space weather tool for use on a
daily basis. This role is better suited to a facility like the NSF's
Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) operated by the National Solar
Observatory (NSO). GONG observes the entire disk of the Sun 24/7, 365
days per year from six stations spread around the globe. It is this
continuous full-disk coverage that is vital to the space weather
prediction models of NOAA, NASA, and the DoD.
Mr. Culberson. I am sure the telescope will also help us,
for example, understand things like during the, I think it was
the Maunder Minimum, it was a little ice age during the Middle
Ages, it got very, very, very cold as a result of decreased
solar activity, this will help us understand to what extent the
cycles of the sun are and the effect they are having on Earth's
climate.
Dr. Cordova. Absolutely, and understand more precisely the
physics of the sun and then how that translates into impacting
us and Earth.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this
telescope eventually will be able to look at a State and
determine how many people are going to vote Democrat and how
many people will vote Republican? [Laughter.]
Dr. Cordova. Our telescope is----
Mr. Serrano. It is called the anti-pundit telescope. I
couldn't help myself. [Laughter.]
ARECIBO OBSERVATORY
Speaking of telescopes, back to the Arecibo Conservatory
and Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is very important to me
and obviously to the chairman also.
We know about the reduction; how much have we spent
throughout the years to operate, how much did it cost to
construct, and what is the research benefits of the facility?
Dr. Cordova. Well, let me look up my notes here on the
costs. It was built by--actually, it was built by ARPA, the
precursor of DARPA in the '60s and was completed at a cost of
only $9 million. That was in the '60s. And then the transfer to
NSF was made in 1969 with us assuming full responsibility a
couple of years later.
The operations have cost NSF about $255 million from 1990
through the present fiscal year and total operations costs
before that time from 1970 to 1990 we estimate were about $100
million.
As far as the importance of Arecibo, it has been
extraordinarily important. Of course, that was where Joe Taylor
and Dr. Hulse discovered the binary pulsar, which was the first
real evidence of gravitational waves, and it has made many
other seminal observations, especially on pulsars, which just
happens to be one of my fields. I have been to the telescope
and seen the extraordinary observatory.
Mr. Serrano. I am also concerned about the condition of the
observatory with respect to maintenance and modernization. Have
any maintenance needs been deferred? Which ones? Could
improvements be made to modernize Arecibo and what would that
entail?
Because there is a concern, I am hearing, that it is not
being taken care of or kept up, because some people believe it
is going to go away.
Dr. Cordova. Well, two major upgrades have been funded, one
as long ago as 1974 by NSF and NASA at a cost of $9 million.
And there was a 1997 upgrade, funded by again NSF and NASA at a
cost of $27 million, which added some powerful things like the
Gregorian feed and a more powerful radar transmitter.
Modernization of Arecibo could include new optic elements
to allow the telescope to access more of the visible sky,
because observations are currently limited to an angle of just
20 degrees from straight overhead. New receivers, upgraded
reflector panels and new radar transmitter subsystems. When I
asked my group how much all that would cost, they don't have
firm estimates yet, but they think it could approach $100
million to do those kinds of upgrades.
Mr. Serrano. Do you see a desire to continue? I mean, I
would like to get to the bottom of this information floating
around that in some cases some people say, well, give it away
to some universities, which may not be the worst thing in the
world, but then there are others who say it is time for it to
cease, which should be a warning to other members of this
committee, because it may affect how these kinds of things are
seen in their districts.
What is your sense of what the scientific or the government
community is saying about the observatory?
Dr. Cordova. NSF's preferred alternative is to collaborate
with interested parties for a continued science-focused
operation and that is why we put out a solicitation in January
of this year to ask others if they were interested in
partnering on this telescope. And proposals that are being
received in response to the solicitation are currently under
review and they will inform us as to next steps.
I go back to my earlier comments that we--and the chairman
often asks us just how priorities are set for NSF, we really do
rely on the science/engineering communities to inform our
strategic planning and that is often done through the Decadal
Reports, which actually the astronomy community piloted a
number of decades ago. And in this decade's report they have
said that we couldn't continue to do everything, if we wanted
to do new things, DKIST was mentioned, the LSST, the
spectroscopic survey telescope was mentioned, and we couldn't
do new things, and all the investment that requires, without
letting some things go.
And then we asked the community to assess current assets
and what they would divest of. And Arecibo and Green Bank
telescope are on that list not because they are not excellent
telescopes, they do do great research in particular areas, but
there are other telescopes that could have improved resolution
over a large what we call phase space in all areas of observing
that can provide just simply more capability, and we are in a
constrained budget.
So that is where we are with Arecibo.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Jenkins.
GREEN BANK OBSERVATORY
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, during our last round right at the end you made
reference to collaborations and I would like to explore that
for a few more minutes relating to GBO, Green Bank Observatory,
and the opportunities and the work that NSF has been
undertaking to look for partners in collaborative relationships
that may also provide additional funding for maintenance moving
forward.
Can you share with me what work your office and the NSF in
general has been doing to look for collaborative relationship
opportunities, or partners with GBO?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. Since we started the environmental impact
study, we have been on that course, and I have to say I myself
have been one of the prime movers in pushing us to look for
collaboration and partners. And one potential partnership has
turned up recently for Green Bank with the national security
community and so we are engaged. I don't want to say too much
about it, because it is very new, within the last couple of
weeks, few weeks, but those have been very, very long and now
sustained discourse with that community over their potential
interest in that.
And so we are always hopeful that that will produce
something of significance here and we will keep you informed.
ESTABLISHED PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH
Mr. Jenkins. Well, thank you and I appreciate that. Our
office, and I am sure the entire delegation, looks forward to
working with you for that. We think there are touch points with
not only those interests, but others, NASA, and there are
unique opportunities and capacities.
What I think we are trying to do is obviously not only
continue to work with the relevance and fulfilling those core
NSF missions and functions that you have outlined, but also
with other Federal entities and agencies and programs.
So we look forward to working with you. Thank you for your
personal interest, as you described engagement in this, very
helpful.
One of the areas we are very supportive of is EPSCoR. Back
in the 1990s I served on the EPSCoR state board, so this
activity is very important. One of the things I do notice from
NSF funding is that about 88 percent of your funding goes to
about 25 states. I really would encourage some careful
consideration about the breadth and the scope and the talents
and capabilities of the other 25 states that are now enjoying
only about 12 percent of the NSF funding and making sure,
candidly, like I do is fight for our fair share in the unique
talents and capabilities.
So I just hope that I put a place marker out there of
concern that I have about the disparity in the funding
allocation. I understand this isn't going to be a pot that is
divided in 50 equal ways, but I do believe 25 states getting 88
percent of the funding warrants a careful evaluation of those
25 states that receive 12 percent.
Dr. Cordova. I hear you, Congressman Jenkins, and clearly
the agency feels similarly and that is why we really value the
EPSCoR program and we do a great deal. It has had wonderful
leadership under Denise Barnes and I think all of us were at, I
spoke at that event and you introduced me a couple of years
ago, it is just a great and transformative program. And I love
going to the EPSCoR states, I went recently to Rhode Island
with Senator Reed and just saw the amazing work that they are
doing.
So I am very appreciative of your remarks.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Kilmer.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITY INVESTMENT
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
I know there has been a lot of talk by the current
administration about a big infrastructure initiative. I know
also that research dollars from NSF don't just go to individual
investigators; they support facility investments, including in
my neck of the woods at the University of Puget Sound. An NSF
major research instrumentation award for a mass spectrometer
has made a real difference for faculty and staff and student
research.
I am curious, is the NSF involved in the administration's
infrastructure initiative and, if not, how could the NSF
perhaps be a partner to increase accessibility to science?
Dr. Cordova. The NSF is very willing to work with the
administration and Congress to pursue important investments
like that. We know there are many findings from NSF-supported
research that can improve infrastructure investments and we
have a lot of research on that going on, especially in our
engineering directorate. We hope that investments in scientific
infrastructure can be considered and also in cyber-
infrastructure as part of the administration's interest in
bolstering infrastructure. And so we are very open to
collaborations.
We have had some talks with congressional members and their
staff about how we are positioned to do increased investments
in infrastructure and you mentioned specifically the major
research instrumentation program that is so important to our
colleges and universities. And of course then we have the large
facilities program and we are trying to close the gap in
funding with our mid-scale program, which the AICA, a new Act
for Competitiveness and Innovation, asks us to do.
So there is just a lot. Infrastructure has been part of
what NSF has built its scaffold of amazing discoveries in
science and engineering on, and we hope that the entire nation
realizes what an important investment that infrastructure is.
NATION'S INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Kilmer. I also want to ask you, you mentioned the
Competitiveness Act, it is rare to get to talk to someone who
is NASA's chief scientist. I was thinking, as you came in,
about October 4th, 1957, Sputnik. That was a moment in which
the United States woke up to an existential threat and as a
consequence, the United States, Democrats and Republicans,
embraced the notion that to respond to that existential threat
required a substantial investment in science. We talked about
what could be an existential threat in my neck of the woods,
with the geoscience issues of potential earthquakes, but I want
to talk about an economic threat.
A few years back, the National Academies worked on Rising
Above the Gathering Storm and then the Gathering Storm,
Revisited, partnership with a number of CEOs and folks in the
scientific community. As you look at their findings, they said
first, ``The Federal Government funding of R&D as a fraction of
GDP has declined by 60 percent since Sputnik,'' since the
response to Sputnik. And then they wrote, ``Without a renewed
effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we
can expect to lose our privileged position as a nation.''
The former CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini, put it this way, he
said, ``Without a change in U.S. policy, the next big thing
will not be invented here, jobs will not be created here, and
wealth will not accrue here.''
I am curious, do you agree with the findings of the
National Academies in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm
report and their call for doubling investment in NSF?
Dr. Cordova. I agree with their findings. As the head of an
executive branch agency, I won't comment on their call for
doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation.
I gave a little talk yesterday about the existential
threat, which is even larger than a lot of people realize,
because we have competition from other countries that is
incredibly serious.
Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
Dr. Cordova. And that is something that can creep up on you
slowly and then all of a sudden you have lost another market,
you have lost your premier position, and it has gone somewhere
else. And, frankly, I am concerned about that. I am concerned
about the accelerating pace of investments in other countries,
I am concerned that we will lose our global leadership if we
don't also invest in science and engineering.
Mr. Kilmer. I share that concern and I know it puts you in
a tough position to have to speak to a budget that calls for a
double-digit cut in the work you are doing. So I appreciate you
being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Cartwright.
CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your candor on that last question,
Director Cordova.
Director Cordova, we are concerned on this side of the
aisle about our ability to get our questions answered under the
current administration. My question to you is, has the White
House or the Office of Management and Budget approached NSF
about any kind of policy or guidance that would prohibit or
delay responses to ranking members, that is the head Democrats
on congressional committees or subcommittees of jurisdiction?
Dr. Cordova. There has been no direction that would in any
way interfere with the flow of information between NSF and
Congress.
We have ourselves at NSF internal processes for answering
congressional inquiries that have been in place for years and
that haven't changed. We track all incoming and outgoing
congressional correspondence, I sign off on that myself, and we
try to answer all inquiries as quickly as possible. There is no
policy or guidance that would prohibit or delay the flow of
information.
RISK AND RESILIENCE
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I am glad to hear that.
Now, we have been talking about climate change and one of
the things that I am concerned about are adaptation and
resiliency. As NSF's fiscal year 2018 budget states, the
Agency-wide Risk and Resilience Initiative, quote, ``aims to
improve predictability and risk assessment, and to increase
preparedness for extreme natural and manmade events to reduce
their impact on quality of life, society, and the economy,''
unquote, but the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget includes a
27.4 percent reduction for the Risk and Resilience Initiative
overall.
How would this kind of proposed reduction in funding for
this initiative affect the anticipated outcome of improving
resilience and readiness of interdependent critical
infrastructures?
Dr. Cordova. You are right that some difficult choices had
to be made and that the overall annual budget for Risk and
Resilience will be reduced.
Research on hazards in extreme natural events, which is
called our PREEVENTS program, will not be affected and will
continue to enhance understanding of the fundamental processes
underlying geohazards in extreme events on various spatial and
temporal scales, as well as the variability inherent in such
hazards and events, and improve models for extreme events and
their impacts.
But research on resilient infrastructure we have called our
CRISP program, an acronym, will be reduced by about 40 percent
and impact the number of new awards, and that has been an
effort to promote research on interdependent critical
infrastructure systems.
So we do plan to invest in both our PREEVENTS and our CRISP
program to the tune of about $31 million in Risk and Resilience
in the fiscal year 2018 budget. And I know that is a reduction
and, again, we had some tough choices to make.
Mr. Cartwright. Further, the Risk and Resilience Initiative
is an NSF-wide investment that has been supported across six
NSF directorates and offices. The fiscal year 2018 budget
proposes to eliminate funding completely to the Computer and
Information Science and Engineering Program, CISE, that is
taking away $6 million.
What is the rationale for eliminating funding for this
program and how might eliminating the CISE program's funding
for this initiative affect efforts across the other
directorates?
Dr. Cordova. Well, I think, again, we will supply you with
a more detailed answer for the record, but I think you are
talking about the contribution to the programs I just talked
about by the CISE directorate, the Computer and Information
Science and Engineering directorate. And when I asked all the
directorates to look at roughly a ten-percent cut, they all had
tough choices to make and on these cross-agency initiatives
there were puts and takes.
I think the numbers are what I mentioned for the total
effort, which comes from a number of directorates. The size of
the computer directorate cutback on that, it means that they
made a choice to invest in other initiatives.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Meng.
Director Cordova, we will submit the remainder of our
questions for the record.
Mr. Serrano, is that----
Mr. Serrano. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Very good. We will each submit the remainder
of our questions for the record.
I want to thank you again for your service to the nation.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And we will stay focused on doing our best
to balance the budget as a whole, so we can have more resources
for the vital work that the National Science Foundation, NASA,
our law enforcement community, and the military all do for the
United States.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Cordova. Great, and thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, June 8, 2017.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION--BUDGET HEARING
WITNESS
ROBERT M. LIGHTFOOT, JR., ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order.
We are very pleased to have with us today Robert Lightfoot,
the acting administrator of NASA. Robert, we sincerely
appreciate your service to the Nation, your devoted service to
NASA, and keeping the American space program the best on Earth
over these many years.
We have in fiscal year 2018 a request from the
administration to fund NASA at $19.1 billion. This request from
the Office of Management and Budget is a request $561 million
below the recently enacted 2017 fiscal year level of $19.7
billion.
When it comes to NASA, Mr. Administrator, this subcommittee
works arm in arm. The country and Congress are very proud of
the work that NASA does. I am really pleased to have the full
support of the subcommittee in getting a record level of
funding to NASA. In the brief time that I have had the
privilege of chairing this subcommittee, we have been able to
take NASA to record levels of funding.
Last year's level included $184 million in emergency
funding to address the damage that occurred at NASA facilities
at Michoud and at the Cape as a result of a hurricane and
tornado. That was, I know, an important part of keeping NASA
whole and allowing you to focus your efforts on space flight.
This Congress has provided really significant increases to
NASA. You have been underfunded for far too long. Too much has
been on NASA's plate, and you haven't had enough funds to do
everything that you have been asked to do. But that is
changing.
As you have seen with the last several appropriations, NASA
has grown from $18.1 billion in funding from--in 2015 to almost
$20 billion in fiscal year 2017. It is an indication of the
level of confidence and admiration that the Congress and the
American people have in you and the good people at NASA. We
have been able to provide NASA with growth at these levels,
when other agencies of the Federal Government have seen their
budgets held flat and even cut or eliminated.
Of course, increased funding requires increased
responsibility. Our constituents' hard earned and very scarce
and precious tax dollars need to be spent wisely, prudently,
and carefully. And the subcommittee expects that you and
everyone at NASA will ensure that the money our constituents
work so hard to earn is used frugally.
We have, in the 2017 appropriations bill, made sure that
the SLS rocket is fully funded, the Orion program is fully
funded, that the agency has the funds that you need to put
humans back into deep space. The commercial sector is funded at
a level it should be in the 2017 bill.
I like to think of what the commercial providers are doing
is sort of like stepping out in front of your office building
and catching a cab. In years to come, you should be able to
catch a commercial provider to take you to low Earth orbit as
easily as you can catch an Uber, Lyft or yellow cab. NASA will
then be responsible for deep-space travel. I think it is a good
way to think about the distinction and the difference between
them.
In addition to fully funding the human space flight
program, as you have seen in the 2017 bill and in previous
bills I have had the privilege of chairing in the subcommittee.
The committee made certain that the Decadal Survey
recommendations of the American Academy of Sciences are funded
in each one of the major categories because we want to see NASA
fund and fly those top recommendations of the Decadal Survey,
and, in particular, when it comes to planetary science, which
was badly underfunded for too many years. The committee
included a directive to NASA, a statutory directive that NASA
fund and fly a mission, an orbiter and a lander to Jupiter's
icy moon Europa. It is one place nearest to home that the
scientific community believes we are most likely to find life
on another world for the first time in human history. I look
forward to hearing an update on how the Europa mission is
going.
Finally, I want to direct your attention to language
included in the 2017 bill directing NASA to identify the
nearest Earth-like planet around the nearest star, to
characterize that nearby planet's atmosphere looking for signs
of life, methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen. As John Grunsfeld
once told me, perhaps the sensitivity would be such that we
might even detect industrial pollution in the atmosphere of a
nearby planet. Then to directing NASA to develop interstellar
rocket propulsion achieving 10 percent of the speed of light
and then launch a humanities first mission to that nearest
Earth-like planet no later than the 100th anniversary of Neil
Armstrong setting foot on the moon in 2069.
In the time it has been my privilege to represent the
people of west Houston in District 7, I have enjoyed my service
on this subcommittee immensely. An important part of that has
been the friendship and close cooperation that I have developed
with my good friend from New York, Mr. Serrano. I am really
pleased to have you back as our ranking member. We work
together so well, and he is as passionate a supporter of the
space program as I am.
And I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from New York
for any opening remarks he would like to make.
Ranking Member Opening Remarks
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I also welcome the administrator to the subcommittee
hearing today.
NASA is in charge of conducting civilian space activities
and science and aeronautics research. I am a strong supporter
of NASA and believe that its programs help America maintain
itself as the world leader in space exploration and in the
scientific arenas that develop those technologies. Not only do
NASA's missions inspire so many people around the world, but
they also help us innovate and address challenges that confront
our Nation.
The President's budget blueprint for fiscal year 2018
requests $19.1 billion for NASA, which is a $532.8 million
decrease from the 2017 enacted level. While NASA was not cut as
much as other agencies under the jurisdiction of our
subcommittee, the budget proposal reduces funding for a number
of important areas.
I am particularly concerned that although funding is
continued for the education activities of NASA's Science
Mission Directorate, this request zeroes out funding for three
longstanding programs within NASA's Office of Education, an
office that helps inspire the next generation of scientists.
I strongly oppose the elimination of these programs, Mr.
Chairman, and I hope that we can work together in a bipartisan
manner to preserve these programs that so greatly benefit the
American people.
I would further like to call attention to the President's
request for Earth Science, which is cut of $166.9 million below
fiscal year 2017. In addition to eliminating several individual
Earth Science missions, which are necessary in our efforts to
combat climate change, the request will reduce funding for
Earth Science external grants.
We need to place a high priority on NASA's Earth Science
research, and I look forward to discussing this topic further
today.
I also look forward to hearing from Acting Administrator
Lightfoot on NASA's long-term plans for human space
exploration, which will require significant amounts of money
for research on advanced communications; entry, descent, and
landing capabilities; and ways to protect astronauts' health
during those long deep-space missions, among other things.
All of these improvements will require massive amounts of
money over a long period of time, at a time when Federal
nondefense discretionary spending has been decreasing as a
share of the economy.
Mr. Chairman, as you very well know, I am also a strong
supporter of the Arecibo Observatory and believe that we must
maintain strong support for its mission. NASA's 2018 budget
request includes funding for NASA activities at the
observatory, and I would like to hear more about this work.
Before I conclude, we cannot discuss NASA's budget request,
Mr. Chairman, without discussing the overall budget picture. As
I mentioned at yesterday's hearing, I believe that we must have
a serious discussion regarding budget caps and President
Trump's larger budget request. The President proposes an
increase of $54 billion in defense spending funded by an equal
decrease in non-defense discretionary spending. Quite frankly,
implementing such a proposal undermines America's
competitiveness, economic opportunity, and domestic security.
Agencies like NASA are being put at risk by this unbalanced
proposal, as evidenced by the unwise cuts in the NASA budget
request. Our Nation's leadership in a number of important areas
is threatened by this budget request, and we need to recognize
that if we want our Nation to be at the forefront of innovation
and job creation, we need a much wiser fiscal policy.
And I am sorry for repeating myself, but I think that
committees like ours deserve a better allocation as we go
along, and the moving of $54 billion will hamper that in many
ways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Lightfoot, we are delighted to have you with us here
today. Your written statement will be entered into the record
in its entirety, if there is no objection. And I welcome you to
briefly summarize your statement. And thank you again for your
service to the country.
Acting Administrator's Opening Remarks
Mr. Lightfoot. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
discuss our budget, our FY 2018 budget request.
We really appreciate the subcommittee's support, especially
your bipartisan commitment to what we call our constancy of
purpose in NASA.
The FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and
specifically the emergency supplemental, as you mentioned
earlier, were critical to us to keep the operations at Kennedy
and Michoud assembly facility going. So we really appreciate
that, your hard work on our behalf.
NASA's historic and enduring purpose can be summarized into
three major strategic themes: discover, explore, and develop.
These correspond to our missions of scientific discovery,
exploration, and new technology development in aeronautics and
space systems. NASA missions also inspire the next generation.
They inject innovation into the national economy and they
provide critical information to address national challenges and
support global engagement and international leadership.
The FY 2018 request of $19.1 billion supports a vigorous
program that leads the world in space and aeronautics. While we
had to make some difficult decisions with regard to Earth
Science and education, this remains a good budget for NASA.
NASA advances U.S. global leadership in aeronautics by
developing and transferring key enabling technologies. In FY
2018, NASA will award a contract for detailed aircraft design,
build, and validation of a low-boom flight demonstrator, which
will demonstrate quiet overland supersonic flight opening a new
market in the U.S. industry.
In science, NASA is currently using our 20 space-borne
missions to study the Earth as a system, which supply Earth
Science data for weather forecasting, farming, water
management, disaster response, and even disease early warning.
The request also supports two new missions by the end of
2018. The GRACE-Follow-on will track water across the planet
precisely measuring Earth's gravitational field, and ICESat-2
will measure ice sheets, clouds, and vegetation canopy heights.
In September, Cassini will make the final series of 22
daring dives through the 1,500-mile wide gap between the planet
and its inner rings as part of its grand finale of end-of-
mission maneuvers.
OSIRIS-REx on its way to the asteroid Bennu will conduct a
search for elusive objects known as Earth-Trojan asteroids, and
in 2023 will return a sample from Bennu back to Earth for
analysis.
In 2018, we will launch the Mars InSight lander to study
the interior structure of Mars and are on track to launch the
next Mars rover mission in 2020, and we continue to develop the
Europa Clipper mission, which will further search for life
beyond Earth.
The James Webb Space Telescope continues on schedule for
its 2018 launch. The Webb will be a giant leap forward in our
quest to understand the universe and our origins.
In 2018, we will launch the recently named Parker Solar
Probe on a mission to fly closer to the Sun than any previous
mission. Parker will join 18 other missions dedicated to
studying our nearest star.
NASA's space technology request includes investments in
deep space optical communication, high power solar electric
propulsion technologies, and advanced materials. In late 2017,
both the Green Propellant Infusion Mission spacecraft and the
Deep Space Atomic Clock instrument will be delivered to orbit.
The International Space Station, our first step on the road
to deep-space exploration, is delivering the knowledge and the
technology we need to keep astronauts safe, healthy, and
productive on deep-space missions of increasing durations.
Working with our commercial crew partners, NASA plans to
return crew launch capability to American soil in 2018. We are
continuing the development of the Space Launch System rocket,
the Orion crew capsule, and the exploration ground systems, and
the technology and research needed to support a robust
exploration program.
In 2019, we plan to launch an uncrewed exploration mission
called EM-1 using the new Space Launch System with Orion on a
mission to lunar orbit. A crewed mission, EM-2, will follow not
later than 2023.
In the early to mid-2020s, we will develop and deploy
critical life support and habitation systems leading to a
crewed mission beyond the Earth-Moon system. Missions launched
on the Space Launch System in the 2020s will establish the
capability to operate safely and productively in deep space.
With your continued support, we look forward to extending
human presence into deep space, exploring potentially habitable
environments around the solar system, and deepening our
understanding of our own home planet, pushing our observations
of the universe back to the time when first stars were forming
and opening the space frontier.
Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to respond to your
questions and those of other members of the subcommittee. Thank
you.
SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lightfoot.
So you believe the funding levels that the committee has
provided NASA over these last several years are sufficient to
keep SLS on track. The delays that you are seeing are not a
result of inadequate funding; they are a result of some
technical challenges. Is that correct?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. We are struggling with what I call
the normal development activities when we are trying to put
hardware together for the first time. The tornado didn't help.
I don't think that was a funding issue. You guys helped us by
giving us the funding.
But the weld schedule on the Space Launch System, some of
the challenges we are having with the European service module
in support of Orion and some software challenges down at the
cape. They are not anything Earth shattering in my mind. They
are the typical----
Mr. Culberson. Normal.
Mr. Lightfoot [continuing]. Development activities we are
having to go through. We wish we didn't have them, but we are
learning as we go for the first-time build.
Mr. Culberson. And you are confident you can meet the
launch schedule you have laid out here for the committee for
SLS?
Mr. Lightfoot. Correct.
Mr. Culberson. Terrific.
PLANETARY SCIENCE
The subcommittee has provided robust support for the
planetary science program to ensure that NASA can maintain a
good cadence of launches for the discovery class missions, new
frontiers, and flagship missions. Does the level of funding
provided by the subcommittee the last few years give you
sufficient funding to make sure that you can launch missions in
each one of those major categories that meet the Decadal Survey
recommendations?
Mr. Lightfoot. We believe so. We have good progress on
Europa Clipper. And per the 2017 appropriations, we are going
to be announcing the instruments for the lander and going
toward a mission concept review this summer.
Mr. Culberson. How soon?
Mr. Lightfoot. This summer.
Mr. Culberson. This summer.
Mr. Lightfoot. We seem to be moving really well on
planetary. Helio, I talked about what we are going to do there
as well. I am pretty confident that we have got the
appropriations we need.
Mr. Culberson. OK. Good.
The Europa Clipper and Lande missions are extraordinarily
important, the reason they both appear in the statutory bill
language is because the science community believes we have the
best chance of discovering life in another world in Europe.
So I really appreciate the support that headquarters has
given to that mission. It is going to be a turning point in
human history when we discover life for the first time in
another world. In addition, it makes the SLS even more
essential, because a deep-space mission like that with a large
flagship-class spacecraft, such as the Clipper and the Lander,
require the SLS.
Talk to me about the timeframe for when you expect Clipper
to be ready to launch and the lander.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. In the 2018 budget that we
proposed, we expect a Clipper in the mid-2020s that is when we
expect it to go. Of course, you know that in the 2018 budget
there is nothing in there for the lander. It is part of the
balancing that we had to do.
We had two flagship missions, the March 2020 and the
Clipper in there. We have to work the balance on that for the
lander piece.
Mr. Culberson. But, of course, the lander is in law.
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes. We are going to continue what we
did--it is what you said what we were told to do in 2017.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. You have got adequate funding for
it.
Now, there is another reason the lander is important, not
only--because when we--Mr. Serrano is exactly right. The future
missions that--the scale of the human space flight program, the
SLS program is going to require significant amounts of money
over a sustained period of time. I am convinced when the
public--when we make that remarkable discovery of life in
another world, it will reinvigorate the public's already deep
admiration for NASA and allow us to have enough money for the
program for the future. That is another important part of that
Europa mission.
Could you tell us about--we were very grateful that the
Agency has put together an ocean worlds program as directed by
the subcommittee's bill to explore Enceladus, moon of Saturn,
and Titan and some of the other ocean worlds of the outer solar
system.
Could you talk to us about any--are there, for example, New
Frontiers--is there a new frontiers mission being considered
for Enceladus? Talk to us a little bit about why Enceladus is
important.
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, obviously, Enceladus is important for
the same reason Europa is. We think it is a place where we
could find some of the origins of life or different life that
could be there. The New Frontiers program is going to stay on
its standard cadence that we will put out here shortly, and we
think we have got the money to do that as----
Mr. Culberson. Every other year?
Mr. Lightfoot. I believe we are at 3 years, is where we are
right now, 2\1/2\ to 3 years. Let me make sure of that. Let me
take that for the record to make sure I am exactly right. I
don't want to guess here.
Mr. Culberson. Is there a mission being planned to
Enceladus, to your knowledge?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, we would put out a new frontiers that
would--that could be a proposed mission for sure in that.
Mr. Culberson. OK. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EARTH SCIENCE
NASA's Earth Science division works to develop a scientific
understanding of the Earth and its responses to natural and
human-induced changes. However, the President's budget proposal
has a significant reduction in funding for external Earth
Science research grants. Why is this being proposed? And
shouldn't research grants aiming to study our own planet be
made a particularly high priority?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. What we have done with the Earth
Science budget this year that we believe is the right way to
approach it, we took kind of a risk management approach where
we said what is the top science, what does the Decadal say, and
then how are we doing from a performance perspective on the
programs that are there?
Plus, we took into account that the next Earth Science
Decadal comes out in 2017 that can actually give us some
guidance to where we may need to go, because the last one was
2007. When we made the decisions we made within the budget we
had, we had to balance all that.
We still have 20 operating missions, they are in space,
plus we have a large airborne science campaign. We still have
our STEM science activation program going on where we are
funding folks at universities to help us with some of our
challenges. We thought we have done the best balance we can
within the budget we got.
Mr. Serrano. OK. My concern is that if the grants are
currently awarded at a higher rate of acceptance, isn't that a
good thing? Although, talented researchers are and should be
doing great work studying other planets and other solar
systems, shouldn't we place a top priority on studying the
changes happening in our own planet?
Mr. Lightfoot. We are. I mean, we are still doing some of
that work. That is what I am talking about with some of the
STEM activation activities that we do in science. We will
continue to do some of it. We won't be able to do it all. And
that is what we did from----
Mr. Serrano. And which other agencies do you work with on
that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Let's see, I believe we work with NSF and
NOAA to do similar work in Earth Science. We are pretty
complementary in the tasks there.
Mr. Serrano. Within the CJS subcommittee's jurisdiction,
both NOAA and the NASA Earth Science division are intimately
involved in studying and tracking changes in Earth's climate.
To your knowledge, did President Trump or his advisers consult
with NASA's Earth Science division or rely in any way on NASA's
Earth Science data prior to the President's announcement that
he is pulling the United States out of the 196-nation Paris
climate agreement?
Mr. Lightfoot. They did not consult with us. I cannot say
whether they used our data in terms of making that decision,
but they did not consult with the Earth Science division.
Mr. Serrano. And your data wouldn't have suggested they
would pull out, I suspect.
Mr. Lightfoot. There is a lot of data there, sir. I don't
know if that would have done it or not.
ARECIBO TELESCOPE
Mr. Serrano. OK. That is a good answer. That is a beautiful
answer.
Administrator Lightfoot, you are aware of my interest in
the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico, a 1,000-foot wide radio
telescope used for radio astronomy, hemispheric science, and
radar astronomy. Could you explain for our audience and for me
some of the most important ways that NASA and the Nation
continue to benefit from utilizing this telescope and others
like it?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. We use Arecibo--we use several
instruments to track asteroids near asteroids, and Arecibo, we
use that to characterize. Once we identify one, we use the
Arecibo and Goldstone, for instance, is another one that we use
to actually characterize the shape, you know, what kind of
asteroid it could be.
We look at it--it is almost the radar and then the
characterization kind of mentality that we use. Arecibo is an
important part of that mission for us. We expect to spend
roughly the same we have been spending there as we move out in
the future. I think it is $3.6 million, what we use there today
that we work with our friends at NSF, depending on where they
go with it.
Mr. Serrano. Very briefly as a followup. At yesterday's
hearing, NSF was basically telling us that they are trying to
get away from the Arecibo Observatory. They didn't say it in
those words, but we know that that is the case. Is that the
same case with your involvement?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think the way we have looked at it is we
will use it if it is there, because it is a capability that we
can use, but we also have other assets that actually can help
us as well from characterization of asteroids.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I want to join my good friend Mr. Serrano
expressing my strong support to keep the Arecibo radio
observatory open. It is a unique strategic asset to the country
and a tremendous capability that we don't want to lose.
I am very pleased to recognize the gentleman from Kentucky,
Mr. Rogers.
Chairman Rogers Opening Remarks
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Administrator. I have been a space nut since I
was a teenager.
Mr. Lightfoot. Me too.
Mr. Rogers. In fact, when Sputnik went up in 1957, it was
so exciting. I quit a job in a radio station in North Carolina
and enrolled in physics at the University of Kentucky, aiming
for Cape Canaveral. But the first year was, of course, all
math, and I wanted to shoot rockets. I got bored with the math.
I switched off to something else.
But NASA is more than a space-launching agency. NASA is an
inspiration maker, a dream realizer. The space race with the
Soviets and the race to the Moon energized, inspired, excited
the world, but especially here at home. And all of the spinoffs
that have been caused by the space program and so many
different arenas has been absolutely phenomenal. We lack that
excitement today.
I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that there probably would
not have been a moonshot, but for the challenge of the space
race with the Soviet Union at the time. I am not advocating
anything like that, but we need--the country needs the
inspiration that you and I both gained from early NASA
activities.
What can you tell us about building the dreams and
inspiring the country?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think that there is plenty of that
right now. I will give you a great example just from yesterday.
We selected 12--announced 12 new astronauts out of the record
number of applicants. We had 18,000 people apply to be
astronauts and we picked 12.
Two months ago, we discovered potential exoplanets, called
TRAPPIST-1, roughly seven exoplanets. We had 4 billion hits in
our social media for just understanding what is going on there.
I think that the missions we do still inspire. I think they
still engage youngsters everywhere. I mean, my kids are sending
me stuff that they see on Instagram and Facebook--which I am
not on, right--asking me, Dad, what is going on here? This is
pretty cool, right.
I think we still have a great presence, and I think that
presence is related to the missions that we do. I think the
missions, as long as we do, much like what the chairman said
about when we--we are actually trying to make civilization-
level impacts. We are trying to learn things that are going to
change the way we look at everything. Those kind of missions
really inspire everyone to pay attention to what we are doing.
I think it is still there, maybe not as much as it was when
we, you know, walked on the Moon, but I tell you, I am pretty
inspired by what we are doing, and our teams are very inspired
by what we are doing. We don't have any trouble getting any
workforce to help us do it.
Mr. Rogers. Good. Good. I am glad to hear that.
The October moon, you remember the book and the movie----
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, October Sky? Rocket Boys. I think it is
Rocket Boys, yes.
Mr. Rogers. October Sky, yeah. I identified very, very much
with that young kid, and I am sure you had somewhat of a
similar excitement.
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes.
NASA EDUCATION
Mr. Rogers. I am concerned about your proposed--in your
budget, your cuts to the Office of Education, in fact, zero.
That gets to this, what we are talking about. The education
programs hopefully have been spreading the word about NASA's
excitement and all of that. I can't understand why you would
want to cut that. The EPSCoR and space grant programs. Two of
my universities have used those moneys to start small but
remarkably successful aerospace programs. Your investments have
promoted high retention for Kentucky STEM workforce.
Just in April, you deployed two CubeSats developed by the
University of Kentucky and Morehead State University as part of
your ongoing educational launch of nano satellites mission. The
first time two Kentucky satellites, by the way, have been ever
launched simultaneously. Thank you very much.
What can you tell us about the education programs that are
now zeroed down in your budget request?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. What we did is--or what we have been
doing for a while is doing an assessment around our outreach
activities that we do and our education activities that we do
and trying to better do--do those a little more effectively or
efficiently from an Agency standpoint.
What we felt was that we still have several activities
going on within each of our Mission Directorates, Science,
Space Technology, Human Exploration, and Aeronautics that
actually still do research fellowship programs with
universities, still do STEM activation in the science
community, and we felt we could balance those better. The
decisions we made, we thought we could still do the outreach
and do it a little more effectively going forward.
I don't deny that the programs have been pretty successful
for us, but we felt like in the balance of things we could do
this more effectively in a different way.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you couldn't beat the kind of outreach
that I experienced back last August, a year ago, where the
students in Leslie County, mountain area--very remote--every
student in that elementary school gathered in the gymnasium and
hooked up with a----
Mr. Lightfoot. International Space Station.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. International Space Station. And
the astronauts did a fantastic job, by the way, for an hour.
That will be in the minds of those young people from here on.
And that is the kind of thing that I think we need to do more
of, inspiring the up-and-comer young students who have no other
way to understand and learn about what space is all about.
Mr. Lightfoot. I completely agree, and we will continue to
do down links from the International Space Station with
schools.
Mr. Rogers. You have got the only classroom there is in
space.
Mr. Lightfoot. I have also got a school of your kids over
at NASA headquarters right now that are in town. One of the
students reached out to me directly in an email and said they
want to know more about NASA. It is one of the--from Kentucky.
And I was supposed to do that, but you guys scheduled a hearing
or I would have been talking to them right now.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, can he be excused?
Mr. Culberson. Anything for Kentucky.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Lightfoot. No, they are very excited, though.
Mr. Serrano. Two Kentucky launchings?
Mr. Rogers. Yeah.
Mr. Serrano. Not bad.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
And maybe, just to begin, I would like to echo the comments
of Chairman Rogers. We had a NASA explorer school in my
district, and I got to visit, and the kids were mesmerized. It
was really amazing. Someone presented a slide that showed a
giant hole on Mars. I joined every one of the children in
walking out of that gymnasium, and calling my wife and saying,
``did you know there is a giant hole on Mars and we don't know
how deep it is?''--it was awesome. It was really cool, really
inspiring.
I share the concern that defunding the education activities
at NASA would jeopardize that sort of excitement.
Last Congress I worked with NASA to write and introduce a
bipartisan bill called the United States and Israel Space
Cooperation Act. It was recently reintroduced, and it seeks to
recognize and strengthen our longstanding and mutually
beneficial partnership with Israel on peaceful exploration of
space.
Do you see opportunities for NASA to partner with the
Israel Space Agency? And can you give us a sense of what
efforts are currently underway in that regard?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. We already participate with them with
our GLOBE program, aeronaut program. These are things that they
participate with us on. We also see some opportunity maybe in
the SmallSat/CubeSat arena that we will be looking at, and we
continue to have the dialogue with them today.
I would leave the aperture pretty open and see what--what
we find when we work with any of our international partners,
because we work with so many, is they have niche areas they are
interested in. Oftentimes, they can fill the areas that--they
can fill spots for us in doing those things. I think we will
continue to work with Israelis just like we have already.
Mr. Kilmer. Is it correct that during NASA's Exploration
Mission-1, they will be testing a radiation vest from StemRad,
which is an Israeli company?
Mr. Lightfoot. I know at one time that was in the planning.
Can I get back to you for the record on that?
Mr. Kilmer. Yeah.
Mr. Lightfoot. I definitely know it was----
Mr. Kilmer. I know that there is some interest in it
because it helps kind of get a sense of the effects of deep-
space radiation.
IN-SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kilmer. I also want to ask about just the cost of
access to space. As you know, it currently costs $15.6 million
per metric ton to get to geostationary orbit with a maximum
payload. If, however, you refueled a rocket in low Earth orbit
en route to geostation orbit, the price drops to $12.5 million,
and the payload can increase more than twofold. Even better
savings can be realized if we utilize on-orbit refueling for
both Moon and Mars missions.
So there has been, I think, increasing interest in using
asteroids as a launching pad for that. They have the capacity
to unlock the solar system's economy. Can you give us a sense
of where asteroid resource utilization is in NASA's exploration
roadmap?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, of course, in this proposal we
canceled the asteroid redirect mission where we were going to
bring one back. For us, what we are trying to do is understand
how we can use any resource of any body, not just asteroids,
how can you do it. We call it in-situ resource utilization,
where we can utilize the stuff that is there when we get there
as opposed to bringing it with us.
That is where we are today. I know there is quite a bit of
interest in the commercial arena. We had several companies come
talk to us about doing mining, say, on the Moon.
Mr. Kilmer. Sure.
Mr. Lightfoot. To me, that is a great--from my perspective,
that is a great example of a public-private partnership where
somebody in the private industry has an idea and we can help
enable them, as we have done with some of the other things we
are doing.
Mr. Kilmer. Last week--and this has come up in a number of
our subcommittees. Last week, Politico had an article that said
the White House has been telling agencies not to respond to
questions from Congress if those questions came directly from
Democratic members. For example, at a hearing in May, the
acting administrator of the GSA said, quote, ``The
administration has instituted a new policy that matters of
oversight need be requested by the committee chair.''
To your knowledge, has either the White House or the Office
of Management and Budget approached NASA about implementing
that type of policy that would prohibit answering questions
from Democrats?
Mr. Lightfoot. No. No.
Mr. Kilmer. Good. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that.
Do I have a little more time? Let me ask just quickly. We
have heard a lot about NASA's desire to enable the commercial
space industry by, first, focusing on the commercialization of
low Earth orbit. The commercial space industry has said it is
important to know NASA's low Earth orbit requirements to help
with their planning for future commercial space station
capabilities.
Can you talk about how NASA is working with the commercial
space industry to communicate your residual low Earth orbit
requirements to industry?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. There is numerous ways we are doing
that. We are looking at the technologies we need to develop for
us to move onto deep space. We are looking at what would be
required from a health and human perspective for crews. We have
a plan on the International Space Station today to retire those
risks, right. If we don't, you know, there is going to be
things that we aren't going to completely retire. As we don't
finish those things as we move on out, we are going to need
people to actually be there to help us to retire--continue to
work on those risks going forward.
We have a good list. We provide it in different ways:
through broad area announcements, through RFIs that we put out
for people to say is anyone interested or working on a
technology they could do this for us. That is the way we
usually do it, from that perspective.
Mr. Kilmer. Terrific.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Kilmer.
I recognize Mr. Palazzo.
Congressman Palazzo Opening Remarks
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lightfoot, you talked about accelerating the SLS to
include a manned EM-1 mission. The feasibility report last
month said it was technically possible to do so, but NASA
decided against it now that SLS and Orion budgets are down and
the timeline has slipped to 2019. That leads to my question:
Can you walk me through both the decision not to pursue a
manned EM-1 mission and the delay to 2019?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. Let's start with the EM-1 crew
decision first, if that is OK. We asked for the feasibility of
this. We asked several teams to get together and decide what
happened. Of course, we have been doing this for a while not
expecting to put crew on EM-1. The first thing we had to do is
go back for like 3 years and say what decisions have we made
that you need to reopen now that we are going to put crew on
there, from a risk perspective, a technical risk perspective.
We did the technical risk assessment, we did a schedule
risk assessment, and then we did a cost risk assessment when we
went through it. It came out that it was feasible. I mean, we
could absolutely do this, but what it cost us was it was going
to cost us more, it was going to push the schedule out, and
then there we were going to accept more technical risk.
Really what it kind of did for the most part is it
validated our original plan, which is we need to do this test
flight. However, in the process of doing that, we found two or
three pretty critical areas that we need to do some more work
on.
The heat shield on Orion, there was some questions about
some of the things we wanted to do there. There were some
questions around some of the systems in the European service
module, and we wanted to make sure we understood those better
before we flew the first mission, even if crewed or uncrewed.
Then there is an ascent abort test we were going to do after
EM-1 that I think we are going to pull forward now, because we
think it is important to go ahead and get that done.
The study itself was really good in identifying some of the
critical things.
As far as the date for EM-1, crewed or uncrewed, the first
date for the uncrewed mission, when the tornado came through
Michoud, we were already dealing with some weld issues. We were
trying to do a weld on a tank that we haven't done before, and
that is just kind of a technical challenge for us that we are
working through. The tornado came through. We lost access to
the area where we are, or where we were doing the welding, for
about, ah, depending on how you look at it, it cost us 1 or 2
months, probably a little more, actually, when it is all said
and done, and we are struggling with this weld.
The move of the date was more related to the fact that we
are having the technical challenges with this weld schedule
that we have got to go do. I think that is probably the best
summary. I hope I got that for you, sir.
SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM STATUS
Mr. Palazzo. That works well. And so going back to the
tornados that went through Michoud, and because the majority of
the SLS components are manufactured there, including the
welding, you said--I think you just said it might be a 1- to 2-
month delay. Is that all you see from the damage that happened
at Michoud or could there be more slippage?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. We are looking at that now, right. We
owe a report back probably next week, I think, is when we are
having the meeting.
The tornado was part of it. The weld schedule is another
part of it, and we are trying to assess where that is. The
tornado wasn't the only thing. It was the weld and the tornado
coming through.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Apollo 17 was known as the last
moonshot, and it put three astronauts on the Moon. It launched
December 7, 1972, almost 45 years ago.
There are a lot of discussions over the past few years
about a decimation in getting back to deep space. And the
President has even talked about trying to get a man to Mars in
the 2020s. Can we do this? And what will it take to get a man
back on the Moon and eventually to Mars?
Mr. Lightfoot. My current plan right now is we are looking
at roughly--when we look at a horizon goal of getting to Mars,
we look at 2033 as being a good opportunity. There are certain
windows that are better for getting to Mars than others. We are
looking at 2033.
The way we are doing this is we are using the International
Space Station today as our jumping off point where we can get
all the technologies developed, understand everything that is
happening to the human body, right, and then, frankly, enabling
a commercial industry. We give them a destination and we give
them the opportunity to get their systems down.
We will slowly progress out, take a stepping stone process
to get us out and around the Moon to test further systems that
we are going to need. It won't be as big as we have in low
Earth orbit, but there will be systems that we can actually
use. Think about a backbone or an infrastructure that we can
then use. From there, we will test those systems for longer
duration, because we need to be good for 2 to 3 years when we
talk about going to Mars. Test those systems out and then move
toward going out to the next step to Mars.
We look at the decade of the 2020s as kind of our time to
prove all that out in the--get those systems ready to go so
that we can then go in 2033 to Mars. It is kind of a stepping-
stone approach, right, that we have. We don't assume any--we
pretty much assume the current services that we have budgetwise
today with an increase in inflation as we go forward. That is
what we assume when we are making these plans. I think that is
kind of a methodical approach that we take, a systems approach
to getting there, and I think it is the right way to do it.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, I appreciate that response.
And I would like just to mention that I do think it is
important to be focusing on planetary sciences and looking out.
There is already over a dozen Federal agencies that study our
Earth, but there is only one agency tasked with space
exploration, and that is NASA. And with limited funds, flat
funding, and budgets, I think our resources are better spent,
you know, exploring the deep space and not focused on what
other agencies are already doing.
Mr. Lightfoot. I understand. One thing, just for
consideration, there is a lot of analog to learning about Earth
and how it plays with the other planets, because Earth is a
planet as well. How Earth evolves, we learn a lot from learning
about Earth on what could happen to Mars and what could happen
to Venus. There is a value for us in learning about Earth as
well. I understand your point.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Palazzo.
I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from New York,
Ms. Meng.
Congresswoman Meng Opening Remarks
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to Mr. Administrator for being here today and
for all this very interesting work. As a new member of the
committee, I am learning a lot.
I want to, first, thank you and NASA for conducting so much
important research on the commercial air transportation system
and flight noise situations. And I just wanted to get your take
on why research of excessive flight noise and noise mitigation
is important to NASA and to our country.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. Well, clearly, aviation travel has
become a big deal now. I mean, it has gotten routine for those
of us that travel a lot, and we like to say NASA is with you
when you fly. There is a lot of systems on every airplane and
in every airport that we have worked with our partners in the
FAA to develop over time.
Noise mitigation is a clear one, right, when you have so
many people moving in closer and closer to airports. We have
what is called technical challenges in our aeronautics area
that work on aviation safety. They work on the environmental
responsive activities that we do, whether it is cleaner fuel or
whatever it is that we use for aircraft, but they also do noise
abatement as well.
All of those are critical to us in terms of making sure
that our aviation industry is a good neighbor for everyone,
what they are dealing with, but also still being reactive to
what we need as customers in that arena as well. That is what
we think our role is.
AIRCRAFT NOISE MITIGATION
Ms. Meng. For noise mitigation, from an environmental
perspective or a safety perspective, why is noise mitigation
important?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think--well, noise mitigation is really
the good neighbor, right. I mean, if you think about
environmental, environmental is not just biofuels and things
like that. It is also the noise pollution, right. Our job is,
again, as things move closer and closer around airports, you
have got to be a good neighbor.
I think that is some of the stuff we are trying to do to
decrease the noise levels and help set those better.
Ms. Meng. Do you think there is more that the Federal
Government can do, whether it is NASA or other agencies, to
combat this issue of noise mitigation? My district is in
between the two airports, LaGuardia and JFK in Queens, New
York. New York is considered to be the busiest and most complex
air space in the country.
Currently, NASA invests in aircraft technology such as the
X-Plane and air traffic management and operations, which would
limit the effect of noise and amount of time planes are spent
hovering low over neighborhoods. What are you doing in the
coming year to address airplane noise?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, like I say, we have a program and
several activities in place. What I would like to do, if it is
OK, is get my team up here and let them bring you exactly what
we are doing in that arena. I think that would be better than
me trying to try to pull it off the top of my head. If I could
do that, I think you would find it fascinating what the teams
are trying to do.
Ms. Meng. And do you have any suggestions if other agencies
could do more to be helpful in this area?
Mr. Lightfoot. I am just not familiar enough to know. I
mean, we work with FAA on these things quite often, obviously.
They are a partner for us. When the teams come up, we will make
sure they bring that forward if that is OK.
Ms. Meng. OK. Thank you.
Another question. The amount of manmade debris orbiting
Earth grows every year disrupting our satellites and putting
astronauts in harm's way. If current trends in space junk
continue, low Earth orbit could become unusable for our future
satellites and missions. We heavily depend on the communication
capabilities provided by these satellites, and I am concerned
about the economic impact of future space debris collisions and
what that would mean for our communications infrastructure.
What is NASA currently doing to mitigate space debris? And
are there plans to actually remove debris? And how is NASA
planning to increase these activities moving forward?
Mr. Lightfoot. Right now, in--I will take that in pieces.
Today when we launch, we have requirements that will make us
de-orbit things, like the second stages of rockets. We have to
carry enough fuel to be able to de-orbit so they don't stay up
there. That is one thing that we do, and everybody has to do
that.
We didn't do that back in the 1970s and the 1960s, so there
is a lot of stuff still up there. The only thing we are doing
inside NASA is we are working on technologies, very small
amount. I don't want to imply that there is a big amount here,
but it is a very small amount on technology and studies around
what you could do.
We haven't had the charter to go do that. I am not sure
that is our charter necessarily, but we know it is a risk. We
all understand it is a risk going forward. So far, that is what
we have been doing as far as orbited debris goes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
I will recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
Jenkins.
Congressman Jenkins Opening Remarks
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, thank you for being here.
Chairman Rogers referenced Rocket Boys and October Sky. I
am proud to be the Congressman from the Third Congressional
District, and talked to Homer Hickam just a couple of weeks
ago. He is doing well, and we are certainly very proud of that
kind of ingenuity and spirit from our State.
NASA EDUCATION
Also similar to Congressman Rogers, talking about the
education, you know, we are not Florida. We are not Texas, but
NASA has a real impact. And I know we have some of the
brightest minds that, when given the chance to compete, they
win. Look at the centennial challenge. You are nodding. I
appreciate it. You know where I am going with this.
Our WVU students in 2014 won the level one challenge. For
those who aren't familiar, this is where NASA has challenged
the citizens, the public, to say help us, NASA, solve big
problems and issues. And you put out the marker making it a
competition, and West Virginians stepped up to the plate in
2014. WVU students won level one. And in 2015, 2016, the only
team to have won a level two twice.
So whether it be Homer Heckam from Rocket Boys to WVU
students winning national competitions, there is a lot of
exciting things and capabilities and talents from West
Virginians.
I want to go back to your opening statement where you talk
about consistency of purpose. You identified the three areas of
influence and your mission statements. And then, again,
Chairman Rogers raised the issue about the same concerns I
have, the defunding, the elimination of the Office of
Education, the EPSCoR programs, things that are so important to
a State like West Virginia that doesn't have the big NASA
assets but is doing good work in support of NASA.
In one of your previous answers, you said, well, we are
doing this to, quote, be more efficient in a different way. And
I would like for you to explain for me a little more about how
you were taking these programs that are proving very successful
in my State, and are you able to reassure me that while, yes,
we are zeroing out here, we can reassure you that we are going
to be efficient and effective but just in a different way, and
you will continue to have that level of support.
I want to understand what being more effective in a
different way really means and how that impacts the programs
that mean so much in West Virginia.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. I think the way we look at it in the
Agency is, what we found is that we have an education program,
right. We have outreach that a lot of the mission support--or
missions do on their own. How can we sync those together so
that they actually get--we get an economy of scale between the
two instead of them being stovepiped?
In the example you used with WVU, that actually is not an
education program, that was actually in our Space Technology
Mission Directorate. We are looking at the centennial
challenges there, right, where the guys were working there. We
are looking at where we can use our missions more instead of a
stovepiped education thing so that we can leverage what we need
in our missions and get, just like you said, get the kids
engaged in solving those solutions for us.
We really--we started this long before the budget
discussion as part of our baseline services activity we have
been doing, not just in education and outreach, but in
procurement and human capital and other areas to say, how can
we leverage our things better and run the agency a little more
efficiently?
That is what I mean by effective and efficient. If we can
start connecting the dots between what the missions need and
the money they are already spending and engage using some of
the way we think about engaging the educational institutions so
we can go forward.
Space technology has their--they have a research fellowship
that is still in there. We have the STEM science activation
program that science does still, those kind of activities, and
then there is a university innovation and challenges activity
that is in aeronautics. So we are using our missions to fund
those kind of things to engage the workforce.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, 10, 15 years ago, I served on the EPSCoR
advisory board. So are you--I want to try to cut to the chase,
are you telling me that the EPSCoR funding or similar funding
will still be there but from a different source or are you
cutting out that funding and just going to be doing other
things in other areas that are more efficient?
My direct question is, will EPSCoR funding be there in some
form or fashion and the other kind of education resources that
have been provided?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. We have proposed no EPSCoR space grant
from your end. There is nothing proposed there. We are going to
see how can we get similar results in a different way. It is
definitely not in there.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I will be going to bat because I do
believe EPSCoR has been very effective. That is how we are able
to compete, these students. So I appreciate your directness
and, again, look forward to working with the chair and the
committee to try to advance the priorities that I think are
important from a funding standpoint.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Cartwright.
Congressman Cartwright Opening Remarks
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Culberson and Ranking
Member Serrano.
Mr. Lightfoot, thank you for being here this afternoon.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed cuts to
NASA's climate science programs. The administration has
expressed the view that NASA should be focused on outer space
and leave the job of observing Earth to other agencies. But
NASA's unparalleled experience and expertise in developing new
observational technologies and launching satellites makes it a
crucial part of the Earth Science enterprise. NASA's wealth of
engineering expertise is virtually impossible to replicate in
other agencies.
NASA EARTH SCIENCE
Now, while NASA's fiscal year 2018 overall budget proposes
only a 0.8 percent cut, it proposes reducing funding for Earth
Science by as much as 9 percent. Now, to achieve this 9 percent
reduction, which is hugely out of line with the cuts and the
other part of the budget for NASA, to achieve this, funding for
five Earth-observing missions is completely eliminated. These
missions would plug crucial gaps in our understanding of
Earth's complex climate and how it is changing.
The first question I have for you is about OCO-3. The
budget terminates Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3, OCO-3, which
measures carbon dioxides from space. The administration's
budget justification explains that OCO-2 is already measuring
what we need, but this isn't quite the case.
OCO-3 improves on at least two OCO-2 limitations. It would
be able to measure carbon fluxes at different times of the day
and it could pinpoint specific locations on Earth to, for
example, measure emissions from different cities, land versus
ocean ecosystems, and detect signs for drought stress in crops
before such signs become visible to the naked eye. These are
things that the OCO-2 cannot do.
Is it the administration's belief that we don't need to
know where carbon emissions are coming from? Is there some
other way to get that data that OCO-3 would provide?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, for OCO-3 in particular, what we did
is we--I think I said, and you may not have been here. What we
did is we did kind of a systems engineering approach to all the
Earth Science missions and said where can we get the data that
is there, and which ones from a standpoint of the science, as
defined in the Decadals, the performance of their--the current
performance in terms of how they are performing to get ready to
fly, were the way we looked at this, and then where can we get
the data from somewhere else, even if it is not at the
resolution that folks want, from a risk perspective, right.
That is how we made the decisions that we made with CLARREO
Pathfinder, OCO-3, RBI, and PACE. I mean, that is the way we
step through it trying to balance the entire portfolio. We
still have 20 operating missions. We still have an airborne
science campaign. We still believe we are spending $1.7 billion
on Earth Science and have a pretty good portfolio to allow us
to understand what is happening here.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Next question. The budget
proposes elimination of the Climate Absolute Radiance and
Refractivity Observatory, CLARREO, CLARREO Pathfinder, an
instrument designed to improve a source of uncertainty in
climate science, one that comes from Earth-observing
instruments themselves. CLARREO offers scientists the data they
need to produce highly accurate climate records as well as
refine and test climate projections, the kind of projections
that might inform decisions on how to respond to rising sea
levels, rising global temperatures, declining air quality.
CLARREO was identified as a high-priority NASA mission in
the previous Earth Science decadal survey. NASA has labeled the
CLARREO Pathfinder mission a risk-reduction mission. How does
its elimination affect the goals of CLARREO and CLARREO's
future launch? And does NASA plan to continue the CLARREO
program in general?
Mr. Lightfoot. When we did CLARREO Pathfinder--the reason
we didn't do CLARREO to start with is because it was a very
expensive mission, potentially over a billion-dollar mission.
What we want to do is use Pathfinder, which we can put on the
International Space Station, utilize the International Space
Station, to do risk reduction toward the bigger mission down
the road.
With a new decadal coming out this year, in 2017, we
cancelled Pathfinder to see how CLARREO actually ranked in this
next decadal before we actually talk about spending that kind
of money going forward. That is why we have cancelled
Pathfinder, to see what the decadal says coming back.
Mr. Cartwright. I thank you, Mr. Lightfoot.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Cartwright.
I recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
Congresswoman Roby Opening Remarks
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator, for being here today.
Great nations dare greatly, and the exploration of space is
an unlimited challenge but one that the United States dared to
pursue and an area where we have led from the 1960's into this
new century. Recently our resolve to lead in the exploration of
space has faltered. And I am very hopeful in this Congress, and
this new administration, that we have a chance to regain the
initiative and reaffirm our leadership into space.
And I share concerns that my colleagues have already shared
with you. But I know with your background and in your current
position, you obviously understand the important role that
Marshall Space Flight Center, located in Huntsville, plays in
NASA's vision in testing and operations into deep space. You
have already talked somewhat at length about SLS and the
missions even into the outyears, so we won't go over that
again.
NUCLEAR THERMAL PROPULSION
I do, however, want to talk about NASA's plan for nuclear
thermal propulsion technology. If you could just kind of go
over the scope, the schedule, and the cost of the initial test
for this on the ground, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Lightfoot. What we are trying to do is do some of the
early technology risk reduction in nuclear thermal propulsion.
A lot of that has got to do with materials. We have got some
work that we were doing in 2017, in the 2017 budget, I think 35
million in space technology to work on different options to get
us to kind of, I don't want to say a down select, that is a
little strong, but to get us to see which path we need to take,
because the next step is going to be a pretty big one for
nuclear thermal propulsion.
We think nuclear thermal propulsion gives us an option to
reduce the transit time. I mean, that is the value proposition
of that so that we can keep crews--we can get crews to and from
quicker from the radiation perspective. It also gives us some
other advantages on some deeper space probes that we could use,
some early looks at doing things faster.
Right now, it is really just a technology development
program trying to knock down some of the what I would call the
risks associated with materials going into that.
Mrs. Roby. There are no specific target dates or a
timeline?
Mr. Lightfoot. Not yet. Not until we understand the--not
until we get a feel if the technology can actually be done,
because I don't really want to put a date out there if we don't
know what is in front of us yet.
Mrs. Roby. Sure. I understand. Just please keep us posted.
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes.
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Mrs. Roby. My next question is about the additive
manufacturing on rocket propulsion. And in the fiscal year 2017
Consolidated Appropriations Act, enacted just a few weeks ago,
Congress provided 25 million in funding to continue additive
manufacturing efforts. So what is the plan for this
appropriation? Does NASA intend to allocate the entire 25
million Congress appropriated for this project? If not, why?
And maybe talk a little bit about what NASA centers are
involved and what roles they are playing here.
Mr. Lightfoot. Additive manufacturing is a game changer for
everybody. It is an interesting way to manufacture. From a
propulsion perspective, we think there is a big advantage in
engine parts and simpler engine designs. Some of our commercial
folks are doing this already and proving that it works pretty
well.
We are looking at a lot of the material properties that
come with additive manufacturing going forward. We know it is
in the 2017 appropriations direction. You will see that when
the operating plan comes up. Going forward, we intend to spend
the 25 million on that. That is our plan right now.
Mrs. Roby. Well, it is absolutely fascinating to see, and
like you said, a huge step.
So with the risk of knowing that this might upset half of
my constituency, I would be remiss if I did not tell you,
``Roll Tide.'' We are very proud of you, and all the time that
you have spent in Alabama, and congratulate you on this role,
and look forward to working with you down the road. So thank
you, again, for being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mrs. Roby.
It is my pleasure to introduce the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Aderholt.
Congressman Aderholt Opening Remarks
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, welcome. Good to have you here today. And
thank you for your many years of service to this country as an
employee and manager at NASA. I have enjoyed having a chance to
work with you over the last several years.
Of course, NASA is an Agency whose budget has been
constrained for many decades, especially when you compare it to
a lot of other agencies here in Washington. So your
accomplishments and your service are certainly much
appreciated.
Americans and really, I think, the entire world are very
interested in your Agency and it is impossible to cover all the
topics in one hearing, but I do want to touch base on just a
couple of things, and I want to follow up with one of the
issues that we just were referring to.
Some Members, such as myself, voted for the NASA
authorization bill in 2010 with the understanding that SLS and
Orion would be supported by the administration with a launch
date of late 2017 or early 2018. That support turned out to be
tepid with a low budget request.
That bill also included an administration priority, the
creation of a new space technology account. It is not easy for
Congress to shoehorn a new account of over $500 million into a
tight top-line budget.
Solar electric propulsion has been robustly funded and
holds promise of prepositioning supplies as part of a deep
space mission. Its slow speed, however, makes it too slow to
consider for human transport to Mars, as it was noted in the
Augustine Commission.
NUCLEAR THERMAL PROPULSION ACTIVITIES
As we have just noted here with my colleague from Alabama,
nuclear thermal propulsion could be added to our family of
propulsion systems to provide a shorter and safer journey to
Mars for human mission and it would make more time available on
mission once the astronauts arrive. Congress directed 35
million to be spent on nuclear thermal propulsion in the fiscal
year 2017 bill.
My question, does NASA have a plan yet for focusing on
those contracts, on work related to propulsion, or are the
funds being broken up and used for nuclear work not related to
propulsion?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think we have a plan. I can't speak at the
level of detail for the contracts. I would have to bring you
that information. I would probably need to bring it to you for
2017. I know we are building out a plan now where the 35
million is actually all being spent and how we are actually
deploying it out. If it is OK, I would like to take that for
the record.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, please.
But you see where I am going with this and how we might
could try to address that.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
NASA CONTRACTING
Mr. Aderholt. The other thing is I just want to mention
contracting philosophy. There is no type of contract that is
perfect, as you well know, and the FAR contracts have received
a lot of blame for past problems. After all, it is my
understanding it is possible to put penalties into contracts.
FAR contracts offer opportunities to audit work and to know
where the taxpayer dollars are actually spent. They offer the
opportunity for companies to lodge a complaint with the GAO if
competition criteria were changed midstream.
OTA contracts do not offer the taxpayer the same
protections. When a company has already developed its hardware
with its own money and has a healthy business model, even
without government contracts, OTA agreements can be helpful.
Although the commercial cargo and commercial crew programs were
presented by the previous administration as merely purchasing
services, in reality the taxpayer is paying 80 percent or more
to develop hardware for the big ticket projects.
Moreover, to assume that a FAR contract would be more
expensive is essentially a straw man argument. When a company
proposes to take astronauts to the International Space Station
for $20 million a seat, and then in 2017 the estimate is almost
$60 million a seat, the question is, why is the estimate 300
percent off the real price?
If NASA were any kind of business, someone would certainly
be held accountable for a big cost estimate mistake, especially
when that first price is used as a reason for abandoning a FAR
contract and a transparent competition process.
We need a more vigorous assessment of commercial launch
programs which compare the promises to the results, not a
comparison with the unsupported assumption that a FAR contract
would have been more expensive.
Let me say, I think that public-private partnerships are
good when the private investment is openly reported and when
the taxpayer is protected by realtime penalties instead of
possible discounts for a service that will be in the future.
So I just wanted to ask you, would you be open to creating
more transparency and more reporting in regard to contracts
overall?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think, for us, we use the entire spectrum
of our acquisition strategy process. I mean, we have several
mechanisms we can use, several vehicles, including things in
the NASA FAR supplement.
We are learning how to do this public-private partnership
as well, right, and the kind of things that we need to learn. I
think what I would commit is we are going to learn from these
and we are going to make sure we are doing the right thing for
the taxpayer on anything we do in the future. I think there is
an advantage with public-private partnerships for us to get
services and even products in a different way.
What we do--or what I do, I actually chair most of these
discussions--is the acquisition strategy meetings where we
actually decide what kind of mechanism are we going to use, and
every time we bring in the lessons learned from the last time
to make sure we are doing the right thing. That is what I will
commit to you, that we use the lessons learned.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, let me say, again, public-private
partnerships are good when the private investment is openly
reported. And I think that at the bottom line we want to
protect the taxpayer.
So thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Administrator, NASA yesterday announced the newest
astronaut candidate class of 12 highly qualified individuals,
as you said, from over 18,300 applicants. We congratulate them
and I know everyone on the subcommittee joins me in saying how
pleased and excited we are to be able to support them in the
years ahead as they engage in one of the greatest of human
adventures.
HUMAN EXPLORATION BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT
Given that NASA continues to recruit and train new
astronauts, would you please describe the Deep Space Gateway
concept which sets a goal for human space exploration beyond
low-Earth orbit and which could support multiple missions in
cislunar space on the path towards eventually sending humans to
Mars?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. What we have been looking at is what is
the infrastructure we need, the kind of backbone for doing this
human exploration that we want to go do. We, at very much a
conceptual level, we started talking about the systems we are
going to need in cislunar space, around the Moon basically,
that we can then use to either do work at the Moon or use to
progress our missions out further into space, Mars, wherever we
want to go.
So a simplified version of that is, can we set up really
three pieces, a habitat, a power propulsion module, and an air
lock, right, is really the kind of the core of this thing.
Imagine this as a node that is out there around the Moon. You
can go there. You can dock. You can do telerobotic operations
in the Moon. You can move this around using solar electric
propulsion that we had from the ARM or move this gateway
around. You can also connect there with whatever you are going
to take, the vehicle you are going to go to Mars in, and you
can use that as the node where you leave from there to go out.
We think it is a good structure. It offers a lot of
opportunities for our international partners to engage with
things they may want to do at the Moon, but also to help us
with what we need to do. It offers opportunities for private
industry. We have a lot of folks that have come to us and
talked to us about how they could utilize going to the Moon and
use this as an opportunity.
We are excited because of the Space Launch System, the
advantage to the Space Launch System, and what it does. We can
actually carry the crew and the pieces in the trunk of the
Space Launch System because of its lift capability. If we need
to do anything, we will have the crew there with it when we are
deploying those things out in cislunar space.
We really think that it really opens things up for us in
terms of taking those next steps. What we have done, from a
planning perspective, at a really high level, and we are still
working with the administration on this, is we put in kind of
what each exploration mission with the SLS and Orion would do,
and which part it would take, and how we would put that in
place in the decade of the 2020's.
So that is kind of our notional plan at a conceptual level.
We think it really does--it is done within the current
resources we have, considering escalation. We didn't assume
anything extra. That is just kind of how we put it together.
That is what we are trying to do from a human exploration
perspective.
Mr. Culberson. So the first launch of the first piece of
this would be approximately when?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, right now we are notionally saying
EM2. When we take the first crew, we would like to take the
power propulsion module in the trunk when we go.
Mr. Culberson. That is terrific.
This power propulsion module would essentially be like a
solar electric propulsion system?
Mr. Lightfoot. It would build right off the bus that we had
for the Asteroid Redirect Mission.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. It would build off that bus. We would
probably make it smaller than we were going to have for
Asteroid Redirect Mission. The smaller part is actually good
for us because it is more commercially viable for other uses of
a solar electric propulsion bus. The one we were using for the
Asteroid Redirect Mission was a little larger than anybody
would really need for GEO or anywhere else that they want to go
do.
I think the advantage is that it kind of gives us--it puts
us in kind of a leadership role in cislunar where people can
come work with us going forward.
Mr. Culberson. In essence, you would be assembling a
smaller version of the space station in polar orbit around the
Moon?
Mr. Lightfoot. We would be able to move it where we wanted
to move it.
Mr. Culberson. Because it is solar electric propulsion. But
it would be a smaller version of the space station?
Mr. Lightfoot. A lot smaller.
Mr. Culberson. A lot smaller.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. Again, just kind of a stopping point,
not really a place to stay. It would be human tended and not be
there the full time with folks, but people could use it.
Mr. Culberson. Couldn't you also use it for returning
samples from deep space, from the asteroid Bennu or from, for
example, Mars 2020, it could be used to stage samples returning
to Earth?
Mr. Lightfoot. That is what we think, and then you
basically have a system that gets you from Moon to Earth, and
you have one that can go anywhere, and it becomes the hub that
you go back to.
MARS 2020
Mr. Culberson. Talk to us, if you could, a little bit about
Mars 2020. This was one of the top recommendations of the
Planetary Decadal Survey. How is Mars 2020 mission progressing?
Are there any concerns with meeting the 2020 launch date? And
what are the plans for collecting and returning to Earth
samples collected on Mars 2020?
Mr. Lightfoot. The teams are doing great. We have had
several reviews on it. We look like we are performing. The
heritage system, the ones we basically brought from the current
Curiosity rover that is on Mars now, they are being put
together pretty well. The instruments are having what I would
call typical challenges as they go through there. We did
critical design review here recently, I got an outbrief on
that, and things are going well. I think we are on track for
2020. It looks good.
Mr. Culberson. For 2020 launch?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Terrific. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano.
FUTURE OF NASA
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are on the track that I was going to lead you into
already. Some of the members have asked the chairman has asked
a lot of questions. And that is, basically, what do you see as
the future of NASA?
The reason for that is, there was an excitement, and I
think it is missing from the public. And it might be related to
manned travel, or, you know, man/female travel. As long as
humans are on the ship, then it makes for excitement. When they
are not, then it doesn't make for excitement. But at one time
that is all you spoke about. And now you have Members of
Congress opposing the NASA budget. In fact, I don't want to get
partisan, but Vice President Pence, when he was here in the
House, proposed getting rid of the Moon/Mars program.
So what do you see as the future of NASA? Or does NASA have
a public relations problem that there is more going on than the
public knows?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I will probably leave the public
relations part out. I am not a public relations expert.
Here is what I see the future of NASA. I think our job is
pretty fundamental. We do advanced research, we lead discovery,
and we gain new knowledge for this Nation and, frankly, for the
world. Part of that is extending humans further into space.
Part of it is the scientific discoveries we make, and I think
that is just advancing human knowledge. That is what we do.
Now, that may not be enough to excite people, but I think it is
incredible what we do.
The other pieces that come with that is, I believe NASA has
a role in the economic development of this country, and what we
do for the industrial base, that is shared by so many other
folks in terms of the advances we make and where we go. I
believe we are, frankly, a strong part of our foreign policy
with our global engagement and diplomacy. If you look at what
the International Space Station has done and where we are
there, it is another piece that we do going forward.
Our discoveries will continue to inspire. Whether they are
human or scientific, they continue to inspire. I actually don't
agree that we are not inspiring people. I think we still do
just because of the people that follow us and pay attention to
what we are doing.
I think that is what we will continue to do. We will
continue to make the civilization-level discoveries that we do.
That is why we are here. I can't predict them. I can only know
that we are sending the right missions based on what we are
told by our advisers in the national academies on the science
side, based on our advisers in aeronautics, we are doing the
kind of game-changing aeronautics we need to do.
From a human perspective, it is just written in our DNA to
explore. I think as long as we are exploring--I mean, we have
been on the space station for 16 straight years. That ship is
tended. There are humans there. Peggy Whitson just passed the
record for the longest amount of time in space. She is an
amazing lady. I just think we will continue that. She inspires
folks every day, is what she is doing.
Mr. Serrano. How many years, you said?
Mr. Lightfoot. We have had a continuous crew for 16 years
on the International Space Station. Not the same person. Every
six months we rotate. For 16 years there have been people on
the International Space Station.
Mr. Serrano. That is incredible.
Mr. Lightfoot. One of the things I like to say is if your
kid just got their driver's license--most kids get them at 16--
there has always been someone in space the entire time they
have been alive.
Mr. Serrano. Wow. Well, I am glad to hear your enthusiasm
about the future, because I was getting concerned, and so were
some people I know, about how excited is the American public
about the NASA program and what it means. And with some of the
things you told the Chairman that are in the works and the
plans, it may revive what appears to have been lost. And I will
use the word ``appears.''
Secondly, let me tell you that I witnessed, as all Members
of Congress have, the great feeling you get in a school
building when an astronaut visits. I don't know if you have
ever had that experience.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. I mean, it is just absolutely incredible. I
mean, these are heroes. This is something children from
everywhere in the world understand, the unknown, the space
travel, the rocket ships, or whatever.
I remember we had a ceremony once where we had flown a
flag, we were presenting it to a school, and the astronaut came
to present it. Well, most of the people then, ``What did you go
to today?'' ``Well, I went to see an astronaut.'' No, you went
to see a flag being presented to a school, but it became that
kind of thing. So please keep that kind of work up.
NASA AERONAUTICS
And let me just ask you one last question. The
administration is proposing a 36 million dollar cut to the
Aeronautics Account--that is what I get for not wearing my
glasses--which supports technological advances to our air
transportation system and the aviation industry.
At a time when the global economy is extremely competitive,
don't you think this cut is ill-advised if we are to maintain
U.S. technological leadership in the aviation industry? Also,
could you explain the most recent achievements attained as a
result of our subcommittee funding this account and how the
American people benefit from it?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. There are several things there.
Aeronautics. There is a new initiative called New Aviation
Horizon which has several pieces in it. For the first time in--
I guess I just don't know when--but for the first time we have
an X-plane. This is going to be the X-plane program, which is
what NASA used to do in their heyday in aeronautics.
The first one is a low-boom supersonic demonstrator or
flight demonstrator. This is for us to demonstrate that you can
actually fly supersonic across the United States. Today you
can't legally do that because of the sonic boom. We think that
opens an entire industry in this Nation. We need to go--we,
NASA--need to go make sure we have got the technology to allow
us to do it, and then give it to the industry and let them run
with it and create the aircraft they need.
The other things that we do with the budget we have got is
the air traffic management--big, big issue with us--with our
partners at FAA. We do a great job with those guys.
The last thing I will say that we are really working on a
lot is the traffic management of drones. Our teams are working
really, really hard with the FAA and building the systems that
we would do to do traffic management around the unmanned
aircraft systems, the UTM, the traffic management of these
unmanned drones flying around. Our teams are leading the way
there with the research we are doing at Ames Research Center in
particular. They are just doing a great job leading that.
I think that is what you are getting, and I think that is
what our customers are getting. I consider our customers our
taxpayers out there.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
I will leave you with this thought. Since I represent the
Bronx, New York, if you could send the Red Sox on a long, long
trip, I will be very grateful.
Thank you. Thank you for your work, and thank you for your
service to our country.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the
ranking member except for the part about baseball.
Mr. Lightfoot, I want to follow up. The administration is
proposing to terminate the NASA Office of Education. The
requested fiscal year 2018 budget for the office would support
only the closeout and transition of existing activities. As you
did include in your testimony, the Science Mission Directorate,
SMD, would continue to support certain educational activities,
but not the existing programs of the Office of Education.
NASA EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The question is, why has the administration chosen not to
support programs such as the Space Grant Consortia, the NASA
established program to stimulate competitive research, as well
as the Minority University Research and Education Project?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think for us, as I said earlier, I think
it is just a way of looking at more efficiently and effectively
measuring our input with the community and how do we engage
these students.
The activities that our mission directorates do, the
Centennial Challenges that the gentleman from West Virginia
talked about earlier, those are the kind of ways that we think
we can engage and still get the--we won't get the same. I am
not going to try to fool you and say we get the same engagement
today that we do with what we have today. That is the way we
are going to try to pull our outreach and education together to
actually implement this new plan here.
The Office of Education itself, the actual office, one of
the reasons that we--we wanted to figure out a better way to
run that instead of having it--and so that is something that is
going to happen either way. We are going to figure out a way to
run that differently, to be a more effective delivery arm for
what we want to do with our education programs.
That is the proposal that is out there, and we think we are
going to try to balance the outreach and the education as best
we can to still reach as many folks as we can.
Mr. Cartwright. And I wanted to ask you about the analysis
leading up to that. Was it a determination that the Office of
Education wasn't working well or was it just we have to save
some money?
Mr. Lightfoot. A little of both.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. What analysis has the administration
conducted to determine the impact of ending these particular
programs?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think what we did is we looked at some of
the metrics that we have related to the effectiveness of some
of those campaigns that we do. Again, in the tight budget
considerations we had, we just had to make some decisions
around that. That is what we did.
Mr. Cartwright. Can you speak to how the closeout of NASA
EPSCoR being coordinated with other agencies will be affected,
other agencies that have EPSCoR programs?
Mr. Lightfoot. I would probably have to take that one for
the record, if that is OK, because I am not sure I know that
off the top of my head in terms of exactly how they impact. I
know we are coordinating with them. That is why we got the
money in 2018 to do that, but the exact coordination, I would
rather bring that back, if that is OK.
Mr. Cartwright. Absolutely OK. I would rather not have you
just wing it.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH
Mr. Cartwright. Now, the proposed budget includes a steep
$59 million cut to Earth science research grants, and this
could have a significant impact on the U.S.'s global leadership
in science. Has there been a decrease in applications for these
grants?
Mr. Lightfoot. No. I think it was just, again, a balancing
that we were trying to do internal to all the grants that we
do. That is where we went.
Mr. Cartwright. Can you speak to what extent would reducing
this funding reduce the return on NASA's past investments in
developing and launching Earth science satellites?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, we still continue to launch
satellites. We are going to launch two in 2018. We still have
20 missions up there. We still have our science research and
analysis activities that go on where we do the research and
analysis. This is just doing--it is just less money in that
area, but we are still going to be doing that kind of
assessment and analysis.
Mr. Cartwright. Can you talk to us about what impact the
proposed reductions would have on Earth science researchers and
graduate students at United States universities?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think, again, it depends on how much we
have out there to provide those grants. We don't know that
complete impact at this time. We just know that we will still
have folks doing work and doing work in these areas. I just
can't tell you exactly what the impact would be until we
implement it.
Mr. Cartwright. I thank you, Mr. Lightfoot.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
Administrator, I wanted to ask about the cost of an SLS
launch. It is a very large, capable rocket that is urgently
needed to preserve American leadership in space exploration and
will dramatically decrease travel time to distant destinations.
The launch costs are going to be pivotal. When will that data
per cost of launch at SLS be available? And how much do you
anticipate it will cost for NASA to launch an SLS with a
science payload, for example?
Mr. Lightfoot. We are working on what we call the
production and ops mode because we are still in the first build
of these. What we are doing is we are putting out--we put out
requests for folks to tell us what would be the production and
ops cost so we can drive that down. We expect to see that
sometime later this summer. We will understand what it is going
to be once we start a cadence of flights as opposed to this
first build going forward.
Mr. Culberson. OK. What was the cost of the launch of the
shuttle, for example?
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, gosh. I will have to get you that.
Mr. Culberson. If you remember?
Mr. Lightfoot. I will provide that for the record.
Mr. Culberson. That is OK.
Can you talk to us about the length of time it will take
the SLS to reach Europa, for example, on the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle?
Mr. Lightfoot. The SLS versus an EELV? Is that what you are
saying?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. It is about 3, 3\1/2\ years. It is a pretty
dramatic difference.
Mr. Culberson. It makes a significant difference. And that
enables the scientists to do the data--see the data and do the
work that much earlier.
I have got some other questions I will submit for the
record. Do you want any others?
Mr. Serrano. I have one more to submit for the record.
Mr. Culberson. OK. Very good.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. No.
Mr. Culberson. All of us on this subcommittee are proud of
the work that you do at NASA and all the fine men and women
that make our space program the very best on Earth. We look
forward to continuing to support your work. We thank you very
much for joining us here today and for your service to the
Nation.
Thank you, very much, Mr. Lightfoot. The hearing is
adjourned.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you for your support.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]