[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
GRACE MENG, New York
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ED CASE, Hawaii
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, Matt Smith, BG Wright,
TJ Lowdermilk, Shannon McCully, and Trisha Castaneda
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 7
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy... 1
DOJ Community Relations Service....................... 43
Science , Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Engagement.................................. 69
NASA's Proposal to Advance the Next Moon Landing
by 4 Years......................................... 131
Additional Material................................... 203
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-448 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BARBARA LEE, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DEREK KILMER, Washington
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
KAY GRANGER, Texas
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
WILL HURD, Texas
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
----------
Wednesday, July 24, 2019.
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WITNESS
KELVIN DROEGEMEIER, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Mr. Serrano. We would like to welcome Dr. Kelvin
Droegemeier, Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Police, OSTP, to the subcommittee.
I'm sorry we couldn't give you an audience as big as the
other hearing, but I am sure you read----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. Members of the audience are
smiling, the TV cameras are missing, but I am sure that you
would rather be here than there, you know.
OSTP is the interagency science and technology policy
coordinator across the Federal Government and has a vital role
in advising the President with sound scientific and
technological advice.
That is a tough job under this administration. Since
January 2017, there has been a consistent effort to undermine
the Federal agencies that make the United States the world
leader in science and technology. In addition, there seems to
have been clear attempts to bury the unbiased research and
conclusions of the scientists who work for the Federal
Government.
Nowhere is that more prominent than in the discussion of
climate change. The Trump administration has pursued a
relentless agenda of climate change denial. By withdrawing from
the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and attempting to bury the
stunning conclusions of the Fourth National Climate Assessment,
this administration has shown that it is not committed to
addressing climate change.
Recently, a State Department intelligence official, Rod
Schoonover, spoke before the House Intelligence Committee about
the security risks the U.S. faces due to climate change. White
House officials refused to allow him to submit a written
statement that climate impacts could, quote, ``possibly be
catastrophic.'' He ended up resigning from the State Department
as a result of this incident.
Tackling climate change is not about scoring political
points; it is about confronting an immediate crisis that
affects the future of billions of people around the world. We
have a moral responsibility to address it now. Only those who
close their eyes cannot see the urgent need to act, but those
seem to be the very people you need to convince.
Unfortunately, that is not the only scientific controversy
in this administration. There are issues involving scientific
advisory boards, staffing at your office, and moving the
locations of science advisors out of Washington, DC. All of
these have an impact on the ability of our Nation to remain a
leader in the scientific fields.
This subcommittee is committed to continue to provide the
resources necessary to build the workforce of tomorrow, create
good-paying jobs at home, and advance scientific progress. In
the fiscal year 2020 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations
bill, we provided strong increases in funding for scientific
agencies like NSF, NIST, NOAA, and NASA.
In particular, this subcommittee has been very focused on
providing robust funding for STEM initiatives, to ensure that
young men and women of all backgrounds and geographic locations
have access to a STEM education. I have also been particularly
focused on fostering greater minority participation in STEM
research programs, so that the STEM field fully reflects the
great diversity of our Nation.
In addition, this committee, in a bipartisan manner, has
dedicated substantial resources to advancing space exploration
and maintaining U.S. leadership in space. While I support a
continued human presence in space, I remain concerned about the
estimated costs in excess of $20 billion over the next few
years to unnecessarily speed up by just 4 years the schedule
for returning American astronauts to the Moon. Arbitrarily
changing this schedule will have grave consequences for other
vital programs across the science fields and other programs
across the government.
And I want to just make a point on that. Mr. Aderholt and I
are big supporters of NASA, I just disagree with spending this
money on moving something up a couple of years. It is not that
we oppose going to the Moon; in fact, we are hoping to send
some people to stay there, but we won't mention those names
right now. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt and I may disagree again. But we
are big supporters and we intend to continue to work on that
together.
Thank you, once again, Director, for joining us today, and
I look forward to hearing your testimony.
I would like to recognize at this time the aforementioned
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. And,
now we have marked up the Commerce, Justice, Science bill for
fiscal year 2020 and it awaits further action, it is important
for the committee to hold these oversight hearings, and better
understand our agencies and programs under our jurisdiction.
And, of course, that is no other better than to have this
hearing today with the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Like the chairman, I would also like to welcome you to the
subcommittee, Mr. Droegemeier. And thank you for joining us
this morning, as the chairman mentioned, to talk about the
important work of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the fiscal year 2020 budget request, and
also the Administration's research and development priorities.
If I understand it correctly, you are the first
meteorologist to lead the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. And as someone with a very strong interest
in the weather and coming from an area of the country that is
prone to catastrophic tornadoes, I am very interested to learn
how your career and the extreme weather events, how it shapes
the vital work you perform at OSTP.
As the Director of OSTP, you have a very important job. Not
only do you formulate Federal R&D budgets and advise the White
House on such critical issues as quantum information science,
5G, and STEM education initiatives, but under your leadership
OSTP coordinates all science and technology policy across the
entire Federal Government. OSTP ensures that the United States
is pursuing the most effective interagency research initiative
and investing in cutting-edge industries, like artificial
intelligence and advanced manufacturing, to ensure that we are
equipped to continue leading the world in science and
technology, and that we are not falling behind our competitors,
for example, like China.
Here, on this committee, Commerce, Justice, Science
Subcommittee of Appropriations, we have a long history of
bipartisan support for investment in fundamental science
research. And, from time to time, we may disagree on how we
fund it and how to spend the best, as the chairman indicated,
and that may be the case, but our members on both sides of the
aisle recognize that research investment spurs innovation and
innovation drives the economy, it strengthens national
security, and ensures that the United States remains the global
leader in technology advancement.
And to ensure that the United States stays on that cutting
edge of technology, and remains competitive well into the
future and for future generations, we must continue to invest
in our Nation's students and in the STEM education programs.
The fiscal year 2020 budget request, the House passed
funding mark for the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
of course, is $5 million. Our goal today is really try to
better understand how this funding enables you at OSTP to
continue science initiatives to build our Nation's initiatives
for the future, pursue emerging technologies, and ensure that
the United States remains the world leader in innovative
research and also in technology.
With that, I look forward to your testimony this morning
and the thoughtful discussion that we will have ahead of us.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this important
hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Director Droegemeier, the plan is for you to make a 5-
minute statement. Your full statement will go in the record.
And after that, we will open up to questions under a strict 5-
minute rule. Sir.
Dr. Droegemeier. Very good. Good morning, everyone.
Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt, distinguished
members of the committee. It is truly my great honor to be here
to testify as Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. I look forward to discussing our priorities
at OSTP, our vision for science and technology in America, the
fiscal year 2020 budget, and of course your questions.
Now, as you know, last week marked the 50th anniversary of
the Apollo 11 Mission that landed the first man on the Moon.
This landmark achievement captured the attention of the entire
world and also sparked the scientific curiosity of every
American.
Now, a half a century later, our Nation has entered a new,
bold era in science and technology, and one that truly
leverages our uniquely American capabilities.
They are, first, substantial Federal Government funding of
basic and applied research; second, private companies that
collectively invest about $380 billion per year in research and
development; third, a post-secondary education system that
boasts some of the best research universities in the world;
fourth, non-profit organizations that invest tens of billions
of dollars per year in research; and, finally, a system of
National and Federal laboratories that are without equal
anywhere on Earth.
From all of these sectors combined have come breakthroughs
in medicine and physics, and engineering and biology, and many
other fields that allow us to tackle the greatest challenges of
our time and to help Americans live healthier, safer, and more
prosperous lives.
Now, as a university educator who has dedicated his entire
career to research, I truly believe in my heart there has never
been a better or more exciting time to be involved in research
than right now, right here in America. Since my confirmation
hearing last January, I have focused OSTP's efforts on
strengthening America's global leadership in science and
technology. And that means, among many other things, ensuring
that environments in which research is performed are set up to
foster discovery and innovation.
Toward that particular end, in May the National Science and
Technology Council, which actually sits within OSTP and which I
have the privilege of chairing on behalf of the President,
launched something we call the Joint Committee on Research
Environments, or JCORE.
JCORE's mission is to ensure that America's research
environments--and by that I mean the laboratory, the classroom,
the studio, the field, wherever research is done--upholds the
highest standards of integrity, ethics, and safety; that these
environments foster diversity, they promote productivity, they
are free from harassment, and they serve as a model to the
world by reflecting our core American values.
JCORE's four subcommittees address the following four
issues: research security, safe and inclusive research
environments, rigor and integrity in research, and reducing
research administrative burdens.
Now, although JCORE is a priority for OSTP, a wealth of
other exciting work is underway that touches many, many
critical areas I know that are of interest to you. To give you
a sense of that portfolio, we have made incredible progress in
supporting American leadership in Industries of the Future, as
we heard, advancing ocean science and technology, enhancing our
Nation's space weather preparedness, promoting our vibrant
bioeconomy, and strengthening partnerships within government
and the other sectors that I mentioned.
As OSTP Director, I have placed strong emphasis on STEM
education, enhancing diversity, and also on workforce
development. We believe, and I believe personally, that
Americans of all backgrounds should have access to STEM
education and skills, with special attention to lifelong
learning, to nontraditional educational pathways into the
skilled technical workforce. In fact, OSTP released a national
strategy for STEM education last winter and we are now taking
steps to coordinate its implementation.
Another important core duty of OSTP's is to assist the
Nation in setting R&D priorities for our Federal agencies. In
collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget, we are
currently in the process of developing the fiscal year 2021
Budget Priorities Memo, which is set for release later this
summer.
The Administration's fiscal year 2020 proposed budget for
research and development put forward a robust vision for
strategic investment in Industries of the Future, in the
security of the American people, while also supporting basic
R&D across the Federal Government enterprise. Central to that
approach is a commitment to responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars, adherence to statutory budget caps, and recognition
that we must fully and effectively leverage our entire multi-
sector R&D ecosystem.
And, finally, let me add that it is my personal great
privilege to lead a very talented and very diverse staff at
OSTP. This office features some of our Nation's foremost
leaders in artificial intelligence, and ocean science and
neuroscience, medical science, quantum computing, and many,
many other fields.
We are making extraordinary progress to advance America's
science and technology leadership, and I am really, really
proud to be here to share it with you today. And I truly, in
the months coming forward, look forward to working with you,
and I very much appreciate the opportunity that you give me to
testify today and to collaborate with you in the future.
Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. I am tempted to make the first question, can
you tell us what the weather is going to be this weekend, but--
--
[Laughter.]
Dr. Droegemeier. That is an easy one. I hope the rest of
them are easy. It is going to be--well, it is clear and sunny,
which to me is not nice weather. I like storms, I like rain, I
like wind. And I don't like tornadoes so much, but I like to
see the weather in action. So clear skies, summertime is so
boring for me, but it is going to be nice, if that is how you
define nice, yes.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. I'm almost sorry I asked. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. But not sorry. In your opinion as a scientist,
do you believe that the Earth's climate is changing due to
increased levels of carbon dioxide as a result of human
activities?
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir. And I would like to answer that
question by asking another question rhetorically and that is,
are we doing the best we can to provide the kinds of guidance
that the lawmakers and the Administration really needs to make
major decisions about the climate 100 years from now.
And so now comes the answer to your question--and the
answer to the question I posed, I think, is no--but what we do
understand is this, that greenhouse gases are increasing with
time. We do see that the Earth's average global temperature is
warming. And the question is, what is the connection between
the two? And there is a very strong connection. In fact, we
have strong evidence from isotopic analysis of carbon, and so
on and so forth, that the increase that we have seen in the
last 70 to 100 years of the global mean temperature is
predominantly due to human cause or so-called anthropogenic
effects.
And by analogy I would say, do you remember the days back
in the Cold War when sniffer planes would go out and sort of,
you know, try to see if somebody had done an underground
nuclear explosion. And they would sort of capture material in
the air and say, okay, that particular isotope of, say, you
know, uranium could only have happened if in fact there was an
explosion of an atomic device.
That is the sort of evidence--there are many, many other
lines of evidence that we have, but that is the kind of
evidence that we have that links the increase that we are
seeing in global temperatures with the greenhouse gas
emissions.
Mr. Serrano. So, but you said no to the answer and then you
gave us a lot of reasons why it is a yes. It is a little
confusing, though I must say, to me at least.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir. Thank you, and I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify. So my question was, are we doing the
best we can? And my answer to that was, no.
So what I just mentioned is the facts as we see them and we
understand those facts based on our physical understanding of
how the atmosphere works. And the climate models that we have,
even simple theories, are what really back that up and say,
yes, we know why the increase of temperature should be higher
over land and ice, why the ocean should be getting warmer, why
they should be getting more acidic, and things like that, some
of the basic understandings. What we don't understand is how
those effects at the global scale translate down to local and
regional effects, which themselves can in turn affect the
larger scales.
And so that is where--and if you want me to elaborate, I
can--where we really, I think, have more work to do to really
provide informed judgments about what the climate system will
look like 100 years from now.
Mr. Serrano. Good. Now, the Presidential Committee on
Climate Security is led by a well-known climate science denier,
Will Happer, who disputes the overwhelming consensus of climate
scientists. Emails obtained from a request show that Happer
pressured NASA to alter or eliminate climate change references
on NASA websites, something NASA has not done. It would appear
that the role of this Presidential Committee is to attack
scientific findings.
To what extent does your office take direction from the
Presidential Committee on Climate Security?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, actually, sir, the reporting in the
press has been incorrect: there is no such committee at this
time, no such committee exists.
Mr. Serrano. No committee exists?
Dr. Droegemeier. That is correct.
Mr. Serrano. So you are the only one in town, so to speak?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, a lot of folks advise the President,
rightly so, on matters of science policy. I am not the only
one, there are a lot of great folks, depending on what the
particular topic is, but no such committee has been established
at this point.
Mr. Serrano. So you are saying for the record that the
Presidential Committee on Climate Security does not exist?
Dr. Droegemeier. That is correct.
Mr. Serrano. Very interesting. Well, then that throws out
like half of my questions here.
Can you walk us through the process of an agency or
department getting statements to Congress approved?
Dr. Droegemeier. There is a process, a so-called clearance
process, that is used in the White House complex. It depends on
the topic in terms of what so-called EOP components, Executive
Office of the President components actually get that. If it is
something to do with science, you know, we will get it, if it
is something to do with domestic policy, maybe other folks get
it.
So not everybody sees everything and, if they did, they
wouldn't be able to do their regular job. So it just depends on
the topic and there is a process that plays out to get a lot of
input on whatever the issue is and whatever the document is
right.
Mr. Serrano. Are you aware of any formal or informal
guidance regarding the editing of reports or congressional
testimony with respect to climate change?
Dr. Droegemeier. I believe that some of those things go
through a clearance process. Sometimes at the agencies,
sometimes we don't see them. If it is something within an
agency, typically we wouldn't see that. It is only, for
example, if it is coming out of the White House.
So, again, the process depends upon the nature of the
activity or the document.
Mr. Serrano. So there might be clearance at the White House
that you don't know about, is that----
Dr. Droegemeier. That is correct, that is correct. Right.
Mr. Serrano. And at the agency that you don't have to know
about or----
Dr. Droegemeier. That is correct. We do communicate with
agencies and collaborate. We have got wonderful relationships
with them, but, you know, we are not involved in a lot of the
minutia, the various things that they do, and sometimes they
ask and sometimes they just do their thing.
Mr. Serrano. My time is up.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Last month, the National Science and Technology Council
released an update to the National Artificial Intelligence
Research and Development Strategic Plan, which focused on eight
strategic priorities, and those included the making long-term
investments in artificial intelligence research; gaining a
better understanding of ethical, legal, and societal
implications of artificial intelligence; and a new focus on
expanding public-private partnerships to accelerate the
advancement of artificial intelligence.
The question would be, what is the Administration's
priorities for implementing this updated artificial
intelligence plan, and how is the plan likely to impact future
budget requests in this type of research and development for
the funding?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir, for that question.
I think, as you all know, artificial intelligence is
extraordinarily important for the future. It is one of the so-
called industries of the future that was highlighted in the
President's budget this year, he mentioned it in his State of
the Union address. The others are advanced manufacturing,
quantum information science, and I think synthetic biology and
5G wireless technology. So those are what we kind of
collectively call industries of the future.
The AI Initiative, the American AI Initiative the President
signed the Executive Order for on February 11th--I remember it
well, because it was the day I got sworn in ceremonially by the
Vice President--has three pieces to it: R&D, workforce
development, and then also the regulatory framework.
So what Mr. Aderholt just mentioned, what came out just
last month was the update to the R&D strategic plan. So that is
kind of the R&D piece of that. And there are, as you say, seven
or eight different strategies.
First of all, the important thing to note is that OSTP
really helps coordinate, as we heard earlier from you and the
chairman, coordinate across the Government in terms of the
interagency; that is what the National Science and Technology
Council does. And we have in the context of artificial
intelligence a special committee, we call it a select
committee, which involves the agency heads themselves.
Sometimes subcommittees are, you know, agency folks, but these
are actually the agency heads, which is a testimony to the
importance of AI.
So part of what we do in that role is to make sure that the
agency budgets and budget planning align with the strategic
goals that you just mentioned. And so there was actually a data
call issued not long ago to the agencies to look at how they
are spending their money, because one of the things that is
difficult is, how do you define AI? You know, AI is software,
it is hardware, it is all kinds of things.
And so in the John McCain National Defense Authorization
Act that was signed, I believe, a year or two ago, it actually
put out a formal definition, which is now in law, about AI. So
we are kind of following that definition and that is guidance
to the agencies about how much are you really spending. So in
the non-DOD, non-classified area, it is about a billion dollars
a year, and so it encompasses lots and lots of things.
So part of the answer to your question is, in this role of
the NSTC subcommittee--or select committee, I should say, you
know, help the agencies determine how to direct that funding,
how to make sure that it invests commensurate with the plan.
For example, NSF, in working with the agencies, they fund a
lot of research into ethics of AI, because the regulatory
framework is extremely important, there is a lot of work going
on. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, funds
work in explainable AI. Okay, AI is telling you this is the
answer, how do you know it is right? It might be statistically
unbiased, it might be socially incredibly biased. How do we
deal with those differences? So there is a lot of important
work and a lot of questions.
And then, finally, the partnerships that you mentioned,
sir, are a really critical part of my personal agenda coming
into OSTP. We talk a lot about partnerships as kind of a
throwaway word, but, frankly, in America we don't do nearly as
well with partnerships as we really could. So that is something
that we are diving very deeply in. And by partnerships I mean
agencies and private companies, private companies and
universities, at the institutional level, at the individual
researcher level.
And those four sectors I mentioned--the private sector, the
government sector, the nonprofits, and the universities--if we
bring those together more effectively, we will get so much more
out of our enterprise than what we are getting now. So I would
say we have a V8 engine maybe running on six cylinders; when we
get those other two cylinders going through partnerships, we
will be able to really do some extraordinary things. There are
wonderful partnerships out there, I don't want to suggest there
aren't, but we can do even more, and that is part of the AI
plan.
Mr. Aderholt. So what is the amount of spending on the
unclassified AI research alone, did you say----
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, so the unclassified includes
Department of Defense. The numbers that we have right now are
the unclassified--excluding the unclassified--excuse me,
excluding the classified and excluding the Department of
Defense. So, with those two exclusions, it is about $1 billion
a year across the----
Mr. Aderholt. So $1 billion. Okay.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. And you have talked a little bit about it,
but how is OSTP tackling the challenges in defining artificial
intelligence so that we can effectively track the Government's
efforts?
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. So right now we are using the
definition that was in the Defense Authorization Act that was a
couple years, the John McCain Act.
Mr. Aderholt. John McCain.
Dr. Droegemeier. And that is kind of the working definition
now. There is opportunity, I think, to tweak that as we learn
more and things progress, but that is the working definition at
the moment.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Director Droegemeier.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Congratulations on your nomination and
confirmation to the position of Director of OSTP. There was a
2-year vacancy after Dr. John Holdren and one thing I wanted to
ask off the bat was--obviously, big shoes to fill--have you had
a chance to consult with Dr. Holdren over the years?
Dr. Droegemeier. I have. And I have worked with John, he is
a good friend of mine. I have the highest respect for him; I
think he did a wonderful job leading OSTP.
Mr. Cartwright. I feel the same way and I wish you all the
best luck.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, I was glad to see the broad support
for your nomination. I was particularly heartened by some of
your comments over the years, particularly in your confirmation
hearing when you said integrity in science is everything, and
you said science has to lead the way in telling us what the
facts are, and that you agree with--as you said today, you
agree with the overwhelming consensus among scientists that
global warming is strongly connected to human activity, as you
say, anthropogenic--I can't even say that--but I congratulate
you not only for saying it, but for repeating it here in
committee.
Here is my question. In June 2017, you and Dr. Daniel Reed
wrote an opinion article published in the Des Moines Register
regarding science and research funding in the fiscal year 2018
budget, and in that article you argue against cuts; cuts to
science, cuts to research funding. You implore the White House
and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to preserve the
Federal investment in basic research that has long enjoyed
bipartisan support.
You stated, quote, ``Though the benefits of short-term
savings in the yearly Federal budgets may appear appealing,
they result in insidious, long-term consequences. Due to under-
funding, we risk losing an entire generation of researchers who
produce these miracles when we need them most. Rebounding from
the loss of talent is neither immediate nor inexpensive,''
unquote.
Did you say that?
Dr. Droegemeier. I believe so.
Mr. Cartwright. Good line. The article highlighted the
important role scientific research plays on economic
development by citing the fact that, since World War II,
science and technology have been responsible for more than half
of U.S. economic growth. In fact, you said, quote, ``Addressing
massive Federal debt and deficits depends in part on our
ability to grow the economy by creating and innovating entirely
new technologies and services that all begins with research,''
unquote.
Did you say that?
Dr. Droegemeier. I believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Good. But we fast forward, Doctor, to March
of this year and the President's fiscal year 2020 budget, which
was an all-out assault on scientific research in this country.
You issued a statement calling the budget request, quote, ``an
important down payment on America's future,'' unquote, that,
quote, ``promotes responsible spending by prioritizing high-
impact programs that have been shown to be effective,''
unquote.
Now, this Congress and, specifically, this subcommittee
here in this room rejected the President's gutting of
scientific research, but I think it is important to highlight
the list of requests we got in the President's budget this year
that would have cut federally-supported scientific research.
We start with the NASA budget. He wanted it cut by 2.2
percent with an 8 percent drop in science portfolio; he wanted
an 11-percent reduction in overall R&D; he wanted a 12 percent
reduction in the National Science Foundation; he wanted an
overall cut to the National Institutes of Health by 13 percent;
he wanted a 15-percent cut in the National Cancer Institute; he
wanted a 17-percent cut in the Department of Energy, Office of
Science budget; he wanted a 30-percent cut in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 30 percent; he
wanted a one-third cut overall to the Environmental Protection
Agency, including a nearly 40-percent cut in its science and
technology programs; and he wanted an 86-percent cut in the
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. All of that came over to us in the budget this year.
Question: did you provide any guidance to the President
regarding these significant cuts to funding science and
technology across the Federal budget?
Dr. Droegemeier. No, sir, I didn't. That budget was already
in place when I arrived and got sworn in in January. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Director Droegemeier, for being here today.
I want to speak with you today about STEM engagement,
particularly those programs geared towards workforce education
and training. Federal agencies should prioritize initiatives to
re-skill Americans for the present and future job market, and
since taking office President Trump has worked to improve STEM
education and increase STEM employment.
How are you planning to provide STEM-filled opportunities
for Americans of all ages in both rural and urban areas? And
can you also discuss how the 2020 budget request affects the
implementation of the 2018 Strategic Plan for STEM Education?
Dr. Droegemeier. Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
As a STEM educator my whole career, STEM is very important
to me. I also was the Cabinet Secretary of Science and
Technology in Governor Fallin's cabinet in Oklahoma and STEM
was a big deal there, and I keynoted some of her STEM
conferences and so on. So STEM is really, extraordinarily
important to me personally. It is the future of our economy,
frankly, in so many different ways.
And coming from a so-called EPSCoR state, I think most of
you know what EPSCoR is, you know, I am all about making sure
everybody, as I mentioned in my opening statement, has access
to opportunity.
This Government invests about $3 billion a year in STEM
education programs. That is not just STEM education and
research, but it is also programs that support after-school
learning and things like that. There are some 160 different
programs that are doing really extraordinary things, but I kind
of characterize it as we are planting a lot of flowers, a
thousand flowers are blooming, but I think we need to look at
planning some really lush, wonderful gardens and having more
connective tissue among those various programs. So that is one
of the things that we are looking to do.
With regard specifically to this Administration, last
December we released a 5-year STEM Strategic Plan for the
Nation. And it was truly an extraordinary plan in the sense
that it wasn't just the Government sitting down and saying,
what should we do, it actually convened the entire Nation of
stakeholders, about three to four people from every state and
territory. So about 180 people came to Washington--teachers,
superintendents, principals, things like that, and even some
folks in the private sector who do other kinds of learning and
up-skilling like robotics competitions and so on--we got
together and we said, as a nation, where do we want to go in
STEM?
And it was really an extraordinary conversation that led to
this report, which we kind of see as a Northstar report. And I
think it is frankly one of the best STEM reports that we have
seen, because everyone that attended that and everyone who is
involved in STEM education will see themselves in that plan.
And it has got three pillars: one is the STEM workforce of the
future; the other one is a STEM-literate society, which we all
know is extremely important; the third one is really critical
and that is diversity enhancement. So one of the three pillars
is diversity enhancement.
With regard to the skilled technical workforce, let me
define what I mean by that term. It means folks who are beyond
high school, but below the baccalaureate level. So they might
have 2-year college, they might have a skilled training in say
a career tech or something like that. There has been a very
strong focus on those folks here in the Administration. Ivanka
Trump has pledged to the American worker and there are now
around 11 million people to be up-skilled and re-skilled
through pledges made by private companies. Truly extraordinary.
We are working on veterans, using data and analytics, and
machine learning and AI, to help veterans as they separate from
the service to get on pathways beyond what the simple job
description they came out of the military with. Okay, I did
this. Well, if you did that, it turns out you did five other
things you are not even aware of.
The other important thing, I think, is that we want to make
sure that we don't forget about the importance of these. When
we look at the--you all saw the picture of the black hole, the
image there and things, there were a lot of people who were
involved in managing those telescopes, building the
instrumentation. They may not have a college degree, but they
are extremely important. People who are welders, who build
cryogenic tanks and things like that. So they kind of go
unnoticed a lot of times in these great scientific discoveries,
but without the skilled technical workforce, we would be in a
world of hurt.
So there is a huge focus in the Administration, and the
actual Science Board as well, looking at the skilled technical
workforce and how we make sure that we have the totality across
STEM--and I call it seamless STEM--from PhD all the way to high
school, we have got to have all those workers engaged from
every part of the country, every zip code. Nobody is left
behind, we have got to bring them all to the table, because the
problems we have to solve are so immense that it is an all-
hands-on-deck proposition.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for that response.
In your testimony, you also speak of OSTP's work with
advance in ocean science and technology. Could you please
expand on that valuable work?
Dr. Droegemeier. Sure, absolutely. The President has been
very, very strong on ocean policy. He signed an Executive Order
that created the Ocean Policy Committee, the OPC, which I have
the privilege of co-chairing with Mary Neumayr, the chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality. There are a lot of things
going on. We have a Decadal Ocean Vision now, we have a
strategic plan. There is a National Ocean Partnership Program,
there are regional ocean partnerships. There is work on harmful
algal blooms in the midst of that, there is work on mapping the
Extended Economic Zone--I think it is called the Exclusive
Economic Zone, which is a huge area of the United States you
don't think about because it is under water--in terms of things
like energy and fishing, and quality of life and recreation,
and so on.
Plastics, marine debris, is a huge thing. And we are going
to be holding a Science and Technology Summit, I think it is in
probably November-December of this year, to bring together
private sector, nonprofits, government, universities. To talk
about these compelling problems and, back to the word
``partnership,'' how in partnership we can solve these
together.
So the ocean enterprise is really, extraordinarily vibrant
in the Trump administration, I think we are making very good
progress, and not only just in oceans, but things like harmful
algal blooms for the Great Lakes and Florida, and some of the
coastal regions that are subject to these very, very difficult
challenges.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your testimony.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, for
being here today.
I wanted to follow up with what Mr. Palazzo was talking in
terms of STEM. To maintain U.S. leadership in science and
technology, we must ensure the ecosystem of universities,
nonprofits, industry, can attract and support the best talent.
I know that this May the White House formed this new joint
committee to boost support for research committees that you are
leading. And I wanted to know, more specifically, how is this
joint committee working with industry? And also how is it
working with the higher education community and what more can
Congress probably help with?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you. That is a really great question
and such an important one. And, frankly, this is really, I
would say, among my highest priorities is this new joint
committee, because as a researcher, as a former vice president
for research, I lived in the midst of those research
environments and I saw a lot of things happening, as I have
certainly talked to a lot of people over my career, of things
where I feel the research environment has got to be right. If
women don't feel comfortable coming into it, if they are in it
and they leave, that is really, really, really bad news.
Our environments have to reflect our American values and,
frankly, we hear people talk about Safe Spaces. I dream of the
day and believe we can make it happen, and certainly, with your
help, as you have just mentioned, where the research
environment is the place people run to, because that is where
their ideas are respected; that is where they are treated well;
that is where they can vigorously debate and walk away and go
to dinner and be complete friends; where we really saw the
tough challenges and no ideas beyond being able to be
discussed. That is the environment I believe we have and that
is attainable.
With regard to STEM, it is extremely important, especially
that these environments are effective. So this National Science
and Technology Council, as we heard, is the organization that
coordinates the intergovernmental activities. Research security
is one of them, which we can talk about. I want to make sure I
answer your question. Another one is issues of things like
inclusiveness and safety, a/k/a sexual harassment, we need to
make sure those issues are addressed. It is a cultural change,
it is not going to be easy, but it is critical, I think.
Another one is rigor and integrity in research. And then
another one, which is really important in terms of budgets, is
research administrative burden, which is now after the past 20
or so years is not going down, it roughly is the same steady
state for the last 20 years, about 40 to 45 percent of faculty
researcher time spent on Federal grants is spent on doing
compliance activities that are in many ways unrelated to the
research. Some of that compliance is very important, but 44, 45
percent is an awfully big number.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And you talk about administrative
burdens. I know that--or I have heard that are often diverse
sets of rules with DOE, NIH, NSF, are there plans to sort of
standardize and make more uniform these sets of rules?
Dr. Droegemeier. You are absolutely right. And actually one
of the easiest things that we can do, among many, is to what we
call harmonize or standardize those things to the extent
possible. Now, some agencies are different, but I think at the
top level we have got to have this standardization. So if
you're writing a research proposal and every agency, as you
mentioned, uses a different form, uses a different form for
what work you are already doing for your biographical sketch. I
all of those are different, you are spending massive amounts of
time not undoing science, but on dealing with these kinds of
non-uniformities.
So we have an entire list of things. And the Federal
Demonstration Partnership, which it says it is Federal, it is
National Academies and it's the university and it's the Federal
Government. I have gotten together over the years to say what
do we need to do? And, frankly, we are not making nearly as
much progress as we need to, because I can't think of anything
worse than a research who spent a lot of time and money
becoming an expert and then not using that intellectual talent
to do science. So this is really a top priority and we have a
whole lost of things that we are going down, sort of knocking
down one by one, and the harmonization is one of the most easy,
I think, to address and one of the most important.
Ms. Meng. Is there a sort of time line for----
Dr. Droegemeier. Fast, fast, fast. You know, I think in the
last several years, like I said, with the latest survey that
just came out, the numbers are no different, and we have got to
solve this. I would sort of be reluctant to monetize it, but
some people have, they said it is two to $3 billion of lost
capacity that we could get back if we address some of these
issues. So, to me, it is an imperative for a variety of
reasons, but especially for making sure that we do lead the
world in science and technology.
Ms. Meng. And I just want to end with a comment. I thank
you for addressing the issue of sexual harassment and gender
discrimination in this scientific space. I just want to make
sure that as you are undertaking on this topic, that
individuals who are reporting this sort of harassment, that
they are protected, their privacy, by the Federal Government.
Dr. Droegemeier. Absolutely right. It is a complicated set
of issues that gets into Title IX and things like that, but it
is extraordinarily important, because if people don't feel
comfortable coming to the research environment, the rest of it
doesn't matter, because we might educate a lot of researchers,
but if the environment is wrong, they are not going to come
into it and then we lose. And we lose the trust of the taxpayer
and the tremendous social contract we have with taxpayers that
entrust us to spend these dollars wisely.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, sir, for coming here today to testify.
The Subcommittee on Machine Learning and AI, called MLAI
subcommittee, was formed by the President Obama administration
and renewed by the Trump administration. Now, outlined in
function number 6, it states that the subcommittee will publish
and update a strategic plan for unclassified MLAI research and
development.
Are you aware of these reports and, if so, is there a way
that OSTP can share these reports with Congress? I strongly
believe that these reports will be able to provide a great deal
of guidance to Congress as we work to appropriate funds for AI
R&D.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes. Thank you for that good question. I
have a list here of all the reports and we have got a whole big
spreadsheet that says, you know, what the target date is and so
on, and these are all public reports, so we would be delighted
to share them with you.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, through the chair, I would hope that
that would happen.
You know AI, the AI Now Institute based out of New York
University, released a report in April of 2019 entitled,
``Discriminating systems: Gender, Race, and Power in AI.''
Their findings show that we have a severe diversity crisis in
the AI sector across gender and race. The report stated that
``fixing the pipeline won't fix AI's diversity problems.''
I know the diversity, inclusion, safety, and security of
our researchers in the R&D enterprise is an issue that is very
important to you. How do we tackle this issue? And this is
becoming a very increasing level of concern, as people are
unfamiliar with AI and we hear how it can impact minorities and
people of color.
So, could you please comment on that?
Dr. Droegemeier. Oh, thank you, that is a marvelous
question. So you are not asking about the people pipeline, you
are asking about AI itself; right?
Mrs. Lawrence. AI itself.
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. So it is a really, really important
point you bring up, and as I mentioned, there is a lot of work
going on now in terms of the ethics of AI and the
explainability and so on.
The key thing here is sort of twofold. One is the actual
algorithms, and the second thing is the data with which these
systems are trained. And frankly, if you are training it with
biased data, then the results you are going to get are biased.
And I also would like to say that statistically, we could say
okay, this result is unbiased, but that doesn't mean it is
socially unbiased. Excuse me. Let me say that again and make
sure I said it right.
It could be statistically unbiased, but socially biased.
That is what I want to say.
Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly.
Dr. Droegemeier. And we have got to figure that out because
that--you know, the social bias versus statistical, that could
be a pretty wide gulf, and how do we navigate that. So a lot of
work is being invested, a lot of time is being invested in
studying these things in the university system. It is part of
the conversation as we go through this whole thing.
We signed on with 41 other nations on a set of AI
principles in the OECD countries, the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development, earlier this year. So that helped
set the framework. But ultimately, it is the R&D that needs to
be done to make sure that we understand the training aspects,
the algorithms themselves. And then once those are in place,
how do we know where the bias is happening, if it is bias, and
how do we judge that.
So you bring up an extraordinarily important point that a
lot of folks are working on, but we can't let down our
vigilance to make sure that at every step of the way that we
are no top of that.
Mrs. Lawrence. I feel very strongly that we should, and as
part of our civil rights and as part of our expectations of
equality in America, that we, as Congress, need to have an
ethical standard when it comes to diversity and inclusion,
because if we don't establish that, how do we understand or how
do we regulate that biases are not being programmed into AI.
The last question that----
Dr. Droegemeier. Could I just ask----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Dr. Droegemeier. When we talk about, you know, the research
environment, I would love to work with you on that because part
of the thing is how do you define these things. And if you are
in the middle of research environment and there is harassment
and things like that, how do you recognize it and how do you
define it? So I would very much enjoy working with you on that.
I think there is some overlap that we could benefit by talking.
Mrs. Lawrence. Absolutely.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you.
Mrs. Lawrence. And the last thing I would say, the NIST
released standards for trustworthy AI, and I strongly believe
that we need a comprehensive understanding of the current uses
and the risks. And I want to make sure that, and you have said
that, that we are creating standards and that we also are
recognizing the risk in AI research.
Dr. Droegemeier. Absolutely. And I would hasten to add that
my colleague, Michael Kratsios, who right now is testifying
before the Senate Commerce Committee to be confirmed,
hopefully, as the chief technology officer, has been doing
extraordinary work and he leads our tech portfolio, and he is a
phenomenal person. We have engaged--somebody asked me earlier
and I forgot to mention this, we have engaged industry very,
very strongly and heavily on this whole AI portfolio, industry,
academia, and government, they are all at the table.
And so absolutely. And Michael and I will work very closely
together on that and I assure you that we will give it full
attention. Thank you so much for that point.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Doctor. You know, of all of the
billions, and billions, and billions of dollars we authorize
for scientific and technology research and advancement for--
just for basic science and research advancement for, you know,
economic and social good, and purposes, and for our own policy
guidance, I think nothing concerns me more than politics
getting into the middle of all of that. Then political goals
coming to bear on influencing what is researched, influencing
the outcome of that research, and suppressing the outcome
where--inconsistent with the goals.
And you are well aware that claims have been made in that
department from the perspective of climate change, or from the
perspective of, you know, women's health in the terms of the
great and continuing abortion debate, and in many other areas.
You know, one example of that would be the Union of Concerned
Scientists, which a couple of years ago claimed that Director
of the Interior had suppressed a report on health conditions in
Appalachia from surface coal mining, presumably because he did
not want to call into question those operations. And we have
spent a great deal of time over the years, trying to assure
scientific integrity.
We have a GAO process that goes back ten plus years now. We
have the previous administration asking for scientific
integrity principles and guidelines and requirements, really,
to be adopted across the entire federal government. We have a
GAO report from just a couple of months ago, April, which was
followed up on just a month ago, in which the GAO essentially
said that the scientific integrity guidelines and principles
had been inconsistently applied across the administration. And
the basic complaint that GAO had was that in these various
departments, there was not a sufficient education and
enforcement component to really drive home the point that
scientists are free to do their research and to insulate them
from these pressures.
And I think you are in charge, in large part, of assuring
that scientific integrity effort across the entire
administration. And so I simply want to ask you, is this a
concern of yours? Where do you rank it in terms of the
concerns? And what are you doing about it?
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. Yes, thank you. No. Very, very good
question. So in my confirmation hearing last August 23rd, that
question was put to me in a similar way, and I said without
equivocation that I strongly support ethical behavior and
research that, I think, science has to be conducted in the
federal government, I would say, for example, which is what I
think you are talking about, in an unfettered way without
political influence. I think that is extraordinarily important.
You cannot have political influence determining scientific
outcomes, scientific directions, and things like that.
The GAO report, I read that. There were nine--I think nine
agencies that were evaluated and so on. And I think as you also
alluded to, the 2010 memo from my predecessor, John Holdren,
asked agencies to put forward their plans to OSDP and so on.
The subcommittee I mentioned in the JCORE, this Joint Committee
on Research Environments, has a subcommittee on research
integrity and ethics, ethical behavior, robust. It also gets to
things like reproducibility, which is different from integrity,
but it is related to it and can be.
In JCORE, we looked at this issue and talked about it of
the issues of which you speak and said, well, the GAO report--
at that time, GAO was doing its thing. We weren't sure when the
report was going to come out. So we said we are really going to
focus on the research process itself and not the political
piece that you mention. But that is of great importance. I
think it is important to the taxpayer to ensure that they know
that our government is functioning with the utmost integrity as
it conducts science and so on. So you are right.
We do have a role to play. I think we were going to wait
and see how--give agencies a time to respond to the GAO report,
which would take a few months and so on, and then sort of see
where we are with that. I could easily envision at some point
appropriately down the road, after I have a chance to respond,
that this JCORE group could serve as the mechanism to address
the kinds of--sort of update the things you are talking about.
Mr. Case. And Congress has also taken an interest through
the introduction of legislation, for example, the Scientific
Integrity Act which is introduced by my colleague Paul Tonko on
the House side and my colleague Senator Schatz on the Senate
side, has a number of close sponsors, including myself, to
express this specific concern. Would you be receptive to
legislation along those lines to drive these points home so
that we really can have very, very honest, and insulated, and
real scientific results? And so scientists out there are not
concerned that their product is being influenced, compromised,
and so we can have the right science to make our decisions.
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. Yes, sir. I am always happy to work
with Congress on any matter, and this one is extremely
important, integrity across the board.
Mr. Case. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. We will begin our second round. Now, Doctor,
the administration has proposed a $1.6 billion budget amendment
that is just a down payment on the over $20 billion in
additional funding that would be required to launch the man
moon mission four years early. Is it either technically
possible, financially responsible, or necessary to launch the
man moon mission four years early and an additional $20 billion
cost simply to meet a political deadline?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you for that question. My
understanding is that that $1.6 billion is a down payment, as
you say, on something that will be less than $20 billion. I am
a member of the National Space Council, which the vice
president chairs.
I think going to the moon is a really critical step in the
mission to Mars, which is the president's very high priority, I
think as you know. I would leave it to Administrator
Bridenstine to speak specifically to the issues you mentioned
about budgets, and cost, and schedule, and things like that.
But I think overall as a Nation, the president set the goal of
going to the moon by 2024, landing on the moon, and then having
a sustainable presence by 2028.
And so I think there are a lot of things that play into
that, and a lot of things, especially, with the relationship to
going to Mars.
Mr. Serrano. Well, the director--the NASA director, of
course, supports going to the moon. He understands the problems
with finding the money. He also understands that this committee
has been very generous to NASA and will continue to do so.
So my question to you is, by the way, you said it would
cost less than $20 billion?
Dr. Droegemeier. I think--the numbers I have heard, the 1.6
billion is a down payment on something and it is over a five
year period, I believe, that would be less than $20 billion.
That is the latest debt that I have heard.
Mr. Serrano. You don't know how much less----
Dr. Droegemeier. Sorry?
Mr. Serrano. You don't know how much less?
Dr. Droegemeier. I don't know how much less, but I heard it
was less than $20 billion, yes.
Mr. Serrano. Now, what can we gain, other than to the
ability to claim we were there first this time around?
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. Right. Again, I think all the
details of that, I think Jim Bridenstine could answer more than
I could. I think it is more than sort of a political thing. I
think there are--again, it ties into the mission of going to
Mars. It ties in with the timelines of what private companies
are doing, because the space launch system, of course, is a
government system, but there are other things about getting
crewed individuals to ISS. So it is a pretty complicated--sort
of, complicated ecosystem, and I think Jim is much better
suited to addressing that than I am. But what I told you is
what my understanding of the situation, right.
Mr. Serrano. This committee has a lot of faith in your
abilities and your honesty. So I would hope that when the
discussions come around, you let them know that we are serious
in continuing to be helpful to NASA, and to space explorations,
but that this is a big ask at a difficult time. And I think if
you stay tuned to the news, you will see how difficult it is
going to get in the next few days around here about dollars and
cents. A lot of dollars and a lot of cents.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you for your support of NASA, sir.
And I have great relationships with Mr. Bridenstine. He was in
Congress from Oklahoma. We know each other quite well and
worked together. And I feel like we can have, you know, good
discussions and I can learn a lot by talking with him and also
service on the space council.
Mr. Serrano. Well, one of the things that I have repeatedly
said to the committee, which they are tired of hearing already,
but you haven't heard it yet, is that my experience, I have
never seen an auditorium of children and young people, high
school people, any age, as excited when an astronaut visits.
And so there is excitement in the public, and there is support
in the public----
Dr. Droegemeier. Right.
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. For man, space flights. It is
just that we have to pay for a lot of other things, so----
Dr. Droegemeier. Right.
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. Just keep that in mind.
Dr. Droegemeier. I tell you. I met with a middle school
group of kids from Florida, and they are launching CubeSats.
These are kids in middle school. They are building CubeSats.
And they are real technology. It is not just a fun toy. I mean,
it is really extraordinary. So it really underscores the point
you just made about the excitement and the inspiration that
that can provide to the next generation of stem learners. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Let me go just a little bit here over time and
just ask you about the--last week, the press reported that the
science division had no staff. Given the scientific challenges
we face, this is troubling to say the least. How many positions
are currently vacant at the agency?
Dr. Droegemeier. You know, a lot people sent that to me. It
was done in 2017. People didn't look at the date on the
article. It was actually from 2017. So people that sent it to
me, they said, ``What is going on? OSTP is empty.'' I said,
``Look on the date of the article. It is actually 2017.''
So no, we actually have 80 people at OSTP. And if you take
out the contractors and the interns, it is about--it is not
about, it is 62 people. If you take out the administrative
staff, I think it is about 49 and we have 26 MDs and Ph.D.s in
that group. So it is really extraordinary. And the science
staff is well staffed up.
Yes, so that article is actually two years out of date. I
don't know, somebody released it and it got out there. But yes,
it was written two years ago.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. So in closing this round here, starting
this round, at the Mueller hearing, they are waiting for a
bombshell statement. We found out there is no presidential
committee and now that you are fully staffed, so this is the
news of the day.
Mr. Aderholt.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. I appreciate, Mr. Droegemeier, you mentioned
the 50th anniversary of the landing. I had the privilege to be
at that event on Saturday out at Cape Canaveral with the vice
president, and to celebrate that 50 year mark. So it was great.
And of course, I am very encouraged about what NASA's
mission is and what--our ability to go back to the moon in the
very near future, and I think we can do that, and we are going
to do everything we can to make sure that happens. And I
appreciate the chairman's support for NASA funding and how we
can continue to make that happen.
Let me follow up with one question on artificial
intelligence that--in your opinion, and again just in closing
before we go on to something else, do you think the U.S. has
fallen behind in--with our competitors, like say China, that as
we fund artificial intelligence research and other emerging
technologies?
Dr. Droegemeier. No. In fact, I think that we are really
the world leader in AI. I think that is also true in quantum. I
had the privilege of visiting Oxford University about two,
three weeks ago. They have a massive quantum activity in that
university, and they had spoken many times with the person at
OSTP. His name is Dr. Jake Taylor, who runs our National
Quantum Coordination Office. He spoke very highly of him and
how wonderfully linked together we are in quantum.
So I think we lead those areas. I do think we have to be
vigilant and continue to focus on those. And certainly, the
president's high priorities. I think sometimes when you hear
other countries, namely China, investing and they say we spend,
you know, $10 billion or whatever, that might be over a 10 year
period of time, but there is no mention of that perhaps.
Also, it might be, as we talked earlier, what do you call
AI? It might be there is something going on. There is a half a
percent of AI and they maybe count the whole thing. So I am not
saying they are being completely disingenuous, but I am just
saying that one of the things we are trying to do is to really
understand what the investments of other countries are vis a
vis what we are doing. But regardless of that, we need to be
really focused on the industries of the future because they are
a huge part of our economy and the world structure going
forward.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. I think it is imperative that we win
this race to deploy 5G technology.
Dr. Droegemeier. Right.
Mr. Aderholt. Of course, NOAA and NASA claim that the FCC's
out-of-band emission limits for the 24 gigahertz band will
result in interference that could harm the collection of
weather data via satellite by NOAA. Has the Administration
reached a compromise regarding the allocation of federal
spectrum for 5G use?
Dr. Droegemeier. So there are really some robust
discussions going on there. We have a long history in America
of folks that have compelling needs and spectrum living next
door to each other and being good neighbors. So I really feel
that we will get there. I really do.
Mr. Aderholt. So you have--has a compromise been reached
or----
Dr. Droegemeier. There is still discussions going on.
Mr. Aderholt. So that has not been finalized?
Dr. Droegemeier. It is still underway. It has not been
finalized yet, no.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you believe it is possible to advance 5G
use without compromising our Nation's interest in weather
forecasting and other technologies that we would want to
pursue?
Dr. Droegemeier. I believe that we will get there. You
know, technology is an amazing thing. It provides lots of
methodologies to get to a good end point. And so I think this
issue has been looked at very carefully, and so I believe we
will get there.
One thing I would just add is when you look at our 5G
deployment in America versus what some other countries are
doing, there is different parts of the spectrum. And the reason
that we are looking at all the different parts is certain parts
have different characteristics. So if you look at the really
high frequencies, you can push a ton of data over those things,
but they are very short distance and they don't go through
buildings. Okay, well, that is not great. So Okay, how do you
deal with that?
Well, the very opposite end of the spectrum, low end, goes
very long distances. It can go through buildings. But you can't
push nearly as much data. So what we are doing in the U.S. is
taking the low, mid, and high band spectrum and pushing all of
those forward at the same time. Other countries aren't doing
that. So we are being, I think, really progressive in how we
are going to be deploying our 5G systems.
Mr. Aderholt. I mentioned in my opening statement that I
was very interested in the perspective you bring to your
office, given your extensive career in meteorology and extreme
weather events. In southeast, which is of course where I am
from, the State of Alabama in particular, we have experienced
some of the most destructive, deadly, and intense tornadoes in
the country. Matter of fact, I have heard a statistic that I
think as far as any state dealing with deadly tornadoes,
Alabama ranks number one, which surprises a lot of people,
especially they think it is out maybe your way where those
numbers would be.
But in March, for example, over two dozen people lost their
lives when an EF-4 tornado tore through east Alabama. And that
is why many of my constituents and others in the southeast
value the federal research programs like NOAA's VORTEX
Southeast, because it brings federal agencies together to help
us better understand how environmental factors in the region
affect tornado formation, the intensity, and their paths.
And despite the fact that the fiscal year 2020 budget
request proposed, terminating important weather research
programs, like the NOAA's Vortex Southeast, can you speak to
the importance of these programs in furthering our
understanding of the unique characteristics of tornadoes in the
southeast, and how additional federal research, done in
coordination with the universities, could be the key to saving
lives and protecting property?
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes. Thank you, sir. Well, first of all, I
would say my thoughts and prayers go out to those folks who
were affected by tornadoes, because being from Oklahoma, I see
the devastation all too often, and it is really just
extraordinary. Lives are torn apart, disrupted. But the hardy
people of Alabama are rebuilding, just like the hardy people of
Oklahoma. And so it is important that we do everything we can
to understand the nature of these storms.
And frankly, the storms in the southeast are different, and
that is why there was this program. For those of you maybe not
familiar with it, the whole VORTEX program stood up about 1995,
I believe it was. It stands for Verification of the Origin and
Rotation and Tornadoes Experiment. The acronym winner above
all.
And so it really is focused on exactly what it says. How do
storms--how do these storms acquire rotation? In the southeast,
compared to the midwest and Oklahoma, where we have these
supercell storms, a lot of the tornadoes in the southeast come
out of lines. They are kind of innocuous looking. Some of these
F-4 tornadoes have come out of what we thought were fairly
innocuous lines. Sometimes there is a heavy rain, you don't see
the tornado, and all of a sudden you find this devastating
tornado where you don't really have as much lead time as you do
in Oklahoma, where these are much longer tracked storms.
So fundamentally, there are new things to be learned there.
The VORTEX Southeast program, I think has been in place, the
current one is a four year program that would--scheduled to end
after the 2020 data collection period, I think next spring if I
remember right. And so there is a lot of data that has already
been collected. And this isn't the only campaign, I think, they
have had in southeast.
I think the key thing is to gather as much data as we can,
and analyze it, and really try to understand how these
tornadoes are different in the southeast, which will probably
help us in Oklahoma. And Oklahoma, understanding those
tornadoes will also help us in the southeast. So it is really,
really important. Folks die every year from these storms.
The other thing I would mention very quickly, though, is
that we are also tackling this, the social behavioral science
dimensions of this. Because at the end of the day, all the
science and technology of the world won't keep people from
dying. At the end of the day, if we are going to get to the
goal of zero deaths, which is a goal I really feel strongly
about, then we have to understand how people behave under
certain threats of warning, and if they live in a mobile home
park, what we need to do to protect them in ways different than
if somebody has got a basement with a well built home.
So the totality of the problem, I think, is critical, but
VORTEX Southeast is very important. These programs are very
important.
Mr. Aderholt. By the way, I am proud that the subcommittee
was able to work together under the chairman's leadership to
restore the VORTEX Southeast funding in the 2020 House bill.
Mr. Serrano. Couldn't have done it without you.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Glad I could help.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Droegemeier, I want to follow up on Mr. Aderholt's
questioning about 5G. You know, we were going to have a hearing
here with commerce secretary Wilbur Ross this year, but he
skipped the hearing. So I didn't have a chance to question him
about 5G development.
OSTP appears to be involved in 5G development, am I correct
in that?
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. In the research and in the deployment,
right?
Dr. Droegemeier. In the research and also looking at--well,
working with USDA, for example, and the rural broadband
initiative, and all those sorts of things, and what we actually
need the R&D that is needed. Also, in terms of things like
protecting our assets, right. That as well. So there are many
different ways, correct. But it is one of the five industries
of the future, right.
Mr. Cartwright. And you are working with the
administration, the FCC, the Commerce Department on this
important issue?
Dr. Droegemeier. That is correct.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Good. I am sure you agree that
cybersecurity and data encryption are critically important
issues with respect to the development of 5G in the U.S.,
right?
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And here is what I am after. Will you
assure this committee that OSTP will either take a lead role on
this issue, or at a minimum, make certain that the FCC and the
Commerce Department understand our subcommittee's concerns.
Dr. Droegemeier. About cybersecurity?
Mr. Cartwright. And 5G development.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes. Yes, indeed. Well 5G, of course, the
president says we want to win the global race to 5G. So that is
a marker in the ground. The other thing, cybersecurity, I
mentioned in my confirmation hearing, I think is one of the
gravest threats that we have to America and it is absolutely a
top priority. So we will love to work with you and certainly
all of the other agencies, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Good. I will take that commitment, Doctor.
I would also like to revisit a comment you made in your
confirmation hearing. You said, ``I believe science is
extremely important in informing policy. I think science needs
to be conducted free from political interference.'' Still feel
the same way?
Dr. Droegemeier. Absolutely.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. So a series of recently
published reports highlights the USDA's decision, abruptly, to
suspend its bee population study, which closely coincided with
the EPA's decision to lift restrictions and broaden the use of
the pesticide, Sulfoxaflor. The reports further highlight the
fact that Dow Chemical, the parent company, the manufacturer of
Sulfoxaflur, gave $1 million to the Trump Administration for
its 2017 inauguration.
Does this sound to you like science that is being conducted
free from political interference?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, I would say the conduct of science
in those studies is what I say needs to be free from political
interference. I think how the science informs policy is another
matter.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, the USDA recently scaled back and
ultimately cancelled a science-based study on the impact of a
proposed sulfite oar mine on the Minnesota boundary waters
canoe area--wilderness area, despite commitments to Congress to
finish the study. And on the heels of that decision, the DOI
approved the renewal of mining leases to a subsidiary owned by
a Chilean company, without understanding the full impacts.
Now, the owner of that company purchased the $5.5 million
mansion here in Washington, DC in late 2016 and rents that
house to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Does this sound like
science that is conducted free from political interference?
Dr. Droegemeier. Again, I am not familiar with that
situation----
Mr. Cartwright. Fair enough. I will move on to the next
one.
A recent political report indicates that the USDA's
agricultural research service is refusing to publicize dozens
of scientific reports on the effects of climate change. The
report highlights research that documents the link between
higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the
lowering of rice grain nutritional value, which could have a
significant impact on populations who rely on rice as a
significant portion of their diet. Rather than issuing a press
statement to publicize these important findings, the USDA
withheld their own press release and actively sought to prevent
dissemination of the findings by the agency's research
partners.
The University of Washington communications director said,
``It was so unusual to have an agency basically say don't do a
press release. We stand for spreading the word about the
science we do, especially when it has a potential impact on
millions and millions of people.'' That is what he said.
Doctor, does that sound like science that is conducted free
from political interference?
Dr. Droegemeier. Again, I think the scientific research
itself might have been conducted free from interference. What
is actually done with that, I think, is another matter.
Mr. Cartwright. And finally, a Washington----
Dr. Droegemeier. But I am not familiar--I read that, but I
am not familiar with it, in the paper, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. A Washington Post article reported that the
Department of the Interior ordered the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to halt a study of health
risks for residents near surface coal mining sites in the
Appalachian mountains, citing a ``changing budget situation.''
The Department's Inspector General, however, concluded that,
``Departmental officials were unable to provide specific
criteria,'' to explain why that study was cancelled.
Now, I am from northeastern Pennsylvania and my district
faces years of mine reclamation and cleanup, and studies such
as these are critical to providing the best information to make
the most informed decisions now and for future generations.
This appears to be another in a series of efforts by this
administration to suppress scientific research that could reach
conclusions that are contrary to its political efforts.
As a general principle, is it good science to cancel
scientific studies, such as this one, without credible
justifications? Do you agree that this example, at least,
appears to be politically motivated?
Dr. Droegemeier. I would have to learn more about that, to
be honest, to really give you a thoughtful answer. I do--would
tell you, though, that I think the president has funded more
superfund site cleanups in this administration than the other
previous administrations have.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I will ask you to look into those
questions that----
Dr. Droegemeier. Sure.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. You were unable to answer.
Dr. Droegemeier. I would be happy to.
Mr. Cartwright. And I appreciate your testimony, Doctor.
Dr. Droegemeier. Sure, thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Doctor, concerns have been expressed about the
potential influence of foreign governments on scientists who
receive federal funding. While we want to protect our
investments in science, we also want to encourage collaboration
and ensure that individuals aren't targeted due to their race
or country of origin. Does OSTP plan to coordinate with federal
grant making departments and agencies to develop consistent
policy as to what constitutes foreign influence?
Dr. Droegemeier. The answer is absolutely, yes. One of the
four subcommittees of the Joint Committee on Research
Environments is exactly that. We call it the Subcommittee on
Research Security. It will address all of these issues and
convene not only the interagency, but also the academic
community, the private sector. We have already begun this,
working with the national academies, with professional
societies.
Now, let me just say that it is extremely important to
recognize that science is an international endeavor, and we as
a Nation have benefitted immensely from having scientists of--
come in here from other countries and work with us. They win
Nobel prizes, they start Fortune-100 and 500 companies. We also
have to make sure that we appropriately balance the openness of
our research environment, which also is extremely critical to
our success and has been with the protection of our assets. So
finding that balance is very, very important. And we don't want
to stigmatize individuals who are coming from other countries.
In fact, the president in his plan for immigration
mentioned he wants the best and brightest coming here, studying
here, and staying here. So that is an unequivocal message, I
think, that our doors are open with the important caveat that
you come here legally, you come here through the front door,
and also you adhere to the other part of our JCORE, and that is
you act with integrity and uphold the values, which are
fundamental to the research process itself.
Research itself, we just talked about, has to be conducted
with integrity. So if you are coming here from another country,
or even if you are here from the U.S., you are a citizen, and
you are not acting with integrity, you don't belong in the
research enterprise because you are fundamentally working
against the entrusted situation that we have with taxpayers and
how we actually need to conduct research to know that it is
free from undue influence of any other kind, other than just
trying to discover how nature works.
So we are on top of that very strongly, sir. And I am happy
to say that because there is a lot of good work happening, but
we have to make sure that we have harmonization and agreement,
and everybody sort of works together on this important problem.
Mr. Serrano. This is not directed at you, because you are
only quoting the president, but I can't help myself. I don't
think I ever saw on the Statue of Liberty, ``Give me your best
and your brightest,'' I saw, you give me, ``Give me your poor
and your tired,'' and it goes to the hurting and yearning. But
anyway, will universities and other research institutions be
required to monitor their employees with respect to any
inappropriate foreign ties that they might have?
Dr. Droegemeier. Of course, our work is still ongoing, but
I can tell you that some universities are already taking
measures to do that.
Mr. Serrano. Yeah.
Dr. Droegemeier. And what we have to make sure, now back to
another subcommittee of JCORE's to make sure that we don't
create additional burdens and additional processes that aren't
going to be effective. So that is why we brought in the
intelligence community, the law enforcement community, FBI. We
have brought in the National Security Agency. They are all
involved with this new Subcommittee on Research Security.
So we have got all the right folks at the table, including
the academic enterprise. Now, universities are obviously free
to do whatever they want to do. But we think that if we come up
with a series of best practices--not we. When I say we, I mean
the community with OSTP convening. But that is probably the
best way to get to a solution. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. The FCC has approved the operation of very
large constellations of commercial satellites in low earth
orbit, and plans to approve more, of my understanding. This
activity involves important policy issues involving orbital
assignments, orbital debris mitigation, frequency interference,
spectrum allocation, and degradation of astronomical
observation, among other things.
What is OSTP's role in regard to these matters?
Dr. Droegemeier. That is a really great question, and so
number one, first and foremost, we have a seat on the National
Space Council. And so I am privileged to have that seat, that
of course is chaired by the vice president. We also have a lot
of work going on in the area of things like space debris, space
traffic management, through some of the orders that were issued
as part of the so-called space policy directives that were
issued when the space council was stood up.
So we have issued reports on those sorts of things and it
is very critical that we work with, and are working with, all
of the groups that have equities in that, including the FCC,
the commerce department, the military, and so on.
Our low earth orbit space assets are really, really
critical. And in my confirmation hearing, we talked a lot about
the ISS, the International Space Station, how we want to not
cede low earth orbit to other countries. So this is really
important that the commercial enterprise be able to operate in
low earth orbit, with safety, with the ability to track the
management, and also things like space weather. The space
weather plan that we put out looks at what the impacts of
coronal mass ejections from the sun would do in terms of some
of these assets, as well as electromagnetic pulses from high
altitude nuclear explosions.
So we are very heavily involved in all of those things.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you--so based on that, do you believe that
OSTP has a responsibility to protect the scientific assets of
the U.S., as we mentioned the space station and scientific
satellites in orbit from low earth orbit space junk?
Dr. Droegemeier. So not necessarily protecting, but being
involved in the conversation about the science and technology
that is needed to do that and some of the policies that are in
place. So the actual protection part could be, you know, the
Commerce Department, for example, and regulating launches, and
the FAA, and the FCC, and also the military. So we are one of
several folks at the table.
Mr. Aderholt. Is OSTP actively protecting these assets and
licensing discussions?
Dr. Droegemeier. In terms of spectrum licenses or launch
licenses?
Mr. Aderholt. Yes, launch.
Dr. Droegemeier. Launch licenses? I don't think--I would
have to maybe get back to you on this. I don't believe we are
involved too much. Although one thing we did do in the National
Space Council is look at streamlining the mechanisms by which
one actually obtains a license. So you can--if you get, I
think, one license, you can launch a whole bunch of vehicles,
you know, with that one license rather than going back every
time.
So we are trying to reduce the regulatory burden to empower
space commerce. So that is one example. But the actual
licensure itself, I think we are not involved in that directly,
except for the policy of streamlining it.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for coming before us and your
answers to our questions. We hope to see you again and keep
working on these issues. This is a very important area, one
that we take seriously, this committee, and we will continue to
do that kind of work in a bipartisan fashion, and I mean that
sincerely.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir, very much for your good
work and I really look forward to working with you. Very good
questions, very good engagement. Thank you for the great work
you do.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Committee is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, September 10, 2019.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--DOJ COMMUNITY
RELATIONS SERVICE
WITNESS
GERRI RATLIFF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
Mr. Serrano. Welcome, Mr. Aderholt, and we will welcome the
other members. I hope you had a good August recess and thought
a lot about me, and I thought a lot about you.
Mr. Aderholt. Oh yes. Thank you. Absolutely.
Mr. Serrano. For the members here who may be surprised to
have a hearing today, let me mention our thinking. I want to
ensure I will continue our oversight responsibilities this fall
so that we can better understand the agencies this subcommittee
oversees, and so we can discuss what changes have occurred in
these agencies under this administration.
Today we welcome Gerri Ratliff, the deputy director of the
Community Relations Service at the Department of Justice, a
position she has held since January 2017. Deputy Director
Ratliff has a broad prior Federal management experience with
the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service. She also served as counsel to the
Deputy Attorney General for immigration policy and special
counsel for the Justice Department's Office of Legislative
Affairs.
The Community Relations Service, or CRS, has a unique
mission within the Justice Department. Rather than being
focused on law enforcement or the administration of justice, it
fills the gap the administration of justice--it fills the gap
that exists before those roles come into play. CRS is a small
part of the Department of Justice, but it has an important role
and helping to reduce tension and find common ground when
discrimination, violence, or hate crimes occur in our Nation's
communities. CRS serves as America's peacemaker and acts as a
first responder to help rebuild bridges and areas beset by
fundamental issues involving civil rights violations.
Those efforts range from efforts to reset dialogues between
law enforcement and communities after to violence to reacting
to hate crimes, to addressing bias in educational systems. Last
year alone, CRS mediated in 282 cases across a range of issues
at no cost to local communities in order to defuse tensions and
promote solutions.
All of this is done with a relatively small budget. In
fiscal year 2019, CRS received $15.5 million. The House bill
passed in June, it included an increase of $1.5 million,
bringing the agency to a total of $17 million to help the
agency address new work in civil rights cold cases.
I believe that CRS' work is unique and needed, especially
at this time in our Nation's history. Unfortunately, this
administration does not appear to agree with this assessment.
They have recommended essentially eliminating this office in
their past budget request by trying to bring together CRS
within the larger civil rights division. But without proposing
an equal increase in funding for that division to accommodate
new personnel.
Aside from the serious budgetary impacts of that proposal,
that proposal also misconstrues the very different roles that
these two parts of DOJ have. The Civil Rights Division has an
important role in prosecuting violations of the law. But it is
an investigatory body. CRS, on the other hand, is seeking to
build trust and propose solutions.
I am thankful that this committee under both Republicans
and Democrats has rejected this proposal. I hope that this
hearing will be educational and informational for the members
here today.
I look forward to hearing more about the work that CRS does
on behalf of our Nation and how a proposed funding increase
will strengthen your efforts.
With that, let me turn to my friend, Mr. Aderholt, for his
comments.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding. I, too, would like to
welcome our witness, Ms. Ratliff, to the Commerce, Justice,
Science Subcommittee on Appropriations as you testify regarding
the work of the Community Relations Service.
As we will be learning now more about this from our
witness, the Community Relations Service, of course, assists
State and local communities in the prevention and the
resolution of tension, violence, and civil disorders relating
to actual or perceived discrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, religion, and disability.
CRS legacy extends back actually to Selma, Alabama, where
it helped maintain peace during two of the three marches by Dr.
Martin Luther King.
One thing that I look forward to today is to learn more
about the day-to-day operations of CRS and the original
offices. The techniques that CRS has found to be most useful in
resolving local conflicts, and how CRS works with our State and
local law enforcement partners in order to facilitate and
improve public understanding of their efforts to make our
communities safer.
For fiscal year 2020 the Community Relations Service was
once again the subject of consolidation proposal in the
President's budget. Rather than request an appropriation for
the CRS, the fiscal year 2020 budget, instead proposes to
consolidate the functions of CRS into the Civil Rights Division
of the Department of Justice. The division responsible for
enforcing civil rights laws and consulting with individuals and
groups who call upon the Department of Justice in connection to
civil right matters.
According to the budget justification, the consolidation
would appropriately right-size the Federal Government's role in
local conflict resolutions while eliminating duplicative
functions and improving efficiency. However, in contrast, the
fiscal year 2020 CJS, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act that was passed by the House this
session maintains CRS' independent component within the
Department of Justice and increased the funding by $1.5
million.
Nevertheless, we must continually review the accounts under
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee to find the efficiencies
and eliminate the duplications. For this reason, I thank the
chairman for holding this hearing so that we can learn a little
bit more about it today.
Certainly left unaddressed, deep-seated social conflicts
can erode public trust and they can threaten the peace and the
safety inside our communities.
Accordingly, I deeply appreciate the efforts of our
Department of Justice to protect the rights of all individuals,
to live free from violence, to also live free from
discrimination, and to also be able to worship freely.
So, again, thank you, Ms. Ratliff, for appearing before us
today. I look forward to your testimony. And, Mr. Chairman,
with that I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Deputy Director, you are now recognized for your comments
for your opening statement. Please try to keep it to 5 minutes,
and as you know, we will include the full statement in the
record. Thank you.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt, and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to speak with you today. I am pleased to provide an
overview of the mission and work of the U.S. Department of
Justice Community Relations Service, or CRS. CRS serves as
America's peacemaker for communities and conflict by mediating
disputes and enhancing community capacity to independently
prevent and resolve future conflicts.
CRS was established under Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and its mandate was expanded under the Matthew
Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2009. CRS works with stakeholders to resolve community
conflicts and prevent and respond to alleged violent hate
crimes arising from differences of race, color, national
origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion,
or disability.
With our unique mission, CRS is the only Federal agency
dedicated to assisting State and local units of government,
private and public organizations, law enforcement and community
groups, to build capacity to resolve conflicts based on our
statutory categories. CRS helps facilitate the development of
mutual understanding and agreement as alternatives to violence
or litigation.
CRS conciliation specialists are impartial and do not
investigate or prosecute. Over the years, CRS has monitored
almost every major civil rights related public demonstration
across the country, helping to ensure organizers are properly
trained to maintain peace during these events, and providing on
the ground conciliation support.
Our conciliation specialists share their mediation,
facilitation of dialogue, training and consultation expertise,
with communities experiencing conflict across the U.S. and in
its territories.
CRS staff travel to cities and towns to work directly with
stakeholders, and assist them in developing strategies to
reduce tensions. Topics of discussion frequently include
tensions related to race, color, and national origin; police
community relations; perceived hate crimes and bias incidents;
tribal conflicts; and protests and demonstrations. The
dialogues help communities develop action plans for building
trust and strengthening relationships between groups, as well
as resolving conflicts in neighborhoods and schools.
CRS' programs include the Bias Incidents and Hate Crimes
forums and Protecting Places of Worship forums that convene
local and Federal law enforcement and community organizations
in educational discussions about hate crime laws and reporting,
approaches to combat and respond to bias incidents and hate
crimes, and best practices to help communities protect places
of worship.
With 16 conciliation specialists and 5 regional directors,
CRS has provided services to community groups this year in over
150 cases through the end of the third quarter of this year.
As in prior years, the majority of our cases are based on
race, color, and national origin. However, this year cases
based on religion have also become an area of focus. For
example, CRS has supported communities in 19 instances this
year related to anti-semitism from the Tree of Life Synagogue
massacre in Pittsburgh to the shooting at a Poway Synagogue in
southern California. Incidents such as these increase tensions
not only in the local communities in which they occur, but
around the country as well.
We anticipate that the trend this year of responding to an
increased number of religion-based bias incidents and hate
crimes will continue in fiscal year 2020, in addition to our
work in our other jurisdictional categories. And, as always, we
expect incidents and tensions based on race to comprise the
larger share of our work.
Programmatic activities planned for fiscal year 2020
include completing updates to three facilitated dialogue
programs and related tools and resources, and a new training
course for stakeholders on skills for facilitating multiparty
meetings. In terms of program evaluation, we will collect day
of session feedback on the content and delivery of all of our
trainings and programs, and we plan to pilot an assessment
process to measure the longer term impact of our programs, such
as capacity building, strengthening police community relations,
and the degree to which participants have applied the knowledge
and skills learned in the trainings.
These evaluations will aid CRS in the ongoing improvement
of our programs and allow the agency to respond to the ever
changing needs of our diverse stakeholders.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the work of CRS
and our commitment to serving communities as America's
peacemaker. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
CRS' PROCESS FOR REQUESTS
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. I would like to start by
going over some nuts and bolts of how CRS performs. CRS'
conciliation specialists provide their assistance on a
voluntary basis at the request of officials or community
leaders.
Could you walk the committee through how such requests come
in and how CRS decides which to support?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we receive requests from stakeholders for
services, we receive referrals from offices like our U.S.
Attorneys offices when they see an incident that they think
might be appropriate for CRS to look at, and also we
proactively identify opportunities to provide services and then
can reach out to stakeholders explaining what our mission is
and what our programs are, and then working with them if they
accept our offer of services.
The way we identify which cases to pursue is really based
on priority. Every year there is always going to be more
potential cases across the country than any office could
address. We also work with communities not just in addressing
tensions and conflicts, but communities working to proactively
prevent as well as respond to hate crimes.
So we are able to prioritize the cases where we think we
will have the most impact, where we think there is an
opportunity to build community capacity, we are small. And so
part of our approach is helping communities develop the
capacity independently in the future to assess and resolve
their own tensions to leverage our resources across an even
greater spectrum.
So our cases come from stakeholders who are interested in
our services where we think we will have the most impact, where
there are the greatest tensions, and that is just an evaluation
that is carried on at headquarters and the local level.
Mr. Serrano. But there are cases where you see a need to
offer your services and not wait for the folks locally to tell
you they need your help?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are able to proactively
reach out. If a community has not worked with us previously, we
will offer as a matter of outreach to go to them and describe
our mission and what our programs and services are, and often
they will then over time work with us to decide if any of our
range of services might meet their needs. Some communities are
already able to address their needs on their own.
PROACTIVE OUTREACH BY CRS
Mr. Serrano. Right, because that was the question I had.
The engagement usually happens after a hate crime, a police
shooting, you know, a conflict at a school, public facilities,
after the event takes place, unfortunately.
So we wanted to know how you promote a path to provide
proactive support, which is what you started to answer, and if
you have any further to say.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, we have quite an array of ways that we do our
proactive outreach. When we see that local elected officials
have turned over or new city leaders have been appointed, new
community leaders have come to the community, we will
proactively contact them to introduce ourselves. It is very
important that we have reached out ahead of an incident to
develop a relationship and trust. So our conciliators are going
throughout their region to establish those relationships and
renew and strengthen those relationships.
We also have materials on our website. We have conducted
webinars to explain our programs, in particular, our Hate Crime
forums and Protected Places of Worship programs. We participate
in conferences to make presentations about our services or to
have a booth with our brochures and even our annual report to
Congress that does describe our services and significant cases.
We try to take advantage of any opportunity to do that
proactive outreach so that relationships are in place before an
incident occurs.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just, not dry this subject up but, so
when you say proactive, you said you are making yourself
available and known to the community in case they need your
help. But do you see an area or you read in the paper
something, that there is something brewing, or some accusations
have been made, and you step in and say, you know, we can help
deal with this.
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Part of the
conciliator's job is to monitor the news, monitor social media,
be aware of public sources of information that would give them
evidence of where there may be a growing tension in one of the
cities in their jurisdiction. And then they will assess and
monitor either offsite, by making phone calls, by going onsite,
to introduce themselves to the relevant stakeholders or to
strengthen the relationships that are already in place.
MEDIATION
Mr. Serrano. Now, when CRS takes on a role that is
mediated, does it reduce the likelihood that litigation might
otherwise be pursued?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, we hope so. There have been
cases that we have successfully concluded a mediation agreement
and then there was not litigation, and so we would like to say
that our work was a part of that reason to avoid the
litigation.
PUBLICITY
Mr. Serrano. Let me just--we are aware that CRS provides
its services in a discreet manner that reduces the potential
for misunderstanding and avoids unnecessary publicity that
might interfere with confidence building and communications.
How do you reconcile this with the potential benefits
publicizing CRS contributions to reducing conflict in
communities, positive advertising, if you will.
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, we do take advantage of, in your
words, positive advertising in a way that does not reveal
confidential details of our cases. For example, in our annual
report we do get waivers from parties before we divulge any
details at all, even at a high level about our cases.
When we provide outreach, we do include relevant case
summaries where we have been given permission from the parties
and do not reveal details that would identify the particular
parties involved, and certainly not specific conversations that
occurred.
But there is a lot that we can do and that we do do to try
to get the word out about the kinds of cases that we work on,
the programs and trainings we offer. Certainly we can discuss
and hand out our brochures, and as I mentioned, our webinars,
to talk about those services without stepping over the line of
confidentiality.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
CRS DAILY TASKS IN REGIONAL OFFICES DAILY WORK
I understand the Community Relations Service stands ready
to offer its conflict resolution service to communities across
the U.S., and I know there are examples of CRS having a
positive impact on communities, as you have mentioned. Judging
from your fiscal year 2018 annual report, CRS responds to a
wide variety of isolated conflicts. What is the typical day
like at one of your regional or your I would say 10 regional
offices, I believe. Is that right?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Aderholt, we have 10 regional offices and
four field offices that report to a regional office.
Mr. Aderholt. Four field offices. What is a typical day
like when they are not actually engaged in a particular dispute
resolution and activity on the ground or in a community.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for that question. Most people who
are aware of CRS know that we work to diffuse situations of
actual conflict, such as a violent demonstration. That is
certainly not 40 hours a week of work, and thank goodness it is
not. But the bigger bulk of our work involves conflicts that
don't include a present potential for violence or actual
violence. Our facilitated dialogue programs, our mediations,
our trainings, are typically conducted after weeks or months of
planning.
So a lot of what our field staff are doing is working with
community groups to plan these events that take leg work to be
successful.
For example, this year we conducted seven mediations. A
mediation is not something that you do in a day. It is
successful only after careful planning, working with the
parties on the right agenda, and multiple sessions. Our
trainings are very similar where we work with a planning group
to make sure all the right stakeholders are involved, that the
word gets out so we have a successful event, and that there are
elements included in the planning that we call a ``leave
behind''.
We don't ever like to do an event that is one session and
then go away. We like to leave in place a structure, capacity
building, if you will, where a working group or a council is
left in place where locally they can then take what we have
discussed in the training or the facilitated dialogue, and turn
it into actions that are fitting of their local situation that
they are empowered to then work on, implementing solutions on
their own or with our support to address the tensions that led
them to come to us in the first place.
These are activities that again, are not quelling the
violence on the street, but are very, very important to
addressing underlying tensions, historical tensions. We also
conduct a lot of outreach. It takes time to develop and
strengthen relationships that must be in place before we can
successfully go to a party when there is an incident and have
trust already in place.
We also encourage our facilitators in the field to share
their expertise, which they do quite a bit, on panels, Federal,
State, and local panels, task forces and working groups that
work to increase capacity to reduce tensions and to prevent and
respond to hate crimes. And they also share their expertise in
meetings with senior government officials, working with the
U.S. Attorneys offices, local officials, city mayors, chiefs of
police, and others.
CENTRALIZED CRS OFFICE
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. According to your website, CRS has
regional and field offices, as we mentioned, that are
strategically located throughout the country to maximize
availability of CRS services, meet the unique needs of the
community they serve, and enable staff to deploy in the
communities quickly in times of crisis. Some of these field
offices serve a five or more State area.
Couldn't a centralized CRS staff serve a vast majority of
these States and the communities just as well.
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, we have found
historically that developing those local relationships before
there is an incident is a key way to success. However, wherever
we are located, whether centrally or spread out across the
United States, CRS staff will work to achieve our mission as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
ALLOCATION TO REGIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Aderholt. How do you allocate--determine allocation of
resources among these regional offices?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, first of all, we replace
staff who have left through attrition or retirement (when
someone has left an office) because we are small. The average
number of staff per office currently is two or so, give or
take.
Mr. Aderholt. Is that in the regional offices or the field
offices?
Ms. Ratliff. Each field office currently has one staff and
then our regional offices currently have on average two staff
more at other points in our history. So when there is
attrition, that becomes a priority.
So as we are able to hire we will replace staff who have
left, however, we are always mindful of case load and tension
trends. So we also take into account if two regions each have
lost a conciliator and we are going to hire one person, we will
allocate the new hire to the region where we see by the
caseload there is the greater need.
Mr. Aderholt. And as you mentioned earlier there are--you
have got 10 region offices and four field offices. Correct?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, sir.
REGIONAL OFFICE VS. FIELD OFFICE
Mr. Aderholt. Now, what is really the role of a regional
office as opposed to a field office?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, in many ways the roles
are the same. The field office enables us to stretch our
ability to develop relationships into a large city where the
field office is located. For example, in the region that is
situated in Atlanta, we have a field office in Miami. The staff
in Atlanta are very busy covering their eight State
jurisdictions. The population in Miami is such that it
justifies having additional staff in our view, dedicated there
to develop those relationships, not just in Miami, but
throughout Florida, so that when there is an incident staff are
close by able to more quickly deploy, and already have those
relationships in place.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Mr. Aderholt. And do you know the percentage of your budget
that is spent annually on costs associated with travel and
deployments?
Ms. Ratliff. We can get you the specific figure. We do
track that and it varies year to year, depending on the
tensions and conflicts that the country is experiencing.
REGIONAL OFFICE DEPLOYMENT
Mr. Aderholt. And I know you don't have the exact numbers.
Do you have an average number of days a year that a CRS staff
in the regional office are actually deployed actually in the
local community?
Ms. Ratliff. Again, it does vary significantly year to year
based on need, but we could get you specific figures for the
last few years if that would be helpful.
CRS ENGAGEMENT WITH COMMUNITY
Mr. Aderholt. And then, lastly, when CRS deploys to a
particular community that is in conflict or that is perceived
to be in conflict, do its specialists seek out and work
directly with the stakeholders?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, yes, absolutely. Our
work is essentially supporting what stakeholders are doing.
Mr. Aderholt. And they seek them out?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, absolutely. We seek out all of the
stakeholders who are related to a tension, whether it is a
community group, a neighborhood, the local law enforcement, the
local Federal officials, the local elected officials, faith-
based leaders, our mission is to neutrally work with all
affected parties.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Deputy Director Ratliff, thank you for joining us today
and thank you for your work.
CRS ANNUAL REPORT (2018)
I want to start by reviewing some numbers with you, numbers
that appeared in your recently published Community Relations
Service 2018 Annual Report, that highlights the enormous and
growing problem of hate crime in this country.
FBI HATE CRIME STATISTICS REPORT
The FBI's Hate Crime Statistics Report released on November
13, 2018, showed a 17 percent increase in reported hate crimes
from 2016 to 2017, including the following: An 18 percent
increase in hate crimes related to race, ethnicity, and
ancestry. A 23 percent increase in hate crimes related to
religion. A 66 percent increase in hate crimes related to
disability. A 48 percent increase in hate crimes related to
gender. And increases in hate crimes related to sexual
orientation and gender identity.
As far as I went with it, to the best of your knowledge, is
that an accurate rendition of the statistics in the report?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, Congressman, I believe it is.
Mr. Cartwright. You agree that the increase in hate crimes
is a statistically significant figure, and that this is an
issue that requires attention from the Department of Justice
and Congress?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, I am not a statistician, so I
would hesitate to comment on its statistical significance.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Would you agree that it is an issue
that requires attention?
Ms. Ratliff. Well, the Community Relations Service
certainly treats it as an issue that requires attention and,
so, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Are the trends that I outlined just
now, are they acceptable or do they require additional
attention and action?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, in the eyes of CRS, our staff,
and just through the years, we have worked as America's
peacemaker through many turbulent times from the marches in
Selma to the post-9/11 backlash against Arab, Muslim, and Sikh
communities to the violent demonstrations in Charlottesville in
2017. We have seen turbulence throughout each decade of our
existence and we proceed with our work to address the
challenges of today as we have done throughout the years.
Mr. Cartwright. It was a yes or no question. Are the trends
I outlined acceptable?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, even one hate crime is not
acceptable. So I would say no.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
CRS ANNUAL REPORT (2018)
Now the 2018 CRS Annual Report also states, quote, ``with
its unique mission, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to
assisting State and local units of government, private and
public organizations, law enforcement and community groups, to
resolve conflicts based on these aspects of identity, whether
related to an individual's race, religion, gender, or other
statutory category,'' unquote.
It also states that, quote, ``CRS works with community
groups to resolve community conflicts and prevent and respond
to alleged violent hate crimes arising from differences of
race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, religion, or disability,'' and from your testimony
this morning, I take it that was very much in line with these
statements as well. Correct?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, Congressman.
CRS BUDGET ELIMINATION
Mr. Cartwright. But the administration's fiscal year 2020
budget request eliminated the Community Relations Service and
moved the function to the Civil Rights Division. Correct?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. While the community has rejected--excuse
me. While this committee has rejected this proposal, if it went
through the net result would have been a reduction in staffing
from 54 employees to 15 employees, and a budget reduction from
$15.5 million to less than a third of that, $5 million.
The question is, are your employees busy? Do they have
enough work? I assume they must have enough work given the
alarming increase in hate crimes reported by the FBI.
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, our conciliators are busy. There
is always more work than can be done.
Mr. Cartwright. So if they are busy, why would you want to
dramatically reduce their workforce?
Ms. Ratliff. CRS is committed at any funding level,
Congressman, doing all that we can to work with communities who
are seeking to reduce tensions and prevent and respond to hate
crimes. At any funding level there will be more work that can
be done to support communities, and that is why we prioritize
the cases where we think we will have the most impact.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, in light of the worsening statistics
that we have seen and the unique role that CRS plays in
addressing those issues, what sense does it make for DOJ to gut
the programs that are best suited to address hate crimes and
violence in our communities?
Ms. Ratliff. We are committed to working as efficiently and
effectively as possible. There are always ways that we can
leverage our resources and technology to do even more with what
we have. And, again, no matter the year and no matter the
funding level, there is more work than any office could do to
support communities working on these issues, and at any funding
level we must prioritize the cases where we can have the most
impact.
Mr. Cartwright. Last question. Don't you think this sends
the wrong message? Cutting funding, cutting employees, cutting
the budget for this really important agency?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Congressman, CRS is focused on achieving
our mission and fulfilling our mandates.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director,
for being here today.
First, I want to express my appreciation for CRS and the
team you have in our home State of New York. Two years ago I
held an event at our local Jamaica Muslim center to address the
growing concerns of hate crimes and hate related incidents. And
CRS played an integral role in addressing a lot of the concerns
that came from our constituents.
Additionally, I want to commend you for your collaborative
work to develop and launch the DOJ hate crimes website.
Hopefully, that will be very helpful. I want to piggyback a
little bit about what my chairman and Mr. Cartwright have
talked about, specifically in regards to anti-immigrant
sentiment.
INCREASED ANTI-IMMIGRANT BIAS
I wanted to know what specific steps are being taken to
address some of this increasing anti-immigrant bias around the
country?
Ms. Ratliff. Congresswoman Meng, immigration status is not
one of our jurisdictional categories, however, there of course
is overlap with some of our categories. And when an incident is
jurisdictional, we will work with the community groups, whether
the perception is of a tension related to race, color, or
national origin, or under our Hate Crimes Prevention Act
jurisdiction, related to preventing or responding to a hate
crime.
So throughout our caseload you will see jurisdictional
incidents where the community groups may, from their
perceptions, think there is an immigration status related
issue, and from our perspective we are working with them on our
jurisdictional categories.
So that work would include our facilitated dialogues, our
trainings, our mediations, our consultations in sharing best
practices.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
DOJ DEPARTMENT SUPPORT
What type of support do you receive from other DOJ
divisions to maybe collaborate on strategies to address some of
the these. For example, white supremacists, field hate
violence, and how is CRS collaborating with local law
enforcement around the country to address these issues?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for that question. We do leverage
department resources when appropriate. We also work together on
department initiatives, including the one you mentioned. Under
the Hate Crimes Enforcement and Prevention Initiative, we have
played a large role in the development of the hate crimes
website as well as community facing hate crimes training that
will be piloted next year.
There are times during deployments where we will work with
the COPS Office to conduct facilitated dialogues between law
enforcement agencies or between a law enforcement agency and
community groups dealing with conflict.
Some of the Department of Justice components we would not
have reason to work directly with, but we are always
coordinating with our colleagues and coworkers to share
resources and best practices.
In terms of local law enforcement, many--in fact, most of
our cases, the largest slice of our cases--involve in one way
or another local law enforcement, so they are always one of our
first stops in introducing ourselves, getting their perspective
as we are neutral in terms of conflicts, and supporting their
needs, sharing best practices that we are aware of, and
referring them to other experts as needed, to hear from their
perspective directly, and also to support their needs as we
support all of our stakeholders' needs.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
NEWLY UPDATED PROGRAMS
And, finally, I just wanted to ask about two of the more
newly updated programs engaging and building partnerships with
Muslim Americans and partnerships with Sikh Americans. As you
know, these programs include presentations designed to raise
cultural awareness about Muslims and Sikhs and share best
practices with law enforcement.
I wanted to ask about the current status of those two
programs and presentations. Are they being actively deployed?
Are the materials publicly available?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for that question as well. The
engaging and building partnerships with Muslim Americans and
Sikh Americans trainings, actually two parallel trainings, are
ones that we recently updated over the last 2 years. We worked
with Muslim American and Sikh American groups to advise us on
the content. We conducted a focus group of law enforcement
because they are the target audience for these trainings to
make sure that the content resonated with them and their needs.
And we just recently held the law enforcement focus group,
updated the content to meet their needs, and we will now be in
fiscal year 2020 rolling out the new content for use across the
country when requested.
So far this fiscal year we have facilitated the trainings
in Texas and New Jersey, again, conducting evaluations at the
end of each session to refine the content. And the model we are
using is using a local subject matter expert to be the face of
the content.
So, for example, when we are facilitating the Muslim
American training, we will use a Muslim American expert who we
have trained to present the content and answer questions, and
then our conciliator is also present as an overall facilitator
and to guide the audience to developing action plans for what
actions they can take, based on the training, to better
strengthen their own engagement with those populations.
Ms. Meng. Would you be able to share some of these
materials and trainings with our committee?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
Director, thank you for being with us today. You have
incredibly important work to do, and we appreciate you taking
the time to speak with us.
FBI REPORT
As Congressman Cartwright mentioned, in your written
testimony you state that an FBI report showed that a 17 percent
increase in hate crimes has occurred between 2016 and 2017.
And, of course, that is just the reported hate crimes.
You also state that CRS anticipates this trend to continue
and that your office will be asked to respond to even more
occurrences in fiscal year 2020. Given this, would you agree
that CRS' work is increasingly important in today's society?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, we believe that our work has been
important since the 1960s when we were founded. As the specific
nature of the conflicts facing this country have changed with
the decades, we have adapted to meet the diverse needs of our
stakeholders, but we have felt that each year each decade has
brought its own very important challenges, including today.
HATE CRIMES
Mr. Crist. Does your agency have the ability or the
expertise to try to analyze what hate crimes are occurring in
our present day society at all? Do you devote any work to that?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, did you say to analyze why they
are occurring?
We do not have a unit dedicated to specifically analyzing
why hate crimes are occurring. We are always, all of us,
seeking best practices and research, working with experts to
try to understand the latest research that would inform our
programs. But we certainly could not speak as to the source for
these hate crimes and bias incidents.
Mr. Crist. Do you think it would be a good idea to try to
learn what some of the causes might be of current hate crimes
in America?
Ms. Ratliff. I think that the causes of hate crimes and
bias incidents, there is certainly not one cause I think they
are very complex issues that are based on the community, based
on the community group affected, based on the locality as to
why a hate crime or a bias incident would occur. When there are
historical tensions, they also play into perceptions and
reactions.
There are agencies, even within the Justice Department, the
Office of Justice Programs has a mission that includes research
and awarding grants to experts to conduct research.
And I am not an expert on the scope of their grants and
research, but as a small agency, we remain focused on our core
mission, which is to support communities working to reduce the
tensions and respond to hate crimes, and certainly at this time
we are not seeking to divert from that mission.
ELIMINATION OF CRS
Mr. Crist. Can you share with us why you believe the
administration has proposed to eliminate your agency?
Ms. Ratliff. The administration is focused on streamlining
and prioritizing efficiency and effectiveness.
Mr. Crist. Do you think given the recent increase in hate
crimes in America that it's a good idea to do away with your
agency?
Ms. Ratliff. At CRS we are focused on advancing our
mission, on working on our mandate of impartiality, and
supporting community groups.
Mr. Crist. What is your mission?
Ms. Ratliff. Our mission under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
is to work with communities that are seeking to reduce tensions
and conflicts based on race, color, and national origin.
Our mission was expanded in 2009 with the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act to include five other categories: religion,
disability, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity,
where we can support communities who are working on tensions
related to those five categories as well as race, color, and
national origin, to respond to and prevent violent hate crimes
and the perceptions thereof.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Mr. Crist. Thank you. Are you aware that the Department of
Justice has been pressuring the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to reverse its position that the Civil Rights Act
prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity or
sexual orientation?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, I am not aware of the details of
that issue.
Mr. Crist. I didn't ask if you are aware of the details, I
was asking if you were aware of it at all.
Ms. Ratliff. No, I am not, Congressman.
Mr. Crist. Let me make you aware of it.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Crist. I am reading from a Blumberg Law Daily Labor
Report posted August 13, 2019. The Trump Justice Department is
urging the Federal Employment Rights Agency to change its
position and tell the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that
businesses can discriminate against transgender employees
without violating the law.
So now we are all aware of it. What do you think of that?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, I am focused on supporting CRS'
work. We do work with communities addressing transgender
related conflicts and tensions. In fact, this fiscal year we
have had 12 such cases in States ranging from Florida,
Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, North Carolina,
Washington State, Missouri, and DC.
There have been cases, as I am sure you are very well,
where a transgender women has been sexually assaulted, a black
transgender woman was fatality shot, another transgender woman
was murdered. Those are very concerning cases where we have had
the privilege of working with community groups to support their
work to prevent and respond to these types of heinous
incidents.
Following up on that work, we have just updated a training
that we will be piloting in the next few months is for local
law enforcement who are interested in strengthening their
engagement with transgender communities. It is called Engaging
and Building Relationships with Transgender Communities. So
this is a very important part of our jurisdiction.
Mr. Crist. Having said that, and I appreciate you using the
adjective heinous in relation to those cases that you are
handling and helping with currently, I would have to assume
then that if there was a reversal of protecting people of
transgender, that that would be equally heinous.
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, we are focused on our work.
Mr. Crist. And that currently is your work, but if the
Department of Justice is successful it wouldn't be your work
anymore. Is that good or not good?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, we are focused on our work and
fulfilling our mission as America's peacemaker and we are
committed to that mission.
Mr. Crist. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you. And thank you to your staff for your
critical work, getting much more critical. Just a couple of
kind of logistical questions to understand. You have talked
about stakeholders a number of times, who are they? I mean, who
can come to you?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, anyone can come to us. We work
with Federal, State, and local elected officials, city
managers. We work with law enforcement at the Federal, State,
and local level. We work with faith-based groups, schools. We
would work with civil rights organizations, community groups.
We want to and must work with all groups related to a
conflict because as a neutral body we must hear from all sides
and equally work with them so that we have all of their trust.
Mr. Case. And you talked about how U.S. Attorneys are one
of your sources. Correct?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes.
U.S. ATTORNEY ENGAGEMENT
Mr. Case. What are they bringing to you? I am trying to get
to a big picture of--you and your department, CRS, are kind of
acute observers, independent observers of the state of our
society. So I am trying to use you to understand what you think
is happening out there and where the priorities should be.
So U.S. Attorneys, what are they telling you they want you
to work on?
Ms. Ratliff. Well, Congressman, the U.S. Attorneys are, in
terms of their intersection with our mission, they certainly
are focused on hate crimes, prevention, and enforcement.
The Department, as a priority, of course, is focused on
hate crimes, including a department level working group that
includes CRS as well as the U.S. Attorneys offices's Civil
Rights Division, et cetera.
Mr. Case. Are they primarily bringing to you hate crimes?
Is that their concern, the U.S. Attorneys?
Ms. Ratliff. U.S. Attorneys will refer hate crime related
incidents to us. They also will refer, when they believe it is
appropriate, incidents that would fall under our Civil Rights
Act jurisdiction. If there is an officer involved shooting, for
example, and there is a perception that it was motivated by
race, color, or natural origin.
They have at times suggested CFS to the local law
enforcement and at the same time suggested that we reach out to
offer our services. I think we hear from them related to both
of our jurisdictions.
CRS RESOURCES
Mr. Case. Okay. I think your testimony was that you have
covered about 150 cases through 3 quarters of this year. How
many more are out there if you would have taken if you had the
resources, I mean, just that you would feel credible. Let's say
that you could just really take any case that you felt was a
priority and that should be taken, what kind of volume are we
talking about? Are we talking about 3 times that, 5 times that,
150 about right?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, we are not able to quantify that.
Mr. Case. I am just for your gut. I am asking for a--I am
not asking your to quantify it, I am asking you for what you
think. How many things come into the office or that you
prioritize that you think, yeah, this would be worth working on
through the same timeframe?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, part of the difficulty in
answering your question is that there are times when we reach
out to a community group and the timing is not right from their
perspective to work with us. So I don't know how many cases
would fall into that category that we wouldn't have been able--
wouldn't have had the opportunity to address anyway.
Mr. Case. Would you say that there is a lot more demand for
what you do or other people do in society than what we are
actually doing, is that a better way to answer this or are we
about right right now?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, I would say, yes, that has been
true each year of our 55 years of existence.
Mr. Case. Okay. When you sit down among your folks and
evaluate your cases and take a look at your cases and look at--
I assume that you look at themes within your cases and root
causes within your cases and try to extract some bigger picture
lessons and initiatives, are there areas where you believe that
Federal law is insufficient where you say to yourself, wow, I
just wish we had a law that did this? Are there areas of that?
Are we deficient in our hate crimes Federal legislation, our
civil rights legislation, our race-based legislation?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, that is not something we have
analyzed. We have not identified any such areas.
Mr. Case. Any gut feelings for that? Are there areas where
the communities that you work with feel that there is not
enough attention from the Federal Government?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, that is something that we can
take back to the department.
Mr. Case. I just think you are perfectly suited to give
that kind of advice because you are working independently with
a lot of folks who will be very upfront with you about what
they think. So that is the reason for my question. I am just
trying to get a sense of where should we be hitting here.
AREAS OF CONCERN FOR CRS
So then in the same spirit, you know, you have worked over
a number of decades now. If you look out into the future, you
have prioritized hate crimes, part of that is statutory and
part of that is your observation. You have also identified in
your testimony that areas of concern from a religion division
perspective are on the rise. Are there one or two areas where
you are just saying from your own priorities, yeah, we have got
to work in that area a lot more because we have got to get
ahead of that?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, we care about all areas of our
jurisdiction equally. We are concerned that every year the
largest percentage of our cases are not just related to race
but related to African American tensions, the overwhelmingly
largest percentage of our cases every year since our inception.
We also are concerned that religion-based cases, including
anti-semitism-related cases, are rising. We are concerned with
the number of hate crimes being committed against LGBTQ
individuals, particularly transgender cases.
We are concerned about all of our categories of
jurisdiction. We are concerned about disability-related
incidents. But even though our numbers are small in that area,
we care very much about those cases.
We watch our statistics. We look for trends. We try to
respond. At the end of the day, we care about every single case
and every case that goes unworked.
Mr. Case. Understood. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano. I have to say that--and I am not trying to be
sarcastic--if we were grading you on being a loyal soldier, you
would have done very well today.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Did you almost say Mr. President? No. It would
have been a slip.
But we have been around long enough to understand in all
administrations what role the White House plays in the budget,
and it is clear to this subcommittee on this side--and I
venture to say that the other side knows it too--that they are
trying to get rid of your agency and that is why they are
trying to put it somewhere else.
And you answered the questions the way you were supposed
to, but please understand that the people who gave you more
money in the budget last time was this subcommittee, in a
bipartisan fashion. It was not the intention of the
administration to do that. It was their intention to move you
and push you out, and we have seen that in many places.
The 2020 request proposed moving CRS functions within the
Civil Rights Division. As you know, the House-passed
appropriations bill did not support this action. In part, this
reflected the view that CRS' mission needs to be expanded, not
shrunk; but also that CRS not having a law enforcement or
prosecution function does not seem a good fit for the Civil
Rights Division, which is expected to carry out those functions
and to do so with vigor.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRS AND CIVIL RIGHTS
What relationship does CRS have with the Civil Rights
Division and with other DOJ enforcement agencies, such as the
FBI, who investigate crimes such as hate crimes and
discrimination? Can you work together or must you be strictly
separated so as to keep your credibility as a peacemaker and
not a score settler?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman----
CRS MISSION
Mr. Serrano. Because, by the way, we do see your unique
mission or the way the agency has developed it, where you go in
and you try to make peace; whereas, we expect other agencies to
go in and grab somebody by the neck or by the arm and say, why
did you do that, you know, you can't do that.
So how do you answer that question now?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We
do leverage Department resources, where appropriate, as I
mentioned earlier. That is mostly on Department-level
programmatic initiatives, such as working together to implement
the hate crimes website and community-facing hate crimes
training.
We do not share confidential details of our cases with
other components of the Justice Department. We do at times have
appropriate case to coordinate with, for example, as I
mentioned before, the COPS Office, when we are both working to
facilitate dialogue between local law enforcement and community
groups or between law enforcement groups. Those would be cases
where we are certainly not divulging any confidential
information.
We work with the Civil Rights Division, never in detail on
cases, but, for example, if they call us in to support, for
example, the announcement of a prosecutorial declination, then
we would work with them to support the needs of the community
and their understanding of the basis for that decision and
working to reduce the potential for violence.
But we would rather fall on our swords than divulge
confidential information to any inappropriate source.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Mr. Serrano. So you do work with these agencies, but there
is still information that you don't give them or pass on to
them, because you need that information in order to build your
trust in the community. Is that it?
Ms. Ratliff. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We could not do our work.
We would have no trust if we were not able to keep our
information confidential.
CRS NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE AND PUERTO RICO
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Does CRS Northeastern Regional
Office, based in Manhattan, handle CRS' work in Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands? In 2017, for example, school officials in
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, requested CRS services to help address
community concerns about disparate treatment, based on race and
color. How does CRS follow issues in Puerto Rico from such a
distance? Is it all done with a team flown from New York?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, the work in Puerto Rico is very
important to us. We had six cases in Puerto Rico in fiscal year
2018. Not only did we have staff volunteer to deploy in support
of FEMA for the hurricane recovery efforts, but we also have
staff dedicated to the needs that relate to our jurisdiction in
Puerto Rico.
For example, most of those cases in fiscal year 2018 had to
do with perceptions of disparate access to resources relating
to the hurricane recovery. Those were cases where we were able
to work with FEMA and the local stakeholders to share
information and ensure that access to recovery resources was as
fair and equitable as possible.
In addition, the schools in Puerto Rico have asked us to
come back, not this year, but as soon as they feel ready, to
work with them to address school-based tensions, and we look
forward to doing that work.
Mr. Serrano. So a lot of your work was with FEMA and
agencies and such and trying to find out how they were treating
Puerto Rico. I mean, we heard about it. We saw it in many
cases, but it was hard at times to prove that they were not
getting the same fair treatment that they should have been
getting and that other people got.
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, in addition, there are often
perceptions of disparate access in a chaotic environment, which
is just as damaging as actual disparate impact as well. And we
work on both categories to try to mitigate those impacts.
CAPACITY OF NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. Serrano. Deploying CRS personnel so far away must
entail a significant commitment of personnel for a length of
time. How does the Northeastern Regional Office ensure it has
the capacity to meet demand for its services?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, our conciliators and regional
directors coordinate among themselves to ensure that we are
meeting the highest needs. So if there is a case in New York
that one of our two conciliators who are located there can't
get to because they are meeting other needs within the region,
we will, through headquarters, coordinate with the other
regions to identify staff to deploy to the region. Our
interregional deployments are a tool we use to ensure that we
are meeting the highest needs where we can have the biggest
impact.
CRS ANNUAL REPORT (2018)
Mr. Serrano. Going back to FEMA for a second, your 2018
report described the positive role that CRS conciliation
specialists served in facilitating FEMA operations in Puerto
Rico, particularly with disadvantaged communities suffering
from Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
Would you describe that effort as having a lasting impact
on FEMA community relations? Is the experience transferrable to
other government community areas of potential conflict, you
think?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, yes, absolutely. FEMA showered
our staff with praises for the work they did on those
deployments, and we do believe there are lessons learned from
that activity that we can use elsewhere.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
CRS RESOURCES
I understand that CRS plays a role in the Department of
Justice's ongoing effort to strengthen relationships between
the local communities and law enforcement officials. Could you
talk about the resources that CRS uses to help inform its
understanding of the police perspective in a conflict between a
community and its officers?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for that question, Congressman. One
of our newest programs that we piloted last year is called
Strengthening Police and Community Partnerships, or SPCP. And
it is a facilitated dialogue program that we have found to be
effective when local law enforcement would like to take action
to address often historical tension, often around race, but it
can be around any of our jurisdictional categories.
So, for example, in fiscal year 2018, we conducted two such
programs: One was in Erie, Pennsylvania, and one was in Topeka,
Kansas. In those programs, we worked with the local police, and
these programs were conducted at their request, bringing in
community groups for a day-long session of working together,
the community and the local law enforcement, in small groups to
identify what was working well in the city, what could be
better, reporting out and then switching the groups up, and the
last part of the day identifying solutions that then were put
into a report and turned over to a council.
The council in both cities is comprised of local law
enforcement and officials as well as community group
representatives. The council in both cases has been working
since that session to implement actions that were identified
during the actual day of the dialogue.
For example, I can tell you that the Erie, Pennsylvania,
council is still meeting. In fact, I believe they have a
meeting next week. They have scheduled training. They are
working on a victims' assistance program, and they are asking
CRS to support some work in schools to address tensions as
well.
ANTIFA
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. According to a New York Times
article, the Antifa movement believes that violence is a
justifiable form of protest. Has CRS attempted to engage with
the members of this community in an effort to prevent their
violent acts or hatred they espouse towards law enforcement and
people with whom they disagree?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, as I have mentioned
earlier, part of being neutral is to reach out and be willing
to dialogue with all stakeholders. I can tell you, though, that
when we at times have reached out to Antifa, they don't return
our call.
Mr. Aderholt. You have attempted to engage?
Ms. Ratliff. We have in certain cases, yes, absolutely
attempted.
[Clerk's note.--The Department responded for the record:]
In response to a question from Ranking Member Aderholt, Ms.
Ratliff stated that CRS attempted to engage with Antifa groups,
but that they ``don't return our call.'' To correct that
statement, there are some instances where CRS has successfully
engaged with Antifa groups, and they recognize that CRS's focus
on reducing the potential for violence serves the interest of
all parties.
Mr. Aderholt. And as far as training CRS' staff to maintain
neutrality, you know, there may be times when they might tend
to identify or maybe sympathize with one side over the other in
a community conflict. What do you do to try to maintain that
neutrality and try to make sure that they are going into it
from a neutral stance?
Ms. Ratliff. We focus on the importance of neutrality,
every year. In fact, this summer we had our annual staff
conference. And one of the significant activities of the
conference, led by our general counsel and our regional
directors, was a panel where we reviewed various case scenarios
and discussed neutrality implications and actions and better
actions that could be taken to emphasize neutrality. So it is a
very important topic to us, and we do weave it into our
professional development activities.
CRS STAFF INVOLVEMENT
Mr. Aderholt. Are there any activities that CRS staff are
advised not to participate in, because they exceed the role of
a neutral facilitator?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Aderholt, we have some general
guidelines. Much of neutrality is a case-by-case basis, but,
for example, we have some very clear guidelines that if a
conciliator is at a demonstration, they shouldn't be buying a
tee shirt and wearing it or wearing a button. There are some
very black-and-white guidelines. But a lot of the challenge of
neutrality is not so clear-cut and something that we work at
and discuss all the time.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CRS DIRECTOR VACANCY
Deputy Director Ratliff, I want to ask you about the
vacancy at the top of CRS. According to the Washington Post,
the position of Director of CRS is one of 145 key positions in
the Federal Government requiring Senate confirmation that has
not yet received a formal nomination from the current
administration.
We are now nearly 3 years into this administration's term
and your director position remains vacant. I suppose that is
why you are here instead of a Director to testify.
The question is, what are some of the challenges that you
have faced over the past 2 years, given that you are serving,
really, in an acting role at CRS? Are there limitations on the
Acting Director that are not imposed on a Senate-confirmed
Director?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Cartwright, I can't think of any
specific limitations other than just time. Many of us at
headquarters are serving in more than one position, and
covering the bases and making sure that balls don't drop is a
challenge that we all face. Every one of us at CRS has multiple
duties.
For me, as the deputy, I am focused on strategic planning,
keeping the trains running, making sure that the staff have
what they need to do their work and supporting them.
Mr. Cartwright. We certainly thank you for that. I guess my
followup question is, can you think of a good reason why a
Director has not been nominated?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman, I am not aware of the plans in
that regard or the reasons behind it.
MISSION OF CRS
Mr. Cartwright. All right. I want to jump over to a topic
the chairman just raised, and that was about the mission of
CRS. According to the mission statement itself, it says: The
United States Department of Justice community relations service
serves as, quote, ``America's peacemaker,'' unquote, for
communities in conflict by mediating disputes and enhancing
community capacity to independently prevent and resolve future
conflicts.
And I appreciated your description of your work in Erie,
Pennsylvania, in response to Congressman Aderholt's question.
One of the key elements of the CRS is that it is
independent of litigators, as the chairman mentioned, and
independent of those who investigate and prosecute crimes
within DOJ. And let me tell you why independence is really a
key element. According to many advocacy organizations, it is
this independence that permits local leaders, like the folks in
Erie, to ask for assistance in preventing violence, without
fear of instigating lawsuits and/or prosecutions based on the
request, and participation in planning and prevention.
CRS BUDGET
Over the past two budget cycles, this administration
proposed moving CRS' functions to the Civil Rights Division
while eliminating nearly three-quarters of its staff and two-
thirds of its budget, as we have discussed. Putting aside the
obvious issues with the staffing and the funding, I want to
talk about the wisdom of merging CRS into the Civil Rights
Division.
Now, Assistant AG Lee Loftus stated in 2018, quote: ``We
are very aware that there are some potential issues if you
combine them, because there needs to be some segregation
between CRS and its responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act
and the function that the Civil Rights Division may have in its
regular investigative and prosecution responsibilities,''
unquote. He also stated, quote: ``So when CRS moves in, there
is going to have to be some type of segregation so that we
don't cross those lines,'' unquote. Now, we are very mindful of
that and to the extent that we need different authorizing
language in our legislation, that will be part of that fiscal
year 2019 budget process that we work out on the Hill, unquote.
That was AG Lee Loftus in 2018.
So there seems to be a tacit recognition by the DOJ and
this administration that there are serious legal issues with
respect to this proposed merger. The overall savings from this
proposed move would be $10 million, which is a lot of money but
represents a small fraction of the overall DOJ budget.
My concern is this merger would potentially reduce the
efficacy of the CRS by eliminating that key independence from
prosecutors. Do you agree with the civil rights advocacy groups
that CRS should be a separate component under DOJ and not a
part of the Civil Rights Division?
Ms. Ratliff. Congressman Cartwright, the Department is
committed to moving forward if Congress adopts the proposal in
a way that preserves CRS' critical impartiality and need for
confidentiality.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, last question: As Deputy Director of
the CRS and really the top person in charge of managing it
right now, do you believe that CRS can be as effective with
less independence, one-quarter of your current staffing, and
one-third of your current budget?
Ms. Ratliff. I am committed to supporting CRS' work however
our agency is structured. We will continue to work as
efficiently and effectively as we are able under any scenario.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
HATE CRIMES
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The CRS website notes that 90
percent of hate crimes are violent and that about 48 percent of
all hate crimes are motivated by racial bias, yet your website
also notes that less than half of all hate crimes are reported
to law enforcement.
In our hearing this year with the head of the Civil Rights
Division, we discussed the largest barriers to combating hate
crimes was underidentification and underreporting. Last year,
the Department set up a hate crimes website.
How is CRS helping communities become more aware of the
prevalence of such crime and to improve such reporting? Is the
website increasing awareness of DOJ's CRS resources?
And secondly, the website only seems to contain resources
in English. Given the victims of hate crimes do not always
speak English as a first language, what can we do or what are
we thinking of doing to deal with that particular issue?
Ms. Ratliff. Mr. Chairman, that was a lot of questions. I
will try to answer all of them, and if I leave one out, please
remind me.
I will start with the hate crimes website. There have been
over 100,000 visitors to the website since it was launched last
year across all 50 States. That is one way we are hoping that
awareness is getting out. The website was launched as a phase
one, with plans to enhance it as we move forward, including
adding information in Spanish in FY2020.
Reporting hate crimes is often a function of trust. CRS
focuses many of our programs on setting up opportunities for
communities who might not feel trust to network and get to know
local law enforcement, so that those relationships are in place
and hopefully there will be trust to facilitate reporting.
We also have two educational forums, the Hate Crimes Forum
and the Protecting Places of Worship Forum, that include panels
of Federal and local law officials often an Assistant U.S.
Attorney or the U.S. Attorney even will attend--to talk to the
participants, and these would be community members, about what
is the Federal hate crime law, is there a State hate crime law,
how do you report, what are victim services?
Those are forums that we have conducted throughout the
country. Even just this fiscal year we have conducted nine Hate
Crime Forums and 14 Protecting Places of Worship Forums. We
have just completed guides for how to conduct those forums.
They are an A to Z guide for if a community wants to put on a
forum without us or even with our help. The guides are a form
of capacity building that we will be handing out and making
available on our website, so that any community who wants to
put on such kinds of educational sessions can do so.
POLICE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Mr. Serrano. I have one last question: One of the bigger
issues in the country has been for a while now but certainly
recently more than before is the relationship between the
police and the community. And there is so much work that needs
to be done there to create a better situation, and many
communities are trying to do that. There has to be law
enforcement within law enforcement to deal with discrimination
cases. There has to be programs of understanding and coming
together.
What does your agency--how does your agency deal with that,
and what resources are available at DOJ and in your office to
reach out to communities on this particular issue?
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. As I
described with the Erie, Pennsylvania, example, one of our
programs that we developed last year is called Strengthening
Police and Community Partnerships, or SPCP. It is a program
that is customized for some of the scenarios you have
described. When there are historical tensions or a recent
incident between police and community groups and the police--
often there is a new police chief who is willing to try to make
a fresh start with the community, we will set up a day-long
session. And these are planned not in a vacuum, not just with
the police chief, but with a planning group that includes the
key community members so there is buy-in and credibility in the
session. The structure of the programs is to sit the parties
down, to talk through their perceptions of what works and what
doesn't in the city, and then what do they think could be done
for improvement.
We do not come in and impose solutions. If solutions are
not generated locally, based on their understanding of what
would work, it cannot be successful. So we are behind the
scenes facilitating those discussions, and then we set up a
council that will take the solutions that have been identified.
We put it in a report. And then they meet, on their own
cadence, to implement the solutions that the community and the
law enforcement identify.
So this is not just a one day and it is solved session.
This is a day session that then lives on through this council
that is comprised of law enforcement as well as community
group, representatives who then implement solutions that they
think will address the issues that were raised. That is one of
our programs that is very customized to the scenario you
describe.
We also have a similar program called the City-SPIRIT,
where if the police issues are just part of a larger range of
challenges, we can do a similar facilitated dialogue session
that is not just focused on police related issuses in the
community, but includes the participation of other city
officials.
And we also have community dialogues tailored to race and
other jurisdictional issues, to enable community groups to come
together, express their perceptions, and hopefully build
relationships and trust to improve those relationships over
time.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I appreciate that. There is so much that
needs to be done in that area, and it is not an easy one at
times, but one where there are a lot of people who want the
situation to be better, that there is trust in their local
police, that there is support for their local police, but that
the local police also respect and understand and not bring any
of their personal feelings they may have growing up or
something into their job.
So it is a very difficult situation, but one that we must
deal with and must resolve. With any community that has a
relationship between the police and the community, it just
won't work for either side. So thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Chairman, I don't have anything else.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. No more questions.
Mr. Serrano. Well, we thank you. You are probably glad to
hear the last three comments. We thank you for the work you are
doing. We hope you understand that our comments are not meant
to be critical, but, rather, we have certain beliefs.
And we also understand that you can't get up here and agree
with us on why you are not getting more resources and more
support and so on. And it is all part of what we are dealing
with in this country, trying to deal with a lot of things.
But I personally, from my personal viewpoint and a
prerogative I always take on my birthplace, do appreciate the
fact that you pay attention to the territories of Puerto Rico
and the others. If I accomplish one thing in Congress, it is
that little by little it is beginning to change the language.
It always was the 50 States, and now you hear a lot of chairmen
of committee and ranking members say the 50 States and the
territories, because we are one family, and a lot of people
seem to forget that.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Ratliff. Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Serrano. Meeting is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--The Department did not answer questions
submitted for the record.]
Thursday, September 19, 2019.
OVERSIGHT HEARING: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
(STEM) ENGAGEMENT
WITNESSES
KAREN MARRONGELLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN
RESOURCES, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
MICHAEL KINCAID, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR STEM ENGAGEMENT, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Serrano. Good morning to all. I would like to welcome
to the subcommittee Dr. Karen Marrongelle, Assistant Director
of the National Science Foundation for Education and Human
Resources; and Michael Kincaid, Associate Administrator for
STEM Engagement at NASA.
Both NSF and NASA play important roles within the Federal
Government in advancing science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, and efforts to inspire young students to pursue
these fields. These partnerships have provided great
educational opportunities for students in the STEM disciplines,
and have helped maintain American competitiveness and
innovation on the world stage.
Notwithstanding the congressional action in providing
robust funding for STEM, the administration persists in trying
to eliminate or reduce funding for STEM programs both at NASA
and NSF respectively.
Since January 2017, there has been a consistent effort to
undermine the Federal agencies that make the United States the
world leader in science and technology. For example, over the
past 3 years NASA's budget request has not prioritized funding
for the STEM engagement, requesting just $37.3 million in 2018
and zero funding in 2019 and 2020. This committee has rejected
these proposals and has instead provided healthy levels of
funding for popular and effective programs, such as the Space
Grant Program, EPSCOR, and MUREP.
In the case of NSF, the Education and Human Resources
Directorate has had budget requests with a 14 percent decrease
in fiscal year 2018 and 9 percent decrease in fiscal year 2020,
and, again, this committee has filled in the gaps and provided
robust funding to continue the STEM mission. Advancing STEM is
about investing in a better tomorrow; it is about educating our
young students in fields that will determine the future of
billions of people around the world.
The subcommittee is committed to continue providing the
resources necessary to build a workforce for tomorrow, create
good-paying jobs at home, and advance scientific progress. We
have been very focused on providing robust funding for STEM
initiatives to ensure that young men and women of diverse
backgrounds have access to a STEM education and that our STEM
fields fully reflect the great diversity of our nation.
Thank you again to both of you for being here today. Thank
you for your service and we look forward to hearing your
testimony.
And now I would like to turn to my good friend and
colleague Mr. Aderholt, our ranking member.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Serrano, and
thank you for holding this important hearing on STEM and how we
can better look at that, and see what is happening in that
world and how we can better assist from the appropriations
standpoint.
I would like to welcome today's witnesses, of course, Mr.
Mike Kincaid and Dr. Karen Marrongelle, to the Commerce,
Justice, Science Subcommittee.
Given that NASA and the National Science Foundation are
leaders in the Federal STEM efforts, we are tasked with
carrying out the President's 5-year STEM strategic plan. And I
look forward to hearing how annual funding supports your
agencies' STEM programs, how you work in coordination with your
Federal partners to not duplicate STEM efforts, and how to
address challenges that continue to exist in the STEM fields.
Here on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee, we
do have a long bipartisan history of supporting STEM, and we
aim to improve the quality and effectiveness of the education
for students in the STEM fields by promoting engaging learning
experiences and unique opportunities for students to contribute
to the agencies' scientific initiatives.
We still have a long way to go to address a lot of the
barriers and the gaps that exist in the field, but I think we
are very proud of the progress that we have made to expose more
students, just like in the district I represent in Alabama, to
STEM opportunities.
Just recently, I joined with the NASA Administrator, Mr.
Bridenstine, at a school in my congressional district, Arab
High School in Arab, Alabama, where we toured the school and
spoke to students about NASA's support for the student robotic
program, and emphasized the very need for STEM education.
STEM education provides a pathway for many high-quality and
fulfilling careers, while helping boost the U.S. innovation,
economic competitiveness, and national security.
In the United States' race against China for high-tech
supremacy, it is essential that we as a nation develop more
future scientists and engineers. Our ability to innovative and
lead in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum cyber, and
nanotechnology depends on our ability to motivate and train
today's students. Hopefully, this is exactly what the programs
that we are going to be talking about today are doing.
And, finally, speaking of our reference to remain ahead of
China in scientific innovation, I would like to--it would be
extremely worthwhile for this subcommittee to follow up with a
hearing to consider NASA's budget amendment to accelerate the
U.S. return to the moon in 2024. A subsequent NASA hearing
would be a valuable opportunity to better understand how
taxpayer dollars are being spent on human exploration programs,
including the development and utilization of the SLS Rocket and
the exploration of the upper stage production of Orion
capsules, and the extent to which the agency is well-positioned
to receive an additional $1.6 billion to support the Artemis
mission.
As the Trump administration recognizes, the United States
is once again in a space race and now the stakes are even
higher. And while the United States remains far ahead, China is
striving to become a dominant space power. I don't think anyone
would deny that. STEM engagement efforts hold the key to many
groundbreaking scientific endeavors, not the least of which is
the U.S. world-class space program.
So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your organizing the
hearing today, and we look forward to the testimonies of our
guests here today and to hear from them, and I yield back with
that.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Dr. Marrongelle, you are recognized at this time for your
statement. We hope you can keep it to 5 minutes. As always,
your full statement will be in the record.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt,
and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is
Karen Marrongelle and I am the Assistant Director of Education
and Human Resources at the National Science Foundation. It is a
pleasure to be able to testify before you today on the subject
of STEM engagement with a focus on STEM education investments
at the NSF.
I joined NSF last October from Portland State University in
Oregon, a veterans and nontraditional students-serving
institution. As a first-generation college graduate, I am
passionate about access and success in higher education,
especially for students who have not had opportunities to
thrive in the STEM disciplines.
As my colleague from NASA will describe, scientific
achievements like the moon landing can be life changing and
motivating for people of all ages. We know there is a long road
between an initial spark of interest in STEM to a successful
career in STEM. At NSF, we want to understand the many roads
leading from those initial STEM sparks.
NSF is the only Federal entity charged with supporting
education research at all levels, in all science and
engineering fields, and in all settings. Combining the best
that we know from research about learning and cognition with
exciting ideas about how to teach STEM is a winning combination
for inspiring and preparing the next-generation STEM workforce.
In this hearing, I hope to convey to you my excitement
about STEM education and why I think the work we do at NSF is
so important for the future of the nation.
Why is research on STEM education so important? First, it
provides the evidence to help ground decisions on what to
implement. We need the answers to questions like what are the
most effective ways to teach the concept of force? How do we
prepare teachers to teach engineering design to students from
diverse backgrounds? And questions of particular interest to me
as a mathematics educator, why are fractions so difficult to
learn, and how can we make mathematics a magnet rather than a
stumbling block? Education research will help us get the
answers.
For example, in the 1980s, NSF funded pioneering work at
Carnegie Mellon University using artificial intelligence to
help high school students learn algebra. The tutoring system
was tested in a trial involving 146 schools in seven states
with more than 18,000 students. Today, Carnegie Learning is a
private company providing mathematics tutoring products used by
half a million students per year in school districts in at
least seven states.
STEM education research can help us to imagine and prepare
for the education of the future. NSF currently funds a project
at New York University using what we know about the importance
of having kids explain concepts during learning, but how
difficult this can be for middle school students who don't want
to be embarrassed by giving a wrong answer to their peers. In
this project, middle school students teach a robot about
geometry, while the robot provides expressive feedback and
social support. Students refine their own understandings of
geometry, while enhancing self-reflection and motivation during
problem solving, all with a robot who probably won't make them
feel embarrassed by their mistakes.
The robots of the future may revolutionize education
because they can be programmed to take advantage of our
discoveries about learning and teaching, they can be
customized, and they provide safe, nonjudgmental learning
environments.
STEM education research also helps us prepare the workforce
of the future. Scientists and engineers constantly make
discoveries that change the shape of their disciplines,
requiring new education and training at every level. NSF's
Advanced Technological Education Program focuses on the
education of technicians for cutting-edge, high-technology
fields such as advanced manufacturing, precision agriculture,
biotechnology, and cybersecurity. Our graduate training
programs support students working across disciplinary
boundaries to solve some of the most challenging problems
facing our world today. And this year, with a gift from the
Boeing Company, we are tackling how best to re-skill employees
through online training.
Finally, education research is key to understanding how we
can broaden participation in STEM. NSF is instrumental in
uncovering what it takes to keep students on the road to
reaching their STEM goals, and we do this by working with and
learning from a variety of institutions to paint a picture of
what works across the United States. We expect that the
comprehensive NSF INCLUDES Program will add to our existing
efforts. Its national network already has over 20,000
participants and close to 900 partners. The program is intended
to scale up proven practices through partnerships to engage
everyone in STEM.
In summary, NSF's investments in education allow us to
advance research on teaching and learning, broadening
participation, and preparing the STEM workforce. NSF's research
portfolio provides the knowledge capital that underpins a broad
spectrum of nationwide STEM engagement initiatives at NSF,
federally, in schools and institutions of higher education,
online, and in libraries, museums, and other learning contexts
across the country.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that the members
may have. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for your testimony.
Associate Administrator for STEM Engagement--Mr. Kincaid,
you are recognized.
Mr. Kincaid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of
the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss
NASA's endeavors in STEM engagement. NASA is committed to
achieving its exploration goals and to reigniting America's
passion for space science, aeronautics, and space exploration.
As NASA continues to move forward with Artemis, we envision
students across this nation joining us on that journey. NASA's
efforts with students attract the next-generation workforce and
stimulate interest in STEM careers across the nation. Similar
to Apollo, we envision creating the Artemis generation.
NASA's STEM engagement efforts are part of a larger Federal
effort to inspire students to study STEM.
NASA, NSF, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
jointly lead the Committee on STEM Education, known as CoSTEM,
which coordinates STEM education efforts across the government.
NASA is proud to work with our Federal partners to maximize the
impact of these investments in STEM.
Congress passed the America Competes Reauthorization Act of
2010, which directed the Federal Government to establish CoSTEM
and required us to develop a Federal STEM education strategic
plan every 5 years.
In December 2018, we released a new 5-year strategic plan
that focuses on building strong foundations for STEM literacy,
increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM, and
preparing the STEM workforce for the future.
NASA's investments in STEM support those goals. Our STEM
engagement strategies focus on three areas: creating unique
opportunities for students to contribute to NASA's work,
building a diverse future workforce by engaging students in
authentic learning experiences, and strengthening understanding
of STEM by enabling powerful connections to NASA.
NASA's Office of STEM Engagement manages a mission-driven
program comprised of four projects, which engages students at
all levels and supports institutions. Now I would like to
highlight these four projects.
The pictures to the right of me--to the left of me, the
right of you--show examples of how thousands of students have
engaged with NASA through challenges and competitions. I know
you are familiar with Space Grant, with consortia in all 50
states, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Over 1,000 affiliate members
engage students in NASA's mission through direct student
awards, competitions, challenges, research opportunities, and a
variety of student engagement activities. Space Grant is a
powerful vehicle to build the Artemis generation across the
country.
The Minority University Research and Education Project,
known as MUREP, invests in minority-serving institutions via
competitive awards. MUREP enhances the research, technology,
and academic capabilities of these institutions through multi-
year grants providing NASA unique benefits to students who have
historically been under-served and under-represented in STEM.
NASA EPSCoR directly contributes to the NASA mission by
fostering partnerships among NASA research entities, industry,
and academic institutions, while incorporating state priorities
and needs. Through competitive awards, NASA EPSCoR bolsters the
capacity of institutions that have historically been under-
represented in research awards.
Finally, the Next Gen STEM Project was established last
year to focus on NASA's efforts to engage K through 12 students
and provide support to informal education institutions. We have
developed a suite of evidence-based pilot activities that
engage middle school students in NASA's mission. Next Gen STEM
also makes investments in museums and informal institutions
through competitive awards, and supports NASA's Museum
Alliance.
NASA STEM engagement investments can make a powerful
impact. Last year, our efforts reached over a million students
and educators. NASA provided over 32 million in direct
financial support to more than 8,000 students in internships
and fellowships. Nearly 40 percent of these opportunities were
filled by women and 30 percent of our awards went to racial or
ethnic minorities.
It truly is an honor to speak with you today and thank you
again for this opportunity. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. My first question is for both. The
reason we are holding this hearing is because the
administration's budget request for STEM education programs are
wholly inadequate to our nation's needs.
The fiscal year 2020 budget proposals for NASA and NSF
include enormous cuts in STEM education funding. At NASA, the
budget proposal included eliminating STEM education programs
and at NSF your proposal included a cut of $87 million from the
Education and Human Resources account.
If the budget request was to be enacted, what impact would
that have on the STEM workforce capacity building at
undergraduate universities and K-to-12 STEM education for both?
Mr. Kincaid. I will go first, okay.
Chairman, thank you for the question. You know, the Office
of STEM Engagement is just one part of NASA's effort to develop
the next generation of the workforce. So we are very concerned
about making sure that we are developing tomorrow's engineers
and scientists, and we use NASA's missions to inspire kids in
all different ways.
It is true that we had to make some difficult choices in
the budget process this year, but we do understand and fully
appreciate that Congress has a very strong opinion about these
programs and we make it a priority to implement that to the
best of our ability. We do appreciate the broad bipartisan
support that we enjoy and we hope to continue to merit that
support in the future.
Mr. Serrano. So you were consulted, obviously, then in
these cuts----
Mr. Kincaid. I was aware----
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. In reaching these cuts or you
were aware?
Mr. Kincaid [continuing]. I was aware of the cuts.
Mr. Serrano. But just the Administrator in that case was
consulted? Or it was just sent down the way it usually happens?
Mr. Kincaid. I am the Associate Administrator for STEM
Engagement, it is my job to implement the work that you guys
give us and the appropriations. We are set up to implement the
funds that you will choose to appropriate for us.
Mr. Serrano. Well said. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kincaid. Thank you.
Dr. Marrongelle. At NSF, similar to NASA, a reduction in
our budget in EHR will result in fewer awards that we will be
able to make, fewer innovations that we will be able to fund,
fewer discoveries that we will be able to make.
That said, with the generous fiscal year 2019 budget that
we were given, I am very pleased at how responsibly we were
able to allocate those funds and the number of projects that we
were able to fund.
For instance, we were able to add an alliance project in
our NSF INCLUDES network this year based at the University of
Pittsburgh, which is tackling a really interesting problem. We
have increased the number of pre-college programs, especially
for inner city minority youth, who take part in those programs
and are successful and become interested in STEM, but we have
realized that when they go to gain admission to colleges in
their localities, they are having trouble gaining college
admission. University of Pittsburgh recognized this problem and
has now developed a national network to figure out how to
credential pre-college programs and overcome this barrier, so
that we can keep those kids on track to achieving their STEM
dreams.
It is projects like these that with whatever budget money
we receive we are going to be able to continue to do this work,
we will be able to do less of it with a lower budget.
Mr. Serrano. Let me as a follow-up ask, is this simply a
budget gimmick? Does NASA and NSF leadership expect the
committee to backfill these major gaps each year?
Mr. Kincaid. I am not sure that I can answer on behalf of
NASA leadership. You know, we are here to talk to you about the
work that we do and the----
Mr. Serrano. Well, we can answer from our side. I mean, the
reason you alluded to a generous increase is because this
Chairman and Mr. Aderholt and our leadership agree in helping
NASA and NSF, especially in the STEM field, and we would like
to see every so often you folks initiating the asking rather
than us filling the holes that have been left by some other
people.
But we know how things happen around here. Just know that
on this side of the room you have people that want to help, but
we need help over there also in making the case why you need
the money we are giving you, because these days--and I am not
trying to be political at this hearing, but Mr. Aderholt knows
that I don't do that--but these days, to build a wall, money
could come from anywhere, so you have to be making an argument
all the time on behalf of what you have and what you need.
Mr. Kincaid, the same question for you and you have
answered already, so I don't want you to think that I was just
praising the doctor for what she said, we want you to also be
an advocate and a cheerleader.
Congress has robustly funded four major programs, Mr.
Kincaid, the STEM Engagement Appropriation; the National Space
Grant College and Fellowship Program; the Established Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR); the Minority
University Research and Education Project; and the STEM
Education and Accountability Project. Each of these programs
inspire youths to pursue the fields to advance science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Are these opportunities fairly disseminated and can you
give us examples of how each are administered?
Mr. Kincaid. Chairman Serrano, thank you for the question,
it is a great question. And I think it was alluded to, the
Space Grant is a really powerful element of that opportunity.
The fact that Congress has directed us to create consortiums in
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
enables us to make sure that we are meeting local needs in
those states. Space Grant works together to bring affiliates it
could be higher education institutions, museums, science
centers together to provide opportunities.
We also look to Space Grant to help us make sure that
EPSCoR institutions that are eligible for EPSCoR funding, as
well as minority-serving institutions, in those states are able
to access the opportunities that NASA has. We do put a premium
on making sure that we are reaching all segments of our
community, because we really do in order to secure and we
talked about wanting to improve the diversity of this future.
Mr. Serrano. Doctor, let me give you a follow-up question
before I turn to Mr. Aderholt. Do you feel that there are gaps
in existing programs that should be addressed? That is, are the
STEM education needs in our country that NSF could potentially
help address, but which are currently outside the scope of
NSF's existing STEM education programs?
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for the question. I am very
proud of the work that we do through a variety of our programs.
We reach students from infancy through to working adults, we
work in formal settings and schools in all sorts of colleges
and universities, from community colleges to liberal arts
colleges to research-intensive universities, and then we do
quite a bit of work outside the formal school setting. Work
with museums, with television programs, work to get the word
about STEM out and really reach the broadest population
possible.
We have, as you know, programs that focus on specific
under-represented groups of students and institutions. We have
programs through HBCU-up, through tribal colleges and
universities, our new Hispanic-serving institutions program.
Those institutions can and do achieve awards at NSF through the
whole suite of programs that we offer at the Foundation.
Where we have gaps is really in the number of questions
that are out there about effective ways of teaching and
continuing to evolve what we know about how people learn. We
have those questions that remain that span all groups of
students of all ages, of all geographic locations, and those
are the questions that oftentimes we just don't get the full
and complete answers to.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, thank you to both.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And these questions will be
directed to both of you as well.
Studies have shown that STEM education can provide workers
with better employment opportunities, of course, wages that are
higher and often double the national average, but there are
millions of students in rural parts of America that face
barriers to having access to high-quality STEM education. Some
of the barriers would include teacher retention, shortage of
mathematics and science teachers, inadequate resources, limited
access to broadband services, just to name a few.
In your opinion, what do you believe is the biggest barrier
students in rural areas face in having access to high-quality
STEM education?
Dr. Marrongelle. This is a great question and thank you for
it. We have been funding a lot in the arena of rural STEM
education. In a recent review of our portfolio, we have some
350 projects that, in some way, are looking at how STEM
education is being implemented in rural communities and the
specific challenges.
I just came from a meeting yesterday at the Education
Commission of the States where I heard a lot from educators at
the State level who have particular concerns around ensuring
access to STEM for rural students.
As you highlighted, some of the major challenges are
teacher recruitment and retention and teacher recruitment and
retention in STEM subject matter. Recruiting a mathematics
teacher or a science teacher to go to and stay in rural
communities is one of the great challenges.
Technology can also provide a challenge. It can provide
opportunities, but depending on broadband access, that can also
provide a challenge.
We have several projects at NSF that are specifically
looking at how we can address that challenge and how we can
offer out-of-classroom support for students, as well. We found
that partnering with libraries in rural communities, community
groups, community centers, 4-H clubs; these are ways that we
can get STEM professionals who are embedded in the community,
have STEM understandings and knowledge to provide, to get them
connected with kids outside of the classroom as we continue to
work on the problem of recruiting and retaining teachers in
rural areas.
Mr. Aderholt. All right.
Mr. Kincaid. I would add to what Karen said by just talking
a little bit about some of NASA's activities. Again, I would
refer back to Space Grant. The fact that it is in every state
allows us to meet the needs of students wherever they might be
and asking them to bring together affiliates, consortiums of
organizations together in a state to make a difference, I
think, is a key aspect.
Part of why it is key is that we can show up with NASA
content that they can distribute. I look at something like NASA
STEMonstrations. These are start videos that were produced
onboard the International Space Station and they are for use in
teachers' classrooms to understand complex physics and science
kinds of concepts. For us to be able to provide real-life
examples that are very visual for students to be able to see is
a real opportunity that we can partner with our other Federal
partners to get that information out there.
Thanks for the question.
Mr. Aderholt. What are your Agencies doing to provide more
opportunities in rural areas to broaden STEM programs on a
nationwide basis and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of
the programs in the initiative that you did mention?
Mr. Kincaid. I will start by saying that evaluation and
trying to make sure that what we are doing makes sense is
really a key part. I stepped into this role two and a half
years ago and it was an area that was probably not our strength
and so I actually called Karen's predecessor and said, You
know, the NSF has so much more experience in evaluation of
basic research of education. They have truly been an invaluable
partner to us to be able to come over, spend time with them,
take some lessons learned from them, and I think there has been
some opportunities for us to collaborate and learn from each
other.
Evaluation is critical. Space Grants and EPSCoR, MUREP,
each of our grantees helping us provide the data of the
implications and impacts they are making is a critical element
of the appropriation that you sent us.
Dr. Marrongelle. And just to add on to what Mike was
describing, the heart and soul of what we do at NSF is we aim
to understand what is working for whom, under what conditions.
Any projects, any of the 350 projects that I mentioned, we are
gleaning information from those projects to understand where
are the projects making a difference and if they are not making
a difference, what went wrong and what information can be
shared out about, Don't go down that road, but instead, try
this because this has been a proven practice.
We love partnering with NASA, and other Federal agencies on
answering those fundamental questions and getting the
information out.
Mr. Aderholt. Last December, the administration released
its 5-year strategic plan for STEM education and it was titled,
``Charting a Course for Success: America's Strategy for STEM
Education.'' I understand the plan called for building strong
foundations for STEM literacy, increasing diversity, as you
have already mentioned, an inclusion in STEM and preparing for
STEM workforce for the future.
As part of this 5-year STEM initiative, you both serve as
co-chairs on the subcommittee on Federal Coordination in STEM
Education and I think it is commonly called ``FC-STEM.'' How
does the annual NSF and NASA funding help carry out this 5-year
plan and assist you in your role on the FC-STEM?
Mr. Kincaid. Thank you, Chairman, for the question, and
yes, Karen I visit virtually every Friday morning. We talk
about FC-STEM and what we are doing and how we can work, not
just our two Agencies, but all the Agencies together. I have
got to tell you that these last two years, it has been exciting
to see the Agencies wanting to come together. We have unique
aspects. There are things that we do that are unique to us, but
there are opportunities where we can collaborate and work with
others and find out about things that I may not know about in
my area that they are working on that we can partner with.
I am excited about where we can go with this. It is,
certainly, when we looked at our three overarching strategies
for STEM engagement and we wrote those before the new 5-year
plan came out, we were really gratified to see that they just
dovetailed very nicely. We talked about diverse future
workforces, and making sure that students were building,
enabling contributions from our students into NASA's workforce.
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes. It has been really amazing to work
with Mike and all the Federal partners on this plan. I started
in October, so when I came in, the plan was just getting
finalized and I was really pleased to learn that NSF staff, as
I'm sure NASA staff, were really instrumental in the
development of the plan. We did get a lot of public input into
what should be in the plan.
When I read the plan, there is NSF fingerprints all over
it, which means that it is--it dovetails very nicely with the
programs that we have. It also, then, enables us to make
further tweaks to the existing programs to better align with
what's in the plan.
You know, everything at NSF that we do fits into one of the
3 goals that you have just described. This really is a
blueprint for our work. It describes the work that we do, and
as we move forward to implementation, we have 5 inner-agency
workgroups that are set up that are rolling out how the Federal
agencies are responding to the plan, how we are doing it in a
coordinated way where we are not overlapping with each other,
but rather, drawing on each other's strengths. It is really
exciting work to be part of and to see how this is going to
make a difference. It is already making a difference for the
work that we are doing for the Nation.
Mr. Aderholt. According to information that we received,
the annual funding for propes for STEM education are typically
in the range of $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion. Given that this
is a significant Federal investment, how is FC-STEM working to
ensure that Federal STEM efforts are not duplicated?
Dr. Marrongelle. This is part of the interagency workgroup
agenda that I described. Because we are meeting regularly, as
Mike described--leadership for FC-STEM meets weekly. We meet
with FC-STEM monthly. We have regular, ongoing conversations
about what are the unique aspects of our Federal agencies and
our unique contributions to the STEM Education Federal
Portfolio. Where are places that we can partner to strengthen
ties and ensure that the investments are widespread, and look
for places where there might be duplication, but more
importantly, where there are opportunities for collaboration.
As an example, the NSF INCLUDES National Network recently
had 5 Federal agencies join that network. Mike can describe
what NASA is doing in that arena, but it is really exciting
because we are ensuring that as we take a collective approach
to broadening participation of STEM throughout the nation, it
is not just NSF onboard, and we are able to reach communities
by partnering with NASA or the Department of Educationor NOAA
or NIH that, otherwise, we would not have had the chance to
reach those communities to understand and learn from them and
get the word out to a broader audience.
Mr. Kincaid. I would add to Karen's statement by saying
that, as she mentioned, one of the five IWGs (Interagency
Working Groups) is looking at transparency and accountability.
While our team that looks at evaluation and making sure the
work we are doing is making a difference, we really have
learned a lot not only from NSF, but from those regular
conversations.
You know, when you talked about how much money the Federal
Government pays, the more we can learn from each other and not
try to evaluate in our individual spaces, I think we can be
more efficient and truly more effective to build the workforce
that we talk about.
As for NSF INCLUDES, you know, there is a number of things
that we are working on together and as I have dug into NSF
INCLUDES, what's interesting is they are looking at networks of
organizations that already exist that we want to help make
stronger to really broaden participation in our nation. And for
NASA, those line up perfectly with our goals. To be able to
have our network interact and leverage NSF's network, I think,
can only benefit both us and NSF and the community. I am
pleased to be part of that.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Marrongelle and Mr. Kincaid, thank you for being
here and thank you for your testimony.
One of the essential roles of NSF and NASA and our entire
Government is in promoting STEM education is to inspire the
next generation about science, to show them how important
science is, and how much we value it as a society. What we do
here in government, with respect to science matters. There are
subtle and ``not so subtle'' messages that our Nation's leaders
send to our citizens in our treatment of the scientific
community and how we make policy and funding decisions related
to science.
When the administration's budget slashes funding in key
research areas from studies of our bee pollination crisis to
the impact of mining, that sends the wrong message about how we
value science here in the United States. When scientists across
the government resign in protest, citing, this administration's
systemic suppression of climate-change research, that sends a
clear message about whether the Government accepts widely
understood scientific conclusions regarding the connection
between human activity and climate change. It sends a message
that politics will be valued over science and that the
administration does not want to engage with science that fails
to agree with its stated policy objectives.
I want to ask some quick questions, and this doesn't even
require a yes-or-no answer, just raise your hand if you agree,
okay. Number one: Do you agree that scientific research should
be conducted free from improper, political, and outside
influence?
It is a ``raise your hand'' question.
Dr. Marrongelle. [Witness raises hand.]
Mr. Kincaid. [Witness raises hand.]
Mr. Cartwright. Oh, good, I knew you could do it.
Number two: Do you agree that Federal agencies have an
important responsibility to set a standard with respect to
integrity of scientific research and its results?
Dr. Marrongelle. [Witness raises hand.]
Mr. Kincaid. [Witness raises hand.]
Mr. Cartwright. Good. I am proud of you so far.
Do you believe that in a potentially life-or-death
situation, where the attention of the country is focused on our
scientists, this would be an especially important time to
protect scientific integrity?
Mr. Kincaid. [Witness raises hand.]
Dr. Marrongelle. [Witness raises hand.]
Mr. Cartwright. Let the record reflect the witnesses raised
their hands in the affirmative to all three questions. Look,
you are here at the CJS Subcommittee hearing room and they
provide us with equipment here; they give us pencils, they give
us highlighters. One thing they don't give us is black
Sharpies, okay. And we can all roll our eyes at a President
trying to cover up his misinformation with a Sharpie, and those
memes were a lot of fun, too, were not they?
But the pressure on our scientific agencies to be complicit
in this farce and reenforce false and dangerous information is
what really disturbs me. The lack of will by scientists to
stand up for the truth in science was disheartening.
Now, I know it would have been immensely difficult to speak
the truth in the face of the Secretary of Commerce and the
White House Chief of Staff threatening to fire you. I know
that. An NOAA meteorologist anonymously commented on the
agency's attempt at self-censorship, ``This is the first time I
have felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the
forecast. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate
rumors and, ultimately, that is what was occurring.''
NOAA's chief scientists called NOAA's response political
and a danger to public health and safety--NOAA's chief
scientists.
Look, we need to build faith in our scientists so people
trust them. They trust weather reports. They trust vaccines.
They trust climate science.
What NOAA did in response to political pressure hurts faith
in science as an institution and I fear things like that will
damage the appeal of science as a career to the next
generation. We need brave people to do what is right. Now, if
either of you are asked to misrepresent science for political
reasons, would you make a different choice from that made at
NOAA? How would you handle the situation?
Dr. Marrongelle.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for your question. We stay true
to the science that we do at NSF. We are about basic,
fundamental scientific research and we enable this basic
research to be done throughout the United States. We make
incredible discoveries like the black hole discovery just this
summer. We also, on a ship that involved students aboard,
discovered microplastics in the ice in the Arctic, and we
continue to support the research that goes on and we will
continue to do that, as is our mission at the National Science
Foundation.
In the education and human resources directorate, we
continue to get the word out about those scientific discoveries
and the importance of STEM education and the excitement of
doing science and engineering work throughout the country.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Kincaid, please?
Mr. Kincaid. Your question caused me to reflect. Thirty-two
years ago, I started at the Johnson Space Center as a human
resource person. I am not a scientist. I am not an engineer. On
day one, they talked about what we do matters to humans in
space, and so the work that we do is important.
From the very beginning, we speak up if we see something
that doesn't make sense. I feel like NASA and NASA leadership
has continued to set a standard throughout my career that we do
what's right and we bring you the data. We bring you
information that you and other decision-makers can use.
Mr. Cartwright. I can tell you my questions are making you
uncomfortable and you should be uncomfortable.
Do you believe that scientists, particularly those whose
work has immediate life-and-death consequences, brazenly
misleading the public could have long-term impacts on public
perception of science?
Mr. Kincaid. I didn't understand the first part of your
question. I'm sorry.
Mr. Cartwright. I will read it again.
Do you believe that scientists, particularly those whose
work has immediate life-and-death consequences, brazenly
misleading the public could have long-term impacts on public
perception of science?
Dr. Marrongelle. I think that is possible. I think there is
a lot about public perception of science that we still don't
know about, that we are still finding out. The answers to how
the public views science, how the public consumes science, how
the public takes the findings of science and makes decisions
about their daily lives and the choices that they make. This is
an open question that we continue to try to understand and
explore no matter the environments, within which we are
currently operating.
Mr. Cartwright. Will you both commit to standing up for
scientific integrity, even in the face of political pressure?
Dr. Marrongelle. Absolutely.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Well, good morning. You get a softball from me.
[Laughter.]
You know, I have two kids, 14 and 10, and it is crazy how,
you know, children and their skills seem almost innate when it
comes to technology with a tablet or a phone or whatever it may
be. I mean, I know if I get stuck, I just hand it to them and
say, Figure this out for me.
And so, you know, we have this workforce Gen Z, and my
kids, and their generation, and I just want to know, as it
relates to STEM jobs and helping push children in that
direction--here's the softball--what can we do better? And I'd
like to hear from both of you.
Dr. Marrongelle. Sure. Thank you for the question. Yes,
there is a lot that we are currently doing and there is a lot
that we could do better. I also have a 9-year-old, so I
understand exactly where you are coming from.
We have been funding several projects through the Computer
Science for All program that are equipping today's teachers
with information about computer science, computing, and
technology, both at the elementary levels, K through 8, and
then at the high school levels. High school, we get more
intensive training with teachers and they are starting to
introduce computer science courses. We are seeing these
introduced throughout the country. A new computer science AP
exam was recently introduced just two years ago, which has
really increased the number of women and minorities taking
computer science and enrolling in computer science and
succeeding at that exam.
At the elementary levels, we are doing intense professional
development with teachers to make sure that they know how to
incorporate technology in the best ways into their classrooms.
Often times teachers will show up into classrooms and they
have, you know, a stack of ThinkPads and a smart board and we
have to make sure that they are getting the professional
development and the support to integrate those tools into their
teaching. We know they can, but they just need a little support
doing that.
Mrs. Roby. So, I am just going to interrupt you for a
second because it made me think, how do you guys identify
underserved communities so that you can make sure that these
resources are getting into communities that haven't had access?
Dr. Marrongelle. Right. Great question.
There are several ways and one is through the EPSCoR
program at NSF, and EPSCoR is government-wide, so that
certainly locates states where we have additional need. But
then in our calls for grant proposals, there are different ways
that grant proposers can identify how they are defining
underserved, whether it is geographically or rural or urban,
whether it is low-income, whether it is groups who,
historically, have not had opportunities in STEM. There are a
variety of ways that our proposers can identify the ways in
which they see underrepresented needs in their communities
because it is local.
Mr. Kincaid. Now, I would add to that how we reach students
depends on the audience and what age they are. When I think
about your first question, I also have 3 kids and 2 are
college-aged, but one is 11. How I would inspire 11-year-olds
across the country is a little different than 18-year-olds.
I was thinking about a couple of thoughts. What you have in
front of you is a little booklet that we created and it is
about forward to the moon and going back to the moon and what
that might look like with Artemis. Giving students a chance to
have hands-on experiences that they can help better understand
concepts is an opportunity that I think NASA and our Federal
agencies have.
I also think about something that we have. We have
something called NASA EXPRESS. It is a weekly email that goes
out to about 40,000 educators across the country with
information about content that teachers can use in the
classroom to connect with them.
We talked briefly about rural. It is challenging to figure
out ways to get information handed to them, and NASA, as a
small agency, is not going to be able to send a person to every
place, but we can send through digital sources, through
STEMonstrations I briefly mentioned, through other resources
and partnerships. I think there is a real opportunity here to
make a difference.
Mrs. Roby. Well, that is great. And we appreciate the work
that you are doing and thank you, again, for being here today.
And any additional information that you want to send our
way--I know we put out a weekly newsletter--not weekly--maybe
twice a month about grant opportunities, so our constituents
are aware of what monies are available. Obviously, we don't
write the grants, but we do want to make sure that folks that
are looking for these opportunities and want to pursue them
know that they are there. So, I just want to make sure that we
are in contact with you so that we have the most up-to-date
information about how these different monies can be utilized,
particularly, in my district.
So, I look forward to continuing to work with you and thank
you, again.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mrs. Roby, and thank you for
adhering to the 5-minute rule.
Mrs. Roby. I didn't know that I did, but great. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. I am trying to send a message here--I am
trying to get you to send the message.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Message received. [Laughter.]
Ms. Meng. I want to piggyback off of Mrs. Roby's comments
and questions. And it is no surprise that we have a similar
line of questioning, as a fellow colleague and a wonderful mom,
I wanted to also add that I have a 9-year-old and an 11-year-
old and also a niece who is now fascinated with STEM subjects
and a large part of that is due to her science teacher in
elementary school. And I wanted to, I guess, get--and you don't
have to answer this today--but I wanted to get a better sense
of some of these programs that you are talking about and maybe
what the footprint is in New York state, selfishly, my
district, but would be more interested in finding out about
those opportunities and how we can work even more closely
together.
But also as you talk about the diverse and amazing talent
pool of students in the U.S., but diversity is not always
reflected, as you know, in business, academia, and even
government. And so, I wanted to know what can Congress do to
better support your efforts legislatively, as well, to help
improve that diversity and increase opportunities.
And also, what can our business community do to be better
partners. They say they are concerned about it, but I am just
curious what you think.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you. Those are great questions and
we will certainly get back to you with specific information
about New York, where there are many exciting projects
happening.
This year we partnered with the Boeing company on two
separate projects. They gave us $11 million to partner with
them. A million of it went to our NSF INCLUDES program and it
was focused on bringing women back into the STEM workforce who
have had a gap in the STEM workforce with a particular focus on
veteran women. We were able to award some projects that are
figuring out ways that we can reach those women and get them
back into, at the post-secondary level, back into programs
where they can get credentialed and degrees in the STEM
disciplines. It was very exciting and it was wonderful to see
Boeing step up in that way.
The other way that we are working with Boeing with ten
million of that $11 million was on re-skilling their current
workforce and they are interested in figuring out, really being
part of the solution for the nation, how do we ensure that the
workers of today are going to have the skills for tomorrow, and
how do we do this using the technological tools that we have
available to us with online platforms, the data that are
generated from those platforms, and ways to fit education into
the spaces of people's lives, which particularly affects women
who have encountered challenges in that respect.
If we have more companies like Boeing stepping up and
working with all of our agencies, that is one example of a way
that we can really make forward progress.
Mr. Kincaid. It really is a great question and you really
touched on a number of different ways that NASA can reach
people, whether that is through our partnerships with our
companies that we work with or whether that is the partnerships
that Space Grant is required to build. When they build their
affiliate network, they bring in partnerships and a wide range
of companies.
I also point out to you another partnership that we had. As
part of the 50th-anniversary activities we brought together
industry, different agencies together to look at how could we
use the fiftieth anniversary to engage kids. It is really cool,
we had a chance to--if you have ever taken your kids to the
National Park Service--my daughter likes to become a junior
ranger when you go to one of those locations--we actually
partner with them on Spaceflight Explorer. The National Park
Service, we provide the content; they distributed 50,000 of
these across the national parks this last year for students to
become junior rangers in spaceflight exploration.
Again, I think we have to go through non-traditional ways
to find mechanics for students to connect with STEM that we may
not normally think of.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And a second, quick follow-up question
on a related topic, but more in terms of higher education,
minority-serving institutions. These institutions tend to have
relatively low educational and general expenditures, but enroll
high proportions of financially needy students. A lot of these
schools have challenges that affect their ability to obtain
financial support and might affect their ability to compete for
the larger multi-year, multimillion-dollar Federal grants and
contracts to support STEM education.
I wanted to ask what NASA and NSF might be doing to help
these institutions that might lack that ability to effectively
compete.
Mr. Kincaid. Again, that is a really great question. About
a third of NASA's budget goes to what we call MUREP, Minority
University Research and Education Programs, and so, that is
money set aside to work with minorities and institutions to do
exactly what you talked about, build capacity for them to
compete for other awards. We reached them in a number of ways,
through direct reach, because we have contacts with minority
HBCUs and MSIs across the country. We also work with our Space
Grant network; again, they are a logical partner to work with.
The third thing I mentioned is something we call
``technology infusion roadshows.'' A couple of times a year we
will go to a different part of the country and we will provide
information from our Space Technology Mission Directorate, as
well as our office of small business to go out and talk to
minority-serving institutions to help them be better prepared.
We have been in New Mexico and Atlanta this year and we will be
in Puerto Rico in November. It is a concrete way that we can
show up and help universities navigate their way through that
process.
Dr. Marrongelle. The NSF is deeply committed to this work;
in fact, this week, I have several program officers who are at
Claflin University in South Carolina doing outreach to HBCUs
and other MSIs in that region, specifically focused on working
with universities who have not been successful or have not even
applied for NSF funds through the education and human resources
directorate.
We do this type of outreach regularly, and we do it
geographically spread. We have a staff associate who has done
an incredible amount of work in the Pacific Islands that has
led to successful grant applications from universities in Guam
and to the Mariana and Samoa, Marshall, and Carolina Islands.
We take seriously the notions of in-reach, as well, so
ensuring that the staff within the NSF building are also
educated and updated on the challenges facing MSIs and other
institutions who have not historically had success at NSF.
Finally, we partnered with the National Academies two years
ago to study STEM at MSIs, and I think just as you described,
one of the findings was the research support at MSIs is not at
the same levels as other institutions, which really calls into
question how competitive they can be. We have been taking the
findings of that report very seriously, as we think about
planning our outreach.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And if I can interject here, you
don't know how refreshing it is to hear the territories
mentioned.
I will be leaving this place next year after 30 years in
Congress and 46 in public office, and if I accomplished
something, it could be that I instilled in folks that
territories are not states, but they are American citizens and
should be included in everything. But I don't think I could
have accomplished that if we didn't have people like yourselves
who understood it before I brought it up. And that is
important, so it is nice to hear.
And it doesn't make me feel bad as chairman of this
committee to have a year and a couple months to keep saying it.
Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur, you have one minute. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. You see, here's my plan. If I give you a
minute and you stretch it to 5, we will make the time limit.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you to be a very
fair person. [Laughter.]
Let me just say it is an honor to be here with you----
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Especially this morning, and, of
course, all of our colleagues.
I wanted to begin with a brief statement that I would be
remiss if I did not register my strong objection to the
administration's budget proposal to eliminate the STEM programs
at NASA in its fiscal year 2020 budget, and I also wanted to
lodge my objections to the proposed offset for the Artemis
program budget and the proposal to repurpose funding from the
Pell Grant program to fund an accelerated moon landing.
For me, this is a nonstarter, and I don't think we should
cannibalize one education program for another purpose. So, I
just wanted to begin with that.
My questions really involve STEM, directly. We thank you
for your life dedication to learning for the future
generations. And I just wanted to begin with a suggestion and a
question that relates to American ingenuity in space.
I represent a company called Cedar Fair and among its
facilities across the country, over 26 million people walk
through their gates every year. In my district, we have
something called Cedar Point, the largest roller coaster in
America. It is a marvel of physics when you look at it and
engineering, and just at that site, 3.6 million visitors come
every year, largely, youth who have the guts to get on some of
those rides.
And I understand there is a precedent to writing STEM
partnership agreements with theme parks. Can you elaborate on
what steps you might take to make a partnership agreement with
this company if they would be willing. I haven't asked them,
but I just think there is enormous opportunity to influence the
thinking of young people and teachers and others who pass
through those gates. So, that is question one.
Questions two has to do with districts like mine and,
frankly, the chairman's--Chairman Serrano's district. If you
were to look at the distribution of the members of Congress
here and the mean incomes of the districts from which they
come, out of 435 members, my district ranks 407 in the country
in terms of mean income of its citizenry. Congressman Serrano's
district--Chairman Serrano's district ranks 435. And so, the
district number one is Congresswoman Eshoo, who comes from the
tech belt in Northern California.
So, if one looks at what's happening to our economy and the
distribution of assets in this society, it is very unequal, and
my question is, what steps might you take to make your outreach
more sensitive to the economic variations across districts in
the country and what might you do working with our Department
of Energy labs, all of which need Americans to apply for
positions within them, where people will be retiring,
particularly in the areas of nuclear thermal propulsion,
battery storage, resource utilization? There are a lot of
areas--cyber--where we need people that we don't have right now
as we transition to generations taking over these positions.
So, the first one has to do with, can you work more
effectively with theme parks to advance STEM and, secondly, in
terms of your work across the government of the United States,
could you somehow add more sensitivity to mean incomes of
districts in linking with DOE to assess what might exist within
them so we get a fair distribution of STEM recruitment across
the country.
Mr. Kincaid. Thank you, Congresswoman.
You know, NASA is also looking for nontraditional ways that
we can reach students through partnerships and, yes, we have
worked with other theme parks to take NASA content to implement
that. We have worked with Hollywood studios. We have worked
with different entities to figure out how do we get role models
and interest in STEM and lots of different sources. We would be
happy to work with you. I visited with you and your staff
yesterday. I would be happy to spend more time talking with
Cedar Fair about that, I would be interested to hear more.
I would also point out to you that there is something
called the NASA Museum Alliance. It says museum, but it really
gets at all of our informal education institutions. So, it
could be visitor centers. It could be science centers,
libraries, different entities. Over 1,000 members are part of
that, and what we want to do is provide them with information
that they can use for the constituents in their area.
You and I talked yesterday about some of the issues with
the Great Lakes and the science issues that can be applied
there. NASA's Earth Science Missions have content that I think
would be useful and perhaps different than maybe would apply to
a group of students in Arizona. Being able to work with folks
in your district through the Museum Alliance would be a great
opportunity.
The other part of your question went to the Department of
Energy. I would just point out that the Department of Energy is
part of our FC-STEM. When we meet monthly, as Karen and I were
briefly talking before about how FC-STEM brings together
different Federal agencies to look at things we can do. One of
our interagency working groups is collaborations and
partnerships, and I think I can speak for Karen, we would be
happy to visit with our colleagues over at the Department of
Energy to see if there is a way that we can continue to work
together. And I know that NSF already has some work in that
area.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you provide scholarships for those young
people in any way?
Mr. Kincaid. We don't provide scholarships directly. We
tend to provide internships. We want to give them real-work
experience and we----
Ms. Kaptur. Are those paid internships?
Mr. Kincaid. Those are paid internships. This last year--in
fact, thanks for asking me--we hosted over 8,000 students and
fellows that received over $32 million in salary for those
times and 40 percent of them were women and 30 percent were
ethnic or underserved populations. Your point is a good one
about needing to reach all of America. Thank you.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for your questions.
With regard to theme parks, we have a very robust program
that focuses on informal science education, and we partner with
museums, with television programs, we help produce large-screen
films, and theme parks would certainly fit within the realm of
our informal science-education program. As you pointed out,
there is so much physics to be learned at an amusement park and
we know that teachers have taken advantage of that, but that is
certainly something that would fit very well within our
informal learning program.
Those programs reach millions of people. They really have
impact. The Magic School Bus, in fact, was just highlighted
yesterday on 1-A on NPR. NSF was an early supporter of The
Magic School Bus and folks called into the program to talk
about the impact that the show had on their career choices and
their decisions to pursue science.
With regard to outreach, so your point is very well taken
and the data show that there are differences in academic
achievement in the STEM disciplines based on income differences
from families. So, we know that this is a problem.
As I discussed earlier, NSF takes this very seriously and
we have been purposeful in our outreach and focusing on
communities that have not had access to NSF, have not had
success at NSF and we will continue to do that.
We have a couple of programs that specifically focus on
low-income, high-achieving students and S-STEM is one of those
programs, Scholarships for STEM. This is a program funded by H-
1B visa funds and, in fact, there is a new grant to the
University of Toledo just this year that is focusing on getting
kids into engineering and engineering technology programs and
it supports them with scholarship funds and brings them in as a
cohort and provides the supports that those students need to be
successful.
There are S-STEM programs all across the nation. In fact, I
was just at a PI meeting last week. There were over 600 people
at that PI meeting. S-STEM really has had a huge impact on
reaching kids who may not have the money to pursue their higher
education and it is providing not only the dollars in their
hands, but the curricular innovations that they need to be
successful.
Finally, in regard to national labs, we have several types
of partnerships with national labs, but one unique one is our
Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation in science
works with the Brookhaven National Lab and provides community
college students internships at Brookhaven. That is just one
example of the types of partnerships through our programs that
we can provide to students in conjunction with the labs.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Doctor.
I hear the gavel, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Kincaid.
Mr. Serrano. Doctor, this committee has been able to
robustly fund a new Hispanic-serving institutions program over
the past few years. Are we seeing any results from this yet?
And a follow-up would be what initial indicators should we be
looking for to see if this new program is working well?
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for the question.
This is such an exciting program to get to know at NSF. As
you point out, this is only just a couple years in, so we don't
have results yet. We are having a PI meeting later this fall
and we hope to see some preliminary results.
What I really enjoyed about the way--the approach that NSF
took to this program is that it was developed with direct input
from Hispanic-serving institutions, so faculty, students,
administrators, community members had an opportunity to meet
with NSF staff through conferences and listening sessions and
had direct input into what are those specific needs. There were
three needs that were raised during those sessions.
The first is critical transitions, so looking at
transitions from students in community colleges to four-years,
high school to college. The second was the need to promote
innovative cross-sector partnerships. And the third was to
better understand the teaching and learning of STEM in
Hispanic-serving institutions.
As a result of that direct input, our call for proposals
was crafted around those priority areas and we have many
exciting projects. We have over 60 projects now funded through
this program that are addressing those critical-need areas
identified by the HSIs, themselves.
Mr. Serrano. And how many schools did you say we had?
Dr. Marrongelle. We have around 60 projects. We can get you
the exact number.
Mr. Serrano. Sixty?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yeah, six zero.
Mr. Serrano. I would like to see that. That would be good.
[The informations follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kincaid, a 2016 film entitled--details the struggles of
three African-American women in Hampton, Virginia, who were
mathematicians and engineers, critical to the Apollo missions.
The unit was segregated by race and sex and suffered from the
discrimination that accompanied such segregation.
Additionally, a former colleague of ours, Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter, may she rest in peace, was a microbiologist
and often told the story that her first job after receiving her
master's degree was to sell soap for Proctor & Gamble, rather
than practice her skill.
Could you describe efforts within the NASA STEM program to
address opportunities for women and minorities.
Mr. Kincaid. Absolutely. Thanks again, Chairman, for the
question.
You know, that movie was a powerful one and it was fun for
me to take my 11-year-old daughter--she was 8, I guess, at the
time--to go see the role NASA played. While it was a difficult
time in our country, I think NASA played an important role for
those engineers to really make a contribution to NASA's space
program. I think that is true today.
I think NASA continues to be able to provide role models,
whether that is astronauts in space on the space station or
whether it is--our Administrator likes to say--the first woman
to step foot on the surface of the moon. I think these are
powerful images that can really truly shape the way that kids
see themselves growing up.
I think we provide a number of resource opportunities. I
briefly mentioned that of the 8,000 interns this last year, 40
percent were women and 30 percent came from an underserved
background. I think NASA continued to make a difference there.
When I think about some of the programs that we have with
MUREP, Minority University Research and Education Programs, we
recently awarded 8 institutions as part of our MIRO award. It's
the Minority Institution Research Opportunity. How do we make
sure that we can help minority-serving institutions across the
country have access to NASA's work. One of those was in Puerto
Rico.
So, it is a great opportunity, I think, to be able to
connect people throughout the country, not just at NASA's
centers, but with work that NASA does.
Mr. Serrano. And as everyone knows, I have an interest in
what's happening at the territories. Are there any unique
challenges to reaching STEM students in the territories and
what programs have been shown to be most effective in reaching
these populations?
And, you know, when we say ``reaching the territories,''
some people may think that is an improper question, but--you
don't have to comment on this--we had a situation where people
were told that the reason Puerto Rico could not be helped right
away was because it was an island surrounded by water in the
middle of the ocean, and I sarcastically or profoundly
suggested it is the same way it was invaded by the military in
1898, we could probably find a way to get there during a
hurricane, but we are still waiting for their response.
But, what about reaching to the territories?
Mr. Kincaid. I think it is an important question, and we
highlighted a couple of things already that I could probably
draw your attention to. One is one of our Space Grant
consortiums is in Puerto Rico and making sure that we can help
them. I would also say that our new solicitation is further
strengthening the role that we play for the Virgin Islands and
Guam by partnering them with Hawaii and South Carolina,
respectively. Being able to provide that information to
students in those areas is important.
The technology roadshow that I briefly talked about where
we go out on the road, the next one happens to be in Puerto
Rico. I think there is an opportunity for us to take our
content and go wherever that might be, whether that is in
Puerto Rico or Wyoming, wherever that might be. We need to be
at places that may not otherwise find NASA content. Thanks for
the question.
Dr. Marrongelle. Similarly, for NSF, I described some of
the outreach that we have done with the Pacific Islands. Puerto
Rico was a host site of a listening session in the development
of the HSI program and provided invaluable input. We have
INCLUDES awards that involve Puerto Rico. The Virgin Islands
was just the recipient of a new Alliance award from NSF
INCLUDES this year.
We take very seriously the outreach to the territories in
ensuring that people there have access to NSF, that they
understand that NSF is approachable and supportive of the work
that goes on and we are constantly looking to update our
outreach activities.
Mr. Serrano. Well, we appreciate and we hope you continue
to focus on that and focus on all the states and territories.
And with that, we recognize the legendary Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just follow up on what we talked about FC-STEM a
little earlier. I just wanted to follow up with a question. Are
you looking into any public-private partnerships and how you
can leverage STEM funding initiatives from that respect?
Mr. Kincaid. I would say one of the five Interagency
Working Groups is looking at strategic partnerships and why I
think our efforts initially we are looking at how do we get the
current Federal agencies to work together, you know, that is
the first challenge is to get us all talking, I think we want
to make sure that those partnerships are more than--so, I guess
we get ourselves as organized as we can--external organizations
is a really critical part of what will come----
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes--thank you. I mentioned the Boeing
example. That has yielded such great collaboration with the
thinkers at Boeing and that is something that we of course
would be looking for ways to bring that type of partnership to
FC-STEM.
Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Marrongelle, let me address this question
to you. According to the National Science Board's science and
engineering--for 2018, last year STEM's bachelor degree awards
totaled more than $7.5 million globally. Half of those degrees
were conferred in India and China, 20 percent were conferred in
the European Union countries and only 10 percent in the United
States.
Just your thoughts, your concerns that you might have about
the (indiscernible) conferred in the United States, compared to
other countries that could, of course, obviously impact our
competitiveness and especially China.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for the question. This is
something that I think about every day, of course. We would
like to see more students attain STEM degrees. We know where
some of the gaps happen. We know that in some of the STEM
disciplines, but not all, students will enter college wanting
to major in STEM and then decide to switch their major.
Mathematics probably has the highest number of students
switching out of mathematics as a degree when and if they
switch degrees in college.
We are taking a look at why this is happening, and this is
not a new problem; this has been going on for decades. I think
some of the projects that we have been funding are taking a
look nationally at what's happening in classrooms and college
campuses, what is the type of instruction that students are
experiencing and when is it positively impacting them and
contributing to their retention and a degree, and when is it
setting them off course and having them decide not to pursue a
STEM degree.
As we have access to larger datasets from online courses,
from more sophisticated data collection, we are able to
interrogate these problems at a level that we haven't been able
to in the past. And so, I am very hopeful that we are going to
make even greater progress and greater strides in understanding
how we keep students in the STEM disciplines once they decide
to be there.
Just like the award at the University of Pittsburgh that I
mentioned earlier, we are ensuring that when students show an
interest in STEM early on, those pathways are open to them and
they don't have doors closed as they are attempt to go attain
STEM degrees.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, Mr.
Kincaid, let me switch to you just a second regarding the Space
Grants and the changes. Recently, of course, NASA proposed
changes to the Space Grant program for fiscal year 2020 through
2024 and the changes include removing the distinction between
designated and non-designated states and reducing annual
funding to support mission directorate competitions.
My question to you would be, given that--of course I
represent a designated Space Grant state, and it could lose
funding with these proposed changes. Can you take just a second
and explain what drove NASA to make the changes to this Space
Grant program.
Mr. Kincaid. Thank you, sir.
Yes, when I started this job two and a half years ago I
spent two full days spending time with the Space Grant
directors from across the country. They get together once a
year and they spend time. We were in North Dakota and I
listened to the concerns they had and the strengths that they
saw in the program and it was, frankly, a very insightful
conversation.
When Congress directed us to create the Space Grant program
in 1989, we initially selected 25 states. The next year,
Congress appropriated more funds and they started this process
where people would graduate the two tiers that you discussed.
As I dug into it, from the 17 states that did not receive
the same amount of money--it is a couple-hundred-thousand-
dollars difference between the two--they are very concerned
that they hadn't had an opportunity to be able to compete for
this higher amount. So, I spent time visiting with them about
that and at the last time we had a competition for the 17
states to make it into what you referred to as ``designated,''
and what we refer to as ``designated'' was 2004, so it had been
15 years.
I thought about considering a competition process, but,
frankly, I think Space Grants, in general, have done a really
good job over the years. The other thing that they told me is
those states that had competed told me how onerous and
burdensome the process was to go through the Federal Government
of graduating. It made sense to me that we would fund them
equally.
It is true that the 35 states are coming down a little bit
in order to bring up the other 17 states.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, rather than simply removing all
designations, did you consider reopening a competition to see
which of the states that are currently non-designated were
actually willing go through that process and to become a
designated state?
Mr. Kincaid. I did. Again, in talking to the states that
had gone through that process to become designated, as I dug
into it--again, it had been 15 years since we had gone through
it--I really felt like most Space Grants would have succeeded
and to put all 17 states through a process seemed onerous and I
wanted to figure out a way to make it simpler.
At the end of the day if I was going to give awards to 51
out of 52, it made sense to go ahead and just provide everyone
the same amount of money.
Mr. Aderholt. If Congress were to provide additional
funding for Space Grant in 2020, fiscal year 2020, would that
funding go to the states to be used for additional Mission
Directorate competitions?
Mr. Kincaid. Yes, the money would definitely go to the
states. The amount of money that we have kept at NASA to run
the program has stayed relatively flat from '17, '18, '19, and
I don't see any reason why that would change in the future. It
is our goal to take the funds that we receive and send it out
to Space Grants to be able to accomplish the things that we
have talked about in today's hearing.
Thanks for the question.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So the NSF's website states that the mission of the NSF is,
quote, ``to promote the progress of science; to advance the
national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the
national defense. NSF is vital because we support basic
research and people to create knowledge that transforms the
future. This type of support, number one, is a primary driver
of the U.S. economy; number two, enhances the nation's
security; and, number three, advances knowledge to sustain
global leadership.''
And if I haven't already made myself clear, I want to make
sure you both understand that I view this as a critically
important part of our discussion today and it should be the
starting point for how we view STEM education in this nation.
As a member of this subcommittee, I am proud to say we have
always supported science and STEM education in a bipartisan
manner, and I do want to thank our ranking member, Mr.
Aderholt, for his participation and unwavering support.
Looking at the administration's fiscal year 2020 budget
request, the NSF would have realized a 12 percent cut overall
and a 10 percent cut to the Education and Human Resources
Directorate, the NSF's flagship graduate research fellowship
program would have been cut by 10 percent, and the Robert Noyce
Teachers Scholarship would have been cut by 25 percent. The
NASA budget would have seen a 5 percent increase, but the
science budget would have been cut by nearly 9 percent, and the
Office of STEM Engagement would have been entirely zeroed out.
Let the record reflect Mr. Kincaid reluctantly nodded in
the affirmative.
It would have eliminated the Space Grant Program, which Mr.
Aderholt was just discussing, the Established Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research, and the Minority University
Research and Education Project.
Mr. Kincaid, as the Associate Director of STEM Engagement,
I assume this would have meant that you would have been out of
a job, but the good news for you, NASA, NSF, and really this
country is that this subcommittee rejected these cuts again on
a bipartisan basis.
I know that in all likelihood neither of you think these
cuts to STEM education are a good idea, while you are here to
represent the administration and its budget requests for your
respective agencies. I am not sure there is much to be gained
by forcing you to defend what you undoubtedly understand is the
indefensible.
Instead, I would like for each of you to take a message
back to your respective agencies and to this administration:
enough with these budget requests with Draconian cuts to
science and STEM education. Members of this subcommittee may
disagree on occasion about a wide range of subjects, the one
thing we agree about again and again and again on a bipartisan
manner is that we will not tolerate budget requests that have
the effect of hurting science and STEM education in this
country. It is simply not going to happen and you need to pass
on to your bosses that they are wasting everybody's time with
these proposed cuts.
So I have some questions. Do you believe it is important or
even critical to our national security, economic development,
and global leadership position in science and technology that
we have a really strong recruitment and development program
with respect to STEM education?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you agree with the prevailing consensus
that the U.S. is falling behind relative to global STEM
education, both in terms of funding and participation?
Mr. Kincaid. I think we continue to face a challenge in
that area, falling behind is the part that made me think--I
think we have actually made some strides in that area, but I
think it is continuing to be a challenge to----
Mr. Cartwright. I just looked at a recent USA Today
article, it says China's top university now leads the world
with the most citations in math and computer research, and is
making similar gains with other highly cited STEM research. Did
you catch that article?
Dr. Marrongelle. I have heard those statistics previously,
yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Yeah. Do you believe that Federal STEM
education programs have a positive impact on whether young
students, particularly women and minorities, eventually go on
to pursue advanced STEM degrees and careers in STEM?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Elaborate on that, if you would.
Dr. Marrongelle. Sure. I think through some of our
evaluation and research we have shown the impact that our
programs, both in formal school settings and in informal
settings, have on motivating students, on showing them that
there are pathways, providing ways of imagining opportunities
in STEM for people who may not have even been imagining that. I
think that for our programs that specifically focus on low
income and groups of people who have not had access to
opportunity, we are showing that those people can break the
barriers and they can overcome the statistics that are not
working in their favor.
Mr. Kincaid. I would add to that, when I think about FC-
STEM looking across the Federal Government, to your question, I
know my colleagues and other mission agencies like NOAA and NSF
and other places want to use our content to be able to make a
difference for kids; it is critical.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, in light of your answers, it is plain
and obvious that we are all on the same page here. And we are
not privy to what goes on behind the scenes at your agencies,
but do us all on this subcommittee the favor of passing on the
message that we are not cutting these programs, they are too
valuable for our nation, and do your bit in pushing back on
these cutbacks, will you?
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Before we close, let me just take a moment to make a
comment and just to reiterate what Mr. Cartwright has said.
This committee is unique in many ways. It is my favorite
subcommittee, not because I'm chairing it, but it was always my
favorite subcommittee even when I was not chairing it, and past
Republican chairmanships have seen the same way we see STEM
education and the growth of education within what your agencies
do.
At the expense of getting Mr. Aderholt in trouble with his
colleagues, because, you know, our colleagues want us to be
tough, you know, on behalf of the party, but he has been a
pleasure to work with on these issues, because he also
understands and supports. And these issues not only help
Americans, but they also help certain regions of the country,
certain states like Mr. Aderholt's state, which have NASA
facilities and have--other states that have both of your
involvements.
I think it is important to send the message back that we
may not always be here and if you keep sending us--not you, but
if you keep sending us budgets that hurt these agencies, you
may actually get a group of people up here someday soon, who
knows when, who would agree, and that would be devastating for
our country. And I mean for the country and the territories,
you know, the whole country.
So, thank you for your testimony today. I hope it wasn't
too difficult. We did not expect you to agree with us on how
bad these cuts are, but we could tell by the twinkle in your
eyes that you agree with us. And I just probably got you in
real trouble.
Anyway, thank you so much and thank you for your service to
our country.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, October 16, 2019.
OVERSIGHT HEARING: NASA'S PROPOSAL TO ADVANCE THE NEXT MOON LANDING BY
4 YEARS
WITNESSES
JAMES F. BRIDENSTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
KENNETH D. BOWERSOX, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMAN
EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee shall come to order.
I would like to welcome NASA Administrator, Jim
Bridenstine, and Acting NASA Associate Administrator for Human
Exploration and Operations, Kenneth Bowersox, to the
subcommittee this morning.
Earlier this year, NASA commemorated the 50th anniversary
of the landing on the Moon, which remains the single most
successful and famous mission in NASA's history. Just a week
before our CJS bill was marked in subcommittee, NASA submitted
a $1.65 billion budget amendment that intended to start the
effort to advance the return of humans to the Moon by 4 years.
Such little time prevented us from adequately considering the
proposal. This hearing will give us an opportunity to obtain
more information from NASA regarding its revised plans for
returning to the Moon.
While all of us on this subcommittee would like to send the
first woman astronaut into deep space, we want to do it in a
responsible way--from the perspective of safety, cost, and
likelihood of mission success.
As most of you know, I have been a strong supporter of NASA
during my 29 years in Congress, and we provided NASA more than
$22.3 billion for fiscal year 2020 in our House bill. However,
I remain extremely concerned about the additional cost to
accelerate the mission to the Moon by 4 years. Some experts
have said an additional financial resources needed to meet the
administration-imposed 2024 deadline could exceed $25 billion
over the next 5 years compared to the original 2028 schedule.
To date, NASA has not provided the committee with a full cost
estimate, despite repeated requests.
At a time of huge financial needs across numerous
government programs all competing for funding within the budget
caps, an additional $25 billion cost would severely impact
vital programs, not only under this subcommittee, but across
all non-defense subcommittees.
Another concern that I have is the lack of a serious
justification for such a cost. Since NASA has already
programmed the lunar landing mission for 2028, why does it
suddenly need to speed up the clock by 4 years--time that is
needed to carry out a successful program from a science and
safety perspective.
To a lot of Members, the motivation appears to be just a
political one--giving President Trump a Moon landing in a
possible second term, should he be reelected.
Not even NASA's own leadership has enough confidence in the
success and safety of advancing this timeline. NASA Acting
Associate Administrator Bowersox, who is a former astronaut and
here with us today, referred to the 2024 Moon landing date as
difficult to achieve in a House Science hearing just last
month, saying, quote, `` I wouldn't bet my oldest child's
upcoming birthday present on anything like that.''
Additionally, NASA's Manager for the Human Landing System,
Lisa Watson-Morgan, was quoted in an article about the timing
of the mission saying, quote, ``This is a significant deviation
for NASA and the government. All of this has to be done on the
fast. It has to be done on the quick. Typically, in the past,
NASA is quite methodical, which is good. We are going to have
to have an abbreviated approach to getting to approval for
industry standards for design and construction, and how we're
going to go off and implement this. So this is a big shift, I
would say, for the entire NASA community too,'' unquote.
We cannot sacrifice quality just to be quick. We cannot
sacrifice safety to be fast. And we cannot sacrifice other
government programs just to please the President.
Before asking for such a substantial additional investment,
NASA needs to be prepared to state which NASA missions will be
delayed or even canceled in the effort to come up with an
additional $25 billion.
Overall, I remain extremely concerned by the proposed
advancement by 4 years of this mission. The eyes of the world
are upon us; we cannot afford to fail. Therefore, I believe
that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028, in
order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission
for the benefit of the American people and the world.
Thank you once again, Administrator and Acting Associate
Administrator, for being with us today, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
And now I would like to recognize at this time my good
friend, the ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his opening
comments.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. And,
first of all, I want to thank you for your leadership on this
subcommittee, your willingness to have hearings throughout the
year, but in particular for this hearing.
Regardless of party labels, the House of Representatives
will miss your leadership, your professionalism, and your
kindness. And we look forward to working with you, of course,
through the rest of this Congress and we have a long way to go.
So we know you are not leaving yet, but I would be remiss if I
didn't mention that this morning.
I also appreciate the Ranking Member, Kay Granger, being
here today, and for her engagement with these issues. She has
put a lot of hard work and expertise into defense issues and on
the space issues over the years for her district and her state,
and for the country.
And also I would like to express my gratitude to the
President and the Vice President for taking a real active
interest in NASA. And, compared to other agencies, it
represents a very small part of the national budget, but which
continues to serve the dreams, it serves the ambitions of the
entire Nation, especially young people. And that is evident
when I go into schools and have a chance to talk about things
related to space and everyone is still very interested in it as
ever.
Mr. Administrator, Mr. Bowersox, thank you both for being
here today, and I strongly support the President's goal to land
the first woman and the next man on the Moon in 2024. In
support of that goal, I believe we owe it to the taxpayer and
to the mission to make sure the program remains focused.
However, to make it to the Moon by 2024, NASA will need
sustained congressional investment and taxpayer support.
The Artemis program cannot afford to suffer the kinds of
delays, the setbacks, and the cost overruns, which have
sometimes become what is known as business as usual in our
space program. On the contrary, the Artemis era is supposed to
be characterized by unparalleled accountability and agility.
Today, I will have questions regarding whether NASA is
still committed to getting to the Moon by any means necessary.
As an ardent supporter of deep space exploration, and also
as a fiscal conservative, I am concerned that NASA could
undercut its flexibility and incur unnecessary costs by
forgoing opportunities to leverage existing assets in an
attempt to simultaneously foster a commercial space economy.
Director Bridenstine, this past March, Vice President Pence
declared in his comments, `` If NASA is not currently capable
of landing American astronauts on the Moon in 5 years, we need
to change the organization, not the mission,'' and I couldn't
agree more.
The administration's ambitious, but critically important,
2024 Moon plan will be the ultimate test of NASA's judgment and
its accountability.
Finally, the rockets and the capsules and the transfer
vehicles, and the descent and ascent landing systems, must
above all be systems which will keep our astronauts alive
during the mission and bring them back to Earth safely.
As our Nation embarks on complex new deep space endeavors
with unprecedented private sector involvement, safety must be
our number one priority. Hence, NASA's ability to ensure safety
in the commercial crew program will be a bellwether, and I
appreciate the Administrator's comments noting that the
commercial crew program must receive the contractor attention
it deserves.
So, again, I thank you both for being here today. It is an
honor for us to have you here before our subcommittee.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
today. And, at this time, I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt, and thank you for
your kind comments.
We are honored this morning to have our Ranking Member with
us, a person that I respect a lot, and a person that I will
remember for her way of dealing with people in such a friendly
and professional way, and bipartisan wherever she could, which
was like three percent of the time, but----
[Laughter.]
Only kidding, only kidding. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Serrano, and
thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt. Thank you for holding this
hearing and also for your attention to space and your
involvement. I am old enough, I remember the space programs it
was where everyone was sitting at their television, their
black-and-white television, and watching it, and it was good
for America and it was good for all of us.
Welcome, Administrator Bridenstine, and welcome, Mr.
Bowersox. Thank you for your stewardship to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is important to all
Americans and it is our Nation's space exploration goals.
In March, your agency was challenged with returning our
astronauts to the surface of the Moon within the next 5 years.
I strongly support this accelerated 2024 goal and the Artemis
program, appropriately named after Apollo's twin sister,
sending American astronauts, including the first woman, to the
south pole of the Moon will showcase the global leadership and
technological advances of the United States. It will also
enhance our national security by allowing us to establish a
strategic presence on the Moon.
Our Nation is facing serious threats in space, specifically
from China. I have had classified briefings that would shock
any reasonable person and that clearly made the case that we
must accelerate the Artemis program.
My advocacy for the Artemis program was solidified after
learning about China's capabilities and their future plans.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has largely fallen behind in space
research and development, and will soon be outpaced by the
Chinese if we don't take action immediately.
The only way to protect both our national security and our
economy is to dominate space and beat the Chinese and other
near-peer adversaries. Space, I believe, is the next high
ground, and we have to take it.
The decision to accelerate our Nation's return to the Moon
and establish a sustainable presence there will require
significant investment by this and future Congresses. As a
result, support for this ambitious, but important, 2024
timeline will be accompanied by great expectations, both in
terms of schedule, cost, and safety.
Administrator Bridenstine and Mr. Bowersox, we recognize
that you have a tough job ahead of you. I am committed to
working with you to ensure that NASA can advance our Nation's
exploration priorities as effectively and as efficiently as
possible. And I look forward to working with Chairwoman Lowey,
Chairman Serrano, and Ranking Member Aderholt in funding for
NASA's programs as the appropriate process moves forward. And I
yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Before I ask the Administrator for his comments, people who
know me would wonder what is wrong with me if I don't do a
shout-out here. We spend a lot of time in the city of
Washington, it is like a second home to all of us, so a shout-
out to the Nationals for pulling the upset of the century.
[Laughter.]
And people thought they couldn't do it. It should be a
lesson to all of us--just keep trying and you can pull it off.
And now if I can only get the Yankees to turn it around against
Houston. [Laughter.]
But, anyway, that is another issue.
Mr. Administrator, 5 minutes. We will include your full
statement in the record. So, please, go ahead.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I became the NASA Administrator, the President had
issued Space Policy Directive No. 1, and that direction was to
go to the Moon; to go sustainably; to go with commercial
partners and international partners; to utilize the resources
of the Moon that we discovered back in 2009, the hundreds of
millions of tons of water ice on the south pole. The water ice
represents life support: it is air to breathe, it is water to
drink, it is in fact rocket propellent. Hydrogen is the same
rocket fuel that will power the Space Launch System and it is
the same rocket fuel that has powered the Space Shuttles.
We are going to use the resources of the Moon and then,
ultimately, we are going to take all of this knowledge that we
learned in this architecture, at the Moon, and we are going to
go to Mars. That was all in the President's first space policy
directive.
When I became the NASA Administrator, we put together a
plan. Given our current budgets, what will it take to achieve
this? We came up with a plan, as you identified, that put us on
the Moon in 2028, if budgets remain fairly constant.
The challenge that we have as a Nation is that, the longer
programs go, the more political risk that we have. When we look
back in history, we look back to the 1990s, the Space
Exploration Initiative, it took decades in time and it
eventually got canceled. We look at the Vision for Space
Exploration in the early 2000s; again, it took many, many years
and it eventually got canceled.
The question is, how do we reduce risk? There is two types
of risk, there is technical risk and then there is political
risk. The political risk, it is not partisan, it is just when
programs go too long, people start losing confidence and then
money gets redirected other places.
Mr. Chairman, I heard you very clearly say slow and
methodical, yes. NASA is all about doing things step by step
and building on one lesson after another. What we are trying to
change as a culture is that word ``slow.'' We don't want to be
slow, and I think going fast makes sure that we will have
successes. I also think that by going fast, to the Ranking
Member's position--we put ourselves in a position to lead the
world.
Right now, we have international partners, 15 of them are
with us on the International Space Station. We have had
astronauts from 19 different countries on the International
Space Station. We have had experiments from 103 different
countries on the International Space Station. China is moving
fast and they are going to the Moon.
The last time they landed on the Moon, they landed on the
far side of the Moon, that was in the beginning of this year,
they landed with a small probe, and it was the first time in
human history anyone had landed on the far side of the Moon.
They took out a two-page ad in The Economist magazine and made
very clear that they are the world's leader in Space
Exploration and that everybody in the world should partner with
them. Well, I think that is the wrong position.
We have political risk that we need to deal with. It is
political risk from programs taking too long; it is political
risk from a geopolitical standpoint, making sure that our
partners are with us, and not with them. I think those are
important reasons to move faster.
We do not want to take any undue risk, we do not want to
put any lives at stake, but I can tell you the history of NASA
might be a little more slow than what is necessary, and we are
changing the organization. As Representative Aderholt said, if
we can't land on the Moon within 5 years, we need to change the
organization.
I believe that with all my heart and I will tell you why,
because in the 1960s President Kennedy announced at my alma
mater, Rice University, we are going to land on the Moon before
the decade is out. At the time we didn't have the Johnson Space
Center, we didn't understand the orbital dynamics of going to
the Moon. We didn't have the launch facilities, we didn't have
a rocket that could get to the Moon, we didn't have any of
these capabilities that we now have to our advantage. They had
to go from scratch. They didn't have the miniaturization of
electronics, they didn't have the ability to store power in
smaller quantities, they didn't have the ability to reuse
rockets, and do all of these other things that are on the cusp
of changing how we do spaceflight.
If we can't do it today within 5 years, when they did it
within 8 years and really 7 years back in the '60s, I think we
do need to change how we do things and I think it is important
that we go faster.
I heard the Ranking Member say that we need to leverage
existing assets. If we go fast and if we want to land on the
Moon in 2024, which we want to do, and that is if we wanted to
go fast, how fast could we do it? Well, 2024 is how fast we
could do it. At the end of the day, I think it is important to
note that that is not a guarantee, but it is within the realm
of what is possible, and a lot of things have to go right to
make that a reality, and what we are asking for in the budget
request, is to give us an option to make going fast a
possibility.
So I think these are all important things that we need to
talk about today and, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having
this hearing. Ranking Member, I appreciate your comments as
well. And I look forward to answering any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
We will now begin the first round of questions where each
member will receive 5 minutes.
The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly asked for
information regarding the additional costs of moving the Moon
mission up by 4 years. To date, we have received no response.
It is hard to justify any extra spending on this effort in the
current fiscal year when we don't know the costs down the road.
What is the additional cost associated with moving up the
schedule for the next Moon landing by 4 years from 2028 to
2024? And, further, can you please break the cost down by year
for the upcoming 5 years?
So let me just tell you on a personal level, although we
are here in public--and you know me, we have dealt in the past
on a personal level--this is not just about finding the money,
it is about where this President is known to go find monies
when he needs them. Now, if he came to us and said no wall in
return for 2024, you might get a few Democrats to agree with
that, right? Maybe more than that. But he is probably going to
say lower Pell Grants, lower food stamps, lower education
dollars, and that is not acceptable and that is the problem.
But I asked you a question and, I'm sorry, I didn't give
you time to answer it.
Mr. Bridenstine. The request for 2020 includes an
additional $1.6 billion. You know, I have been very clear with
everybody I have talked to, the goal to get to the Moon needs
to be bipartisan; it has to be apolitical. If when we go to the
Moon we are doing so by cutting the Science Mission Directorate
of NASA, that will create a partisan divide that we do not want
to have as an Agency. If we try to take the money from the
International Space Station, that will create a parochial
fight, maybe with Members from Texas, Florida, or Alabama,
about the International Space Station.
Now, those are the two big areas where NASA has money, but
I don't think that the right approach is to cannibalize those
programs to achieve the Moon landing. I have been very clear
with everybody I have talked to on both sides of the aisle, the
goal should be additional resources, not cannibalizing one part
of NASA to feed another part of NASA.
That being said, when we did the budget amendment, the $1.6
billion, we were operating under previously established budget
caps. I think it is fantastic that an agreement was made
between Republicans and Democrats to raise those budget caps,
that gives NASA a great chance.
I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the
mark that you did in the House, because you did great work,
especially on behalf of the Science Mission Directorate, and
that is really good for the Agency. I want to take nothing away
from the House mark. It is also true that, when we go forward
with trying to get to the Moon in 2024, that requires
additional resources.
I understand the concern with the out-years and we want to
give you the out-years. We are working right now inside the
administration with the Office of Management and Budget, and
the National Space Council, to come up with what those out-year
numbers are, to get a consensus within the administration about
what we are willing to put forward. Once we have that, we want
to give it to you as absolutely soon as possible.
I would also say that the budget submit for 2021 is due in
February and certainly we will have it in the 2021 budget
submit without question.
If we look at what the Senate has already done, they
actually fenced the money pending getting the full report on
what the out-years look like, they fenced the 2020 money based
on what the out-years look like. I think that is maybe a good
solution, something to consider. I think at the end we want to
give you those numbers, we are not ready just yet, but
certainly we still want to move forward.
Mr. Serrano. At the expense of beating a subject to death,
you were very clear that you don't want to take money from
other NASA programs, because you don't want to hurt those
programs, I don't want to go to the Moon by taking money from
people who can't afford to survive in this society to the level
that they should survive in this society. And so that is a big
problem that we have to get over, where that money is going to
come from.
Your fiscal year 2020 budget justification was delivered to
the committee earlier this year and it is still available
online. In looking at the outyears budget chart that is
included in that budget, what parts of NASA's budget do you
anticipate would need to go down during a 2021 through '24
period compared to the numbers displayed on your earlier budget
chart in order to pay for the additional costs associated with
the schedule change on the Moon landing? What is the cost to
other priorities to achieve this effort?
Mr. Bridenstine. My objective is to let everybody know that
cannibalizing certain parts of NASA to fund another part of
NASA, that is not my goal. Certainly, we are going to need
additional resources, and I have been clear that, you know,
whether you take it from Station, whether you take it from the
Science Mission Directorate, those are the two areas where
there is money, when we do that, it creates either parochial
fights or partisan fights, and I am trying to maintain NASA's
apolitical, bipartisan approach.
I would say that my goal is to not cut any of NASA's budget
in order to finance the Moon agenda. The budget submit for 2021
will be delivered in February of next year.
Mr. Serrano. I am having a little trouble getting my
message through, so I will try it one more time and then I will
drop it. Okay? You don't want to hurt NASA. Would you please
understand that NASA has support from Members of Congress.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. NASA has support from this committee, as our
mark showed, as our bill showed. NASA has the support of the
American people, including the very people you would hurt. But
would you keep that support if the people knew that eventually
it would have to take money from their very- needed situation,
you know, a factory worker who needs a little extra from the
Federal Government to help feed his family, and now NASA is
going to go to the Moon 4 years earlier based on taking money
from them. You know, I don't need an answer for that, just to
think about that as we go forward.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. And my time has been used up. So, Mr.
Aderholt, of course.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Regarding the comments you made about SLS production work
after your visit to Michoud back--I think it was mid-August
that you were there, I was wondering how you think things are
currently going for work on the SLS rocket, especially 1
through 3.
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. I will tell you, we have had
some very challenging conversations with Boeing, and of course
you have seen that in real time maybe in the public. I would
also tell you that they have responded in a very positive way
to the challenges that we have had with SLS development.
Number 1, we have now started--or in fact we have completed
the integration of the engine section. The engine section,
which was the holdup, got delayed, and we started integrating
the rest of the rocket in the horizontal, which enabled us to
integrate the SLS rocket while the engine section was still
under development. Previously, if you do the vertical stack,
everything has to wait on the engine section. Well, we changed
that. We started integrating the horizontal and Boeing did
great things in order to make that happen.
The engine section is now complete, the engine section is
now integrated into the rocket itself. By the way, we are very
satisfied with how fast things are moving now. At this point
the engines themselves are being integrated into the engine
section, and as soon as that is complete, there will be
probably a month or two, maybe a little bit longer, of testing
at Michoud. I think by the end of this year we will be moving
the SLS rocket out of the Michoud assembly facility and moving
it to the Stennis Space Center for testing, for what we call a
green-run test.
Boeing has in fact responded very well and we are very
pleased with where the SLS is right now.
Mr. Aderholt. So you are confident that it will be
delivered on time?
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, the new time, yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. And of course, as you mentioned, I have
heard work that is progressing more quickly----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. On the second core, maybe 40
percent faster?
Mr. Bridenstine. A lot, yes. What we learned on the first
SLS is paying dividends on the second SLS, so things are moving
a lot faster.
I don't know, Ken, do you want to address that?
Mr. Bowersox. I would just say that that is true. We are
moving faster on the second core, but we are still finding new
challenges, right? They are still new rockets and even on the
second core I think we might find a new challenge or two, but
overall the trend is positive.
Mr. Aderholt. But does it seem to you that the work is
indeed faster than Core No. 1?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. No question about that?
Mr. Bridenstine. Without question.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. I understand there is growing
confidence among the prime contractors for SLS to be able to
produce two rockets a year starting in 2024, and they believe
they could deliver a Block 1B in 2024. What do you think? Do
you think it could be done?
Mr. Bridenstine. It depends what Boeing is willing to
invest, quite frankly. We don't have currently the
appropriations necessary to achieve that. If we were to do
that, we might need some more infrastructure that currently
doesn't exist.
Ken, I don't know, do you want to address that?
Mr. Bowersox. Well, what I would say is, we haven't seen
the performance yet that would indicate that we are guaranteed
the second core we would need for a Moon landing in 2024. We
are open to considering those types of options, we are looking
for that type of progress, but we just haven't seen it yet,
sir.
Mr. Bridenstine. To be clear, I am confident that, given
our current rate of production, we will have three SLSs
available and the third one would be for Artemis III that takes
us to the Moon in 2024. I think that is fully within the realm
of possibility, but a lot of things have to go right to make
that happen. Adding an additional SLS into the mix, I am not
confident that that could happen.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. Understanding the complexities of
integrating the SLS, as both of you do, do you have any reason
to believe that the broad agency announcement for the Human
Landing System presents a viable opportunity for offerers to
engage the prime contractors and forge the necessary agreements
in order to incorporate an SLS into the proposals before the
response deadline that is in November 1st of this year?
Mr. Bridenstine. Again, this would be a question for Boeing
specifically. They would need to look at the SLS and come up
with an SLS derivative that would be made available to the
offerers for the Human Landing System and then figure out how
they would deliver that to those offerers. I think it would
require investment from Boeing to do that and the goal would be
that those offerers would select Boeing as their provider of
that launch service, but it would be a launch service.
I think it is in the realm of what is possible, if Boeing
wanted to make those investments.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Bowersox. I would just concur with the Administrator.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Let me recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Administrator Bridenstine, could you pretty succinctly--to
me, there are three questions. One is, why should we accelerate
this at the cost it is? What is the primary importance of that
change and whether it is worth that very large investment? And
then focus on the sensitivity of the national security and say
what does it mean to taxpayers. So we are talking about how you
pay and what it costs. Talk to us about that and say then, then
how does that benefit our taxpayers?
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, it is huge. This, I think, goes to
what the chairman was talking about earlier about the
tradeoffs.
We look back at Apollo, and we just celebrated 50 years of
Apollo, everybody in America loved it. We saw 500,000 people on
the National Mall celebrating 50 years of Apollo. I know all of
us, we have seen 500,000 people on the National Mall before, we
have never seen 500,000 happy people celebrating something
good. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bridenstine. That was a very, very great day for NASA,
it is a great day for America, and it is 50 years later. The
inspiration that came from that moment in time was
transformational for our Nation and transformational for people
that, you know, went into the STEM fields that otherwise never
would have done that. You walk around NASA and you ask folks,
hey, why are you here? They will tell you where they were when
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon, and I'm sure
the people that are of age on this committee could probably
tell me where they were on that day as well.
I will tell you, the sad thing is--and this is why we need
to go faster--I am the first NASA Administrator from that day
to this day that was not alive when that happened. I think that
is a big challenge. The reality is, I don't have that memory,
and we have got to make sure that we don't have another
generation that goes by that doesn't have that memory. When it
happens, we need to make sure that it is the United States of
America leading a coalition of Nations that makes it happen.
Going to your question about what is the value to the
taxpayer, all of that I think is tremendously valuable to the
taxpayer. It was a piece of ultimately winning the Cold War; I
am not going to say it was the preponderance of it, but it was
a piece of it.
Now, all that being said, remember, some people will be
watching this--I know on TV, some people watching, are going to
watch on Dish Network or DirecTV, maybe they have Internet
broadband from space. I come from Oklahoma, rural Oklahoma, if
you don't have broadband from space, you don't have broadband.
Communication, navigation, GPS technology, born from this
little Agency called NASA.
The way we do disaster relief, national security, and
defense, all of these capabilities--I should say, a lot of
these capabilities born from a little Agency called NASA. The
way we predict weather, weather satellites are purchased by
NASA, and of course the program management of those weather
satellites is NASA. How we understand climate and how it is
changing is done by NASA. The way we produce food, we are
increasing crop fields, decreasing water usage, and preserving
nitrates in the soil. All of these technologies come from NASA.
The way we produce energy and do it cleanly without greenhouse
gas emissions. Methane leaks, those kind of things, we can
detect it from space instantaneously, help the oil companies
prevent getting fined from the EPA.
These are things that are transforming how the world moves
forward and these technologies and capabilities have elevated
the human condition for all of humanity in ways that, if you
asked Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, why are you going to the
Moon, they wouldn't have said any of that, because they
wouldn't have known, but now we know. The return on investment,
we are less than half of a percent of the federal budget, and
you look at what we have been able to deliver by creating
technologies and capabilities that get commercialized, that
elevate the human condition, I think the return on investment
is just outstanding.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. You are not scoring any points by
reminding people that you are younger than some of us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Messrs. Bridenstine and Bowersox, for being
here. I don't think it is any secret that as a member of the
NASA and Planetary Caucuses, I share your enthusiasm for NASA,
and I believe in your mission and I support your people, and I
am willing to bet that everybody on this subcommittee feels the
same way.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. We are appropriators and we have to deal
with the dollars and cents.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And we have to evaluate budget requests.
And I appreciate your comments about not cannibalizing one part
of NASA for another, but the fiscal year 2020 NASA budget
requested an overall reduction of $480 million, including a
reduction in the science budget of $600 million and the
complete zeroing out of the Office of STEM Engagement. You
submitted that, didn't you, Administrator?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, that was in the budget submit.
Mr. Cartwright. So we have to drill down on this stuff.
This subcommittee rejected those cuts for fiscal year 2020,
just as we did in fiscal year 2018 and 2019. We increased
NASA's funding by $815 million, which fully funded the lunar
landing program and robustly funded scientific discovery and
STEM education. If you are detecting a pattern there, you are
right.
Look, the 2020 NASA budget request evidently did not
adequately fund Artemis, because a mere 2 months later you
submitted this $1.6 billion supplemental request for increased
Artemis funding. And what I am trying to do is I am grappling
with the true cost of the program and whether NASA has a firm
grasp on it, how much money you need for Artemis and when you
are going to need it.
So the first question is, at what point did you realize
that the fiscal year 2020 budget request was insufficient to
fund the Artemis program?
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I would say for that budget request
there wasn't an Artemis program at the time. We put together a
budget to land on the Moon at the earliest possible date
without any changes to the budget or with, you know, changes to
the budget based on inflation. At the end, we were able to
say--and it was a stretch, but we could say we could land on
the Moon in 2028. And----
Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean to interrupt you----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. But the question is asking,
when did you realize that the 2020 budget was going to be
insufficient for the Artemis program?
Mr. Bridenstine. After the 2028 date came out, there were a
lot of people that said that is too long. The challenge is,
when these programs last a decade, there is risk from a
budgetary perspective.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay, I think I am with you. So it was
after the acceleration of the program----
Mr. Bridenstine. That's right.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. That you realized you didn't
have enough money, that makes sense. And so you didn't know--
before submitting the fiscal year 2020 budget request, you
didn't know about that acceleration; fair?
Mr. Bridenstine. We had not planned to accelerate at that
point.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Now, you have described the $1.6
billion supplemental request as a down payment and here is what
we are kind of grappling with, Administrator: what is the total
cost of the whole program? I mean, you go to buy a car and
there is a car salesman standing there, and what do you ask
him? You ask him how much is the car.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Cartwright. And when he comes up to you and he says,
well, it is only going to be $2,000 in the first year. And you
say, yeah, but I am asking you how much the car is. And he
says, what do you mean? I mean, after the first year, how much
do I have to pay for this car? And he says, oh, no, those are
the out-years. And, you know, that is not acceptable. You need
to know the total cost. And you have said, I think in response
to the chairman's question, you don't have those figures.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, we are working through with the
Office of Management and Budget, and the National Space
Council, to come up with an administration consensus for what
the total cost will be, and we will submit that in February.
Mr. Cartwright. February of this coming year, you are going
to have those figures for us?
Mr. Bridenstine. It will be part of the budget submit in
February, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. And do you know sitting there today
how much extra the whole project is going to cost because of
accelerating it?
Mr. Bridenstine. There are a lot of different options that
would be available. Some of the options increase the
probability of success, some of the options decrease the
probability of success, and based on the range of options--and
these are what we are looking at as an agency and working with
the Office of Management and Budget attempting to come to a
resolution on--for example, you know, I really believe it would
be in the interest of success to start off with at least three
different human landing systems that we could then down-select
to two human landing systems. We have dissimilar redundancy and
that gives us a higher probability of success.
If the budget constraints put us in a position where we can
only have one human landing system, we put ourselves in a
position where a contractor could have pricing power that could
get us in a position where we have cost overruns and schedule
delays. I don't know that that is in the best interest of the
agency, it is not in the best interest of success. But here is
what we know: we know that more money early reduces costs, but
if we go inexpensive early then the likelihood is that cost
goes up over time.
These are all different trades that we are looking at at
this point for the out-years that we are anxiously anticipating
delivering in February.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Finally, Science Committee
Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson raised an issue regarding the
specific appropriations language included with the $1.6 billion
supplemental request and I want to follow up with you on that
point. Is it your understanding that the language in the
supplemental request would allow NASA to transfer funds from
other agency accounts to pay for Artemis?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is not the intent. The intent is to
have as much flexibility as possible within Artemis. There are
some things that go fast and some things where we find what we
don't know. There are unknown unknowns that we have to be
prepared for and that flexibility gives us that.
I have heard people having concern that we are going to
take money from the Science Mission Directorate to fund Human
Exploration and Operations; that is not my intent, nobody I
have talked to at NASA indicates that that is anybody's intent.
Mr. Cartwright. And specifically, I am going to quote her,
she said `` the language would give you carte blanche authority
to move funds among NASA's accounts from this year forward if
you determine that transfers are necessary in support of the
establishment of the U.S. strategic presence on the Moon,''
unquote, and you are saying that is not so?
Mr. Bridenstine. Look, this has to be bipartisan and I
think, if we put ourselves in a position where, you know, one
side of the aisle is not happy with what we are trying to
achieve, we will not be successful. We want to make sure this
is apolitical and bipartisan as much as possible. I think,
again, cannibalizing the Science Mission Directorate to achieve
the objectives of Human Exploration--which, by the way, I don't
think they are exclusive of each other--that narrative gets
promoted a lot, but I don't think they are exclusive. I think
they work hand-in-hand--I think it is within the realm of we
don't have any desire to do that----
Mr. Cartwright. All right.
Mr. Bridenstine [continuing]. We want to make sure that we
have the support of both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Cartwright. So no cannibalism in the February figures?
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
Mr. Bridenstine. Agreed, we agree on that.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Administrator Bridenstine and Associate Administrator Bowersox,
for being here today. I really appreciate it.
Under NASA, the American space program has been a symbol of
world leadership and national pride. At this crucial point in
our history, we must use our investments wisely and work even
harder to advance sound policy if we expect to maintain
American leadership in the space domain.
To help NASA centers across the country engage with
commercial industry and become better stewards of their under-
utilized infrastructure, we have introduced H.R. 4304, the NASA
Enhanced Use Lease Authorization Act of 2019. This bill will
reauthorize NASA's EUL agreement authority for 10 years and is
supported by Representatives from both sides of the--of both
parties, and across the country, from Virginia to California
and everywhere in between.
Administrator, can you elaborate on the ways NASA centers
across the country have successfully used EUL agreements to
reduce operating costs and improve NASA facility conditions?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. I think there are some really
good examples of infrastructure that would include buildings,
for example, where a private company wants to use a building
that NASA is not using currently, and part of the way they have
access to that building is to make it usable and improve it.
Then, after a period of time, NASA has the rights to that
building again in the future, or they could continue their
lease.
These are all good things where NASA can partner with the
private sector. We have similar kind of agreements for launch
facilities and of course, as you are familiar with at Stennis,
test facilities. I think there is lots of opportunity to
improve NASA's facilities by partnering with the private
sector.
Ken, do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Bowersox. Well, I think you have hit a couple of those.
The launch pads at the Cape, there are lots of production
facilities and operations facilities at the Cape where we are
using those types of agreements. At just about every center
where we have got spare capacity, we are trying to find users
from outside NASA who can come in and take advantage of those
facilities. It has been really helpful to us.
Mr. Palazzo. Not reauthorizing EUL, what would happen?
Mr. Bridenstine. It would be really bad for NASA. It would
be really bad for our private sector partners. Please,
reauthorize it.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, great. And that please also to my
colleagues on this committee. If you haven't signed onto H.R.
4304, I know Ms. Kaptur and I would appreciate it if you would
take a hard look at it and we will get it to you.
So another question is, you know, I am proud to represent
Stennis Space Center, where NASA has tested every rocket since
the Apollo program. And, as I am sure you know, the SLS core
stage is scheduled to ship from Michoud to Stennis this
December for the green-run engine test. We are encouraged by
the progress on SLS this year as we near the completion of the
first flight rocket for Artemis I, and continue to see the
rocket for Artemis II being built.
Given your rationale for SLS undergoing the green-run test
and the plan to conduct a similar green-run test on the
exploration upper stage at Stennis, do you believe the lunar
lander provider should also conduct a similar green-run engine
test as part of the development program? And, if not, what is
the rationale for not putting the landers through the same
thorough and rigorous testing as the SLS core stage and the EUS
at Stennis?
Mr. Bridenstine. I will start and then I am sure Ken will
have some thoughts on this as well, because he is an astronaut
that has had the experience of riding on these kind of
vehicles.
I think it is important that we recognize that what the
commercial providers ultimately provide, a lot of it could have
already been tested. We are not saying how to land on the Moon,
we are asking them to propose to us how they would do it and if
to go from the Gateway, which is that space station in orbit
around the Moon, to get to the surface of the Moon and back to
the Gateway, if to do that we are using hardware that has been
tested significantly, you know, a transfer vehicle, an descent
module, an ascent module, you know, when you talk about
propulsion, there could be solutions that have a lot of history
that we wouldn't necessarily need to green-run test. However,
there could be brand new designs with brand new capabilities
that might be necessary.
I don't want to prejudge what NASA is going to require, but
certainly depending on the solutions that we get presented, we
will have, of course, thoughts on it.
Ken.
Mr. Bowersox. Yes. All I will say is, we are going to very
carefully look at all the test plans that we get back from the
human landing system providers once the proposals are all in.
To talk a whole lot more in detail wouldn't be good right now,
since we are in blackout for the proposals. Depending on the
type of engines they have, Stennis might be a great place for
testing, but other types of engines we have done at different
places in NASA and companies have done at other places around
the country, but they will be thoroughly tested before they get
to the Moon.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your responses.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
The overall purpose of the hearing is to discuss with you
whether the big picture, long-term fiscal and operational
considerations have been thought through, were thought through
when we got a pretty sudden and unexpected request for a
supplemental appropriation. So it is one thing to deal with a
supplemental appropriation, it is another thing to deal with
kind of the implications of it over the long term. And you have
commented in response to the chair's question that you would be
submitting with the fiscal year 2021 budget a long-term out-
year projection for this particular proposal; correct?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Case. And does that submission include an updated, full
life cycle mission cost assuming a '24 mission?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Case. Okay. Does it include--you are proposing to
outsource, essentially, a lot of this work; right? So you are
going to have a whole bunch of development partners out in the
private sector on fixed-contract situations, that is your
intent; right?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Case. Okay. That is going to take a lot of internal
supervision, because that is a lot of money running wild out
there and, if not adequately overseen, it could easily get away
from you, budgetary-wise as well as, I would suspect, quality-
wise.
So do you anticipate that in your recalculation of an
accelerated mission, you would beef up your oversight
capabilities inside NASA?
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I think we have pretty good
oversight capabilities already. What we are doing is we are
applying the lessons of the past.
If you look at how we resupply the International Space
Station right now, we do it with what we call commercial
resupply. What that means is NASA doesn't purchase, own, and
operate the hardware; we buy a service from a robust commercial
marketplace. That robust commercial marketplace was in fact
developed by NASA with our investments where we invest our
money, our commercial providers invest their money. We started
off with three different providers, we down-selected to two,
but now they are competing against each other on cost and
innovation, which does drive down cost, it makes sure that we
are continuing to innovate to drive down cost, and the goal is
to create a competitive environment. Because we did commercial
resupply that way, the cost savings have been significant. We
are on the cusp of having success with commercial crew as well.
The interesting thing is, when we do programs in this
fashion, the contractors don't come back to NASA and ask for
more money all the time. In fact, they both want to be first.
Our engineers are embedded with their engineers, our, you know,
finance folks are working with their finance folks, our
development and the fixed price that you mentioned before, that
fixed price has milestone payments associated with it, we are
controlling the process all along the way.
But the goal here is to have as much as possible we want
NASA to be a customer of services, especially for low-Earth
orbit, and then ultimately not just a customer, but also have
providers, numerous providers that compete against each other.
Now, that is how we are doing the low-Earth orbit
activities, but we need to go to the Moon. To get to the Moon
on schedule, we are going to need to use the SLS rocket, and
that is going to be a great program going forward for long
periods of time.
Mr. Case. Okay. Let me----
Mr. Bridenstine. Different--it is a mix.
Mr. Case. I got it. So I would suggest to you that is a
concern of mine, at least----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Case [continuing]. That you be able to watch big,
accelerated contracts.
And then, number two, do you anticipate that a corollary of
your proposal to accelerate would also be an acceleration of a
Mars mission, is that sequential? In other words, is that a big
picture, long-term consideration that this committee should
know about? Because if it may not only be about the Moon that
you are asking an accelerated program for and I don't think we
would want to be surprised on that one. We would want to know
what the big picture, long-term plan is for the overall deep
space exploration.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. Congressman Case, you are
hitting the nail on the head, which is the sooner we get to the
Moon with an architecture that is sustainable, we need to learn
how to live and work on another world, that is what enables us
to go to Mars. When we go to Mars, we have to be there for a
long period of time. We have to use the Moon as the proving
ground so we can get to Mars.
If we delay the Moon program, by definition we are delaying
the Mars program. If we accelerate the Moon program, we are by
definition accelerating the Mars program. That is a great
question and a good point.
Mr. Case. Thank you. I hope we get that information in the
context of fiscal year 2021 as well.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. We will make sure--we will have
strong Mars content in the budget request.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Administrator Bridenstine and
Associate Administrator Bowersox, for being here today.
Administrator Bridenstine, earlier this year when you were
here you testified about what NASA is doing to increase
opportunities for women in STEM careers at the agency. I wanted
to circle back to something specific you said in your comments
about spacesuits and the then-canceled all-female space walk.
You said, quote, `` It should be noted that the spacesuits are
in essence little spaceships. Each one of them is designed
specifically not just for the astronaut, but also for the
mission. The challenge is, we only have a certain number of
spacesuits,'' end quote.
You also stated publicly at a Senate Commerce hearing that
NASA is looking at a spacesuit architecture that is flexible to
allow astronauts to conduct missions in low-Earth orbit and the
Moon.
With yesterday's announcement of NASA's two new spacesuit
designs for Artemis, I wanted to ask a few questions. One, do
we know how many years did NASA need to research and develop
spacesuits that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin used?
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, that is a good question. I honestly
don't know, but I will be happy to make sure I get that back to
you. The question is, how long did it take to develop the
original Moon-walking spacesuits. We will look that up.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
What lessons did NASA learn from the canceled all-female
space walk at the International Space Station that might help
with the research and development of the next generation
spacesuit?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think we had already learned the
lessons. It kind of made it very transparent that spacesuits
are very difficult, because they are so large, and we need
spacesuits. The history of NASA is to build a spacesuit that
works and then try to downscale it and, when we do that, it is
a lot harder than starting small and then upscaling it for
larger people. We need a spacesuit that can go from the 1
percent to the 99 percent in size.
I think we have already been investing, as you saw it
yesterday with the announcement, in making that possible, not
just for space flight, but also for walking on the surface of
the Moon; we are very committed to it, we have been committed
to it for a long time. The space walk that you referenced
obviously highlighted why we have been committed to it.
I know Ken probably has something to say on the spacesuits.
Mr. Bowersox. Well, I was just going to say that on the way
here this morning, I got to check the TVs in our ops center
there at NASA headquarters, and I saw the two women on orbit
right now preparing their spacesuits to go outside, and that
was really exciting for me to see, you know, and we hope to see
that EVA really soon.
Part of the problem we had last time was, you know, we were
resizing the suits for the spacewalkers who are going to go out
on this EVA, but the suits at that time needed even more work
than what we are doing for this particular EVA. That was part
of our issue.
Mr. Bridenstine. We are doing the all-woman space walk here
in a matter of days. We are very excited about it.
Ms. Meng. What challenges and maybe key milestones must be
met with a 2024 time line to bring astronauts to the Moon--
research, testing, deployment?
Mr. Bridenstine. Right. The SLS rocket, the biggest, most
powerful ever built that will take our astronauts to the Moon,
is at Michoud. It is going to come out of the facility here by
the end of the year and go to Stennis to get green-run tested.
The Orion crew capsule and the European service module are
complete, they will be testing soon up at the Glenn Research
Center in Ohio. All of that is positive.
The challenges that we have right now, we have to start
with a human landing system. You can't land on the Moon if you
don't have a landing system. That is one of the reasons why we
did the amended budget request. We are underway with the
development of Gateway, which is a small space station that
will be in orbit around the Moon for 15 years. Think of it as a
reusable command module, just like Apollo, except it doesn't
get thrown away at the end of the mission. It is going to be
used over and over again by multiple missions over the course
of 15 years and probably longer. The spacesuits, of course, are
a big piece of the architecture as well.
The SLS rocket, the Orion crew capsule, the European
service module, the Gateway, and the human landing system and
the spacesuits. Now, at the same time, we are doing commercial
crew, which will be launching in the first part of next year to
low-Earth orbit.
Just know this, Congresswoman, as an Agency, we have more
under development now than at any point in NASA's history and
these are big programs. We are working really hard right now to
make all this a reality and we are confident with where we are.
Especially when it comes to commercial crew, we are confident;
SLS and Orion, we are confident. Gateway and the human landing
system have some outstanding issues, just because they are so
early in the development process.
Ken, did you want to add to that?
Mr. Bowersox. The only thing I would just emphasize is that
our biggest technical challenge is getting the landers ready
for 2024, that is the most challenging part of what we have got
to develop, and we are excited to take on that challenge.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome----
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Administrator. We are really glad
to have you here this morning and I know how hard you work at
your job.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. And also, Mr. Bowersox, thank you so very much
for your service to our country.
I wondered if we could just step back a second from the
budget request directly and I wanted to ask you about the
timetable, the change in timetable, and how the date, the
accelerated date of 2024 was chosen.
And then if you could provide for the record, if you
haven't already done it, the original timeline, the budget
proposal for that, and then the accelerated timeline and the
budget proposal for that. I think it would be very helpful to
us.
And it is quite--I mean, it is a significant change, and
one of my questions for the American people is, though we
support you in your efforts to land on the Moon and Mars, I go
back to a report that Norm Augustine did many, many years ago
where he said unmanned flight could provide us with a great
deal of research, data, and space results, whether it is
commodities or whatever, than human space flight. When you add
humans into the mix, it becomes much more expensive.
I am wondering whether you have read that report and
whether you believe that to be outdated. And my primary
question is, how was the date of 2024 chosen, as a starter
here.
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. There are two things with
the 2024 date. A number of things changed.
Number one, when we came out with the date of 2028, that
was based on, you know, budgets not changing significantly,
within inflation. There were people, people in Congress,
members of the administration, that said 2028, that is 10
years, and programs that last 10 years, obviously, they get
cut. Historically, that has been the history of NASA, going
back to the Space Exploration Initiative in the 1990s, the
Vision for Space Exploration in the early 2000s, and here we
are and this is going to be Lucy and the football again. How do
we retire as much risk as possible to ensure success? And the
answer was, well, we need to go faster.
If we are going to go faster, then the next question was,
where do we get the money? Do we cut Science? Do we cut
Station? My response was, neither, we need to get new money,
because those will create political or parochial divides
between Members of Congress that we don't want to create.
We got an additional appropriation--or a request for
appropriation of $1.6 billion and that accelerated the
timeline. It is not just the risk of these long programs, there
are also some other changes that have happened. China landed on
the far side of the Moon for the first time in human history.
They are going to be landing on the Moon, according to them,
they are going to be landing humans on the Moon in 2030. When
they landed on the far side of the Moon, they took out a two-
page spread in The Economist magazine saying that they were the
world's leader in space exploration and all the countries and
nations need to partner with them. They are building a space
station, all of these things.
The question is, do we want to lead the world in space or
do we want to yield that to somebody else? The decision, I
think, or the appropriate decision is to maintain the
leadership and keep our partnerships.
Ms. Kaptur. As you look forward, what are the--and I would
ask you for the chart, 2028 versus 2024 and the appropriated
dollars that are necessary in both scenarios.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you pinpoint a few of the most difficult
technologies or systems that require concerted effort to
achieve the objective?
And, in achieving those, has NASA a deep experience in
working, for example, on the energy technologies with the
Department of Energy, let's say, and some of their labs? Could
you discuss a little bit about ways in which other parts of the
Federal Government might help you achieve your objective if it
isn't directly in your budget, let's say?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. This goes to your first
question about robotic science versus human exploration. In
fact, we do partner with the Department of Energy on a lot of
our robotic missions, because they use nuclear power, what we
call radioisotope thermal generation, which ultimately powers
our spacecraft when they go to Pluto. At Pluto, you know, solar
energy is just not that robust at Pluto.
When we go into deep space, we have to have different ways
of getting propulsion. Radioisotope thermal generation is a
form of nuclear and it is the only way we can do deep space
exploration, so we work with the Department of Energy on those
types of activities.
When we send humans to Mars, it would be in the best
interest of our Nation to use not radioisotope thermal
generation, but in fact nuclear thermal propulsion, which would
be an absolute game changer for how we do deep space
exploration.
I would also argue--and this would be, something for maybe
the Armed Services Committee, that the Department of Defense
(DOD) should have a significant interest in that capability for
propulsion as well. I would imagine there would be some bleed-
over or crossover there from a capabilities perspective.
I think when it comes to communications technology, I think
there is a lot of opportunity there. When we talk about super-
heavy lift and the SLS rocket, I think that that could have a
lot of applications for national security capability as well.
I think there is a lot of crossover. These are things that
we think about. It is one of the reasons the National Space
Council was established, we can think cross-agency about how we
do these kinds of programs.
Ken, did you want to add anything?
Mr. Bowersox. Just about everything we do in human space
flight crosses over to what is being done say in the DOD. You
know, I was assigned to NASA as a military astronaut, and that
is part of the reason we do that is there is a lot of
crossover. But the intent at NASA is peaceful use of outer
space, right? To be able to use these technologies to build
relationships with partners around the world.
If you look at future exploration activities, the areas
where we could probably cooperate the most are in the areas of
nuclear propulsion and nuclear power for the surface, those
would be game changers for exploration.
Ms. Kaptur. Would you classify those as--for the record
then, Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a listing of the most
difficult technologies and systems that you face in achieving
success in this project?
Mr. Bridenstine. Sure.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator Bridenstine and Mr. Bowersox,
for being here today. We appreciate your presence and your
service to our country.
As a Floridian, space exploration both interests and
excites me. It is part of our state's culture and our economy.
I have companies and constituents in my district who are
working diligently to develop and build SLS, Orion, EGS.
But, perhaps most importantly, human space flight can
inspire our Nation, as we all know, and you talked about it
earlier, Administrator, and help motivate future scientists and
explorers.
As you both I know are aware, supporting the goal of
sending the first woman and next man to the surface of the Moon
is a priority for all of us, as long as it is done safely and
efficiently. Failure is not an option when pursuing an endeavor
of this magnitude, because if we do fail it could threaten our
ability to ever return to the Moon again. So we have to get it
right, I am sure we all agree.
I want to help NASA meet its goal of 2024, but I need to
see a schedule and cost estimate to understand how best for us
to do that.
So, Mr. Administrator, with that, you have previously
indicated that a full schedule for Artemis is being deferred
until a new Associate Administrator for Human Exploration is in
place, but it seems to me that NASA should be starting to put
that schedule together now, so it can be provided to new
leadership as soon as they take over in order to hit the ground
running. So can you discuss what work, if any, NASA has been
doing thus far to put together a schedule with analysis with
respect to Artemis, particularly Artemis III?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. I think regarding having a new
Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations,
what I wanted to make sure we didn't do is set a schedule for
launching the SLS rocket specifically and set a schedule for
launching commercial crew specifically until a new Associate
Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations has had an
opportunity to assess--because, again, accountability matters
and, if I set the schedule and then they come in later, it
might not be a good dynamic for accountability.
That being said, this morning we announced that we will
have a new Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and
Operations, Doug Loverro, who I have known for many years. He
testified before the committees when I was in the House of
Representatives that I served on. I was on the Armed Services
Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Science Committee
Subcommittee on Space. He is somebody who has worked in the
space environment for a very long time, very successfully, with
program management.
That being said, our goal is to get you all of those things
that you need in February. In February, we are going to do the
budget submit for 2021 and we will have a run-out for all of
the out-years in that 2021 budget submit.
It is also true that if you look at what the Senate has
already passed in their committee, they actually fenced the
2020 numbers pending that submission in February 2021. So, I
mean, I think that could be a solution for how to go about
making sure that we are all in agreement on how to move forward
and at the same time not moving forward without being in
agreement on how to move forward.
Mr. Crist. So you think that would be available by February
of next year?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, February, this coming February.
Mr. Crist. This coming, yes. And that would include the
cost estimate for Artemis III?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Okay. In addition to the schedule and budget,
what other decisions or actions related to Artemis are on hold
or otherwise may be impacted by the leadership uncertainty
until it was announced this morning?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think the big thing is, we have great
program managers for every element of what is required to go to
the Moon and eventually on to Mars. And of course Ken Bowersox
has been the Acting Associate Administrator and he has done
just an amazing job. Of course, having an astronaut who is an
engineer who has worked in the private sector--by the way, a
Navy astronaut--for a Navy guy, we like that. He has been
doing--I see Palazzo laughing at me--we had this conversation
when I was in the House. But Ken has done a wonderful job. I am
looking forward to getting Doug Loverro on board and having him
and Ken work together to achieve all of the great things we
have established.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Administrator, part of the issue that I
keep coming back to is the importance of knowing the full cost.
We are appropriators. I won't be here after next year, but, you
know, we always say about what we leave our children, I also am
concerned about what I leave other appropriators after I leave.
And if we find--or gut programs to find the over $1 billion
when we are buying into the 2024 date and we don't know how
much it is going to cost down the line.
So I implore you, as you try to gather support from both
sides of the aisle, to understand that, unless we know what
this is going to cost at the end, it would be irresponsible for
us to take the first step. And certainly for me--and this is
not about me or about him or about the other one--I certainly
don't want to leave these folks after I leave this year, and
Mrs. Lowey leaves at the same time, with having to figure out
how to pay the other $25 billion over a period of time. And so
we need to hear from that you and we don't hear it and we don't
see it.
Now you spoke about February having those numbers. February
may seem early in the year, but February, these guys behind me,
these folks behind me are already working on numbers for what
the budgets will look like and so we need to know earlier, much
earlier. Okay?
Mr. Administrator, as you know, the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel evaluates NASA safety performance and advises
the agency on ways to improve that performance. Since the March
2019 announcement of the 2024 landing goal, has the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel weighed in on any astronaut safety risk
associated specifically with the new, sped-up timeline?
And I have to tell you that that is a serious concern that
I have heard from some people. By speeding it up, do we risk
safety issues, do we run into safety issues?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think there is a concern that I have
heard and the concern is schedule pressure. Sometimes I think
that schedule pressure is something we are concerned, it is a
historically kind of challenging thing that NASA has to deal
with, and the last thing we want to do is put any undue
schedule pressure on anybody. That being said, I think it is
important for us to have schedules, and I think it is important
for us to be able to create milestones and then work to achieve
those milestones.
I think when you talk about accelerating programs, a lot of
people talk about schedule pressure, I want to make sure that
people don't feel pressure from a schedule perspective, but at
the same time that we are working every day to achieve
milestones. It is a very delicate balance and we work on that
every day at NASA, and we have great folks that have been
working these issues for many years.
That being said, I think probably the ASAP has been focused
on commercial crew, because that is the closest alligator to
the canoe right now. I think we are getting to a good position
on commercial crew, which is in the first part of next year we
are going to launch American astronauts on American rockets
from American soil for the first time since the retirement of
the space shuttles, and I think that is going to be a great
development.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Administrator, I, like Ms. Granger, saw
the Moon landing on a small, black-and-white TV set, and it was
very exciting. I just want to ask you a question off the wall
here----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. Out of left field, because I seem
to remember as part of the conversation of the things we had
learned or were able to create, if you will, as part of that
whole mission, and one that I remember was something about the
spacesuits having some abilities to move forward on people with
disabilities or something, I don't know. Do you know what I am
talking about at all?
Mr. Bridenstine. I am not familiar with that, but it is
certainly something we could look into. Are you familiar with
it?
Mr. Bowersox. No. We can look into it.
Mr. Bridenstine. I will tell you, our goal and one of the
reasons we are doing low-Earth orbit specifically commercially
is because we want to see everybody be able to see themselves
as flying into space. When we go to space commercially with
maybe it is industry--what we are using the International Space
Station for right now, two lines of effort that have
transformational capabilities, one is industrialized
biomedicine. The ability to compound pharmaceuticals in space
in a micro-gravity environment is unlike what you can do on
Earth. There are treatments that we can create in space.
Right now, we are proving on the International Space
Station that we can create human tissue using adult stem cells.
What that means is we could get to a day where we can print
human organs in 3-D in a way you can't do it in the gravity
well of Earth, because it just goes flat.
These are transformational, you know, industrialized bio-
medicine kind of things that I think will result in a day where
we have massive amounts of capital--I think we are 3 to 7 years
away from massive amounts of capital flowing into commercial
space industry for human habitation in low-Earth orbit. The
goal is, we want to see a day when everybody can see themselves
as being an astronaut and I think having more people have more
access to space is really good for the American economy; it
helps our balance of payments, it becomes an export for the
United States of America, it reduces the trade deficit.
It is not just industrialized biomedicine, it is also
advanced materials, it is fiber optics, technology we call
ZBLAN, which will improve basically the way we do
communications terrestrially, and other material sciences that
can only be done in a micro-gravity environment of space.
I really think the goal is to have everybody know that
space--we want space to be for everybody and we are making
those investments to make that a reality.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask a little bit about commercial space launch
vehicles. What commercial launch vehicles exist today or are in
development that can or will be able to launch the HLS and get
to the Moon to accomplish the goal of U.S. boots on the Moon by
2024?
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. If we are taking humans, the only
rocket that is going to be available to take humans by 2024 is
the SLS rocket with the Orion crew capsule. There is no other
way to accelerate that program other than SLS and Orion. That
is to carry humans to the vicinity of the Moon, namely the
Gateway.
When we talk about what we need at the Gateway, we need a
landing system, and that landing system could be carried to the
Gateway. The only rocket that I can think of right now that
exists would be the Falcon 9 Heavy, but there are a lot of
other rockets under development, you mentioned development. It
would be the Vulcan, which is a ULA product; one would be the
Starship, which is a SpaceX product; one would be the New
Glenn, which is a Blue Origin product. I can't think of any
others offhand.
Mr. Bowersox. There is a chance that Northrop Grumman Omega
might be able to help as well. I am sure there are rockets we
haven't even heard about yet.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, how many of those are currently flying?
Mr. Bridenstine. The Falcon 9 Heavy is the only one.
Now, remember, and I think this goes to your question
earlier, as you mentioned, there could be an SLS-derived
commercial solution. We are not shutting the door on that
opportunity. Of course, that would require some investment from
Boeing to achieve, but certainly in the BAA that is an option.
Mr. Aderholt. How many of these rockets are going to have a
full engine test equivalent to the green-run test of SLS by
2020?
Mr. Bridenstine. I would say SLS and the Falcon 9 Heavy.
Mr. Bowersox. Yes, it is probably something that any
responsible provider would do, but, that is going to be up to
them since they are commercial activities. It is a typical type
of test that you do preparing a rocket to go into space.
Mr. Bridenstine. If we are putting American astronauts on
those vehicles, without question, it is not just up to them, it
is up to us as well.
Mr. Aderholt. And what is the contingency plan if for some
reason the commercial rockets are not available by 2024?
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I think right now we have there is
the Falcon 9 Heavy that is currently available and I think
there are a number of others that are getting close.
Mr. Aderholt. If the commercial is not available, then what
is the contingency plan?
Mr. Bridenstine. Go ahead.
Mr. Bowersox. Well, I mean, we have got the potential for
multiple commercial options, so we think that we would have all
those options. If we didn't have any of those four vehicles
flying, then we would look at what was available.
Mr. Bridenstine. I think, Mr. Ranking Member, that would
put us in a position to make landing in 2024 very, very
difficult. If we don't have the additional rockets, then we are
not going to be able to achieve the goal, but we are confident
we will have those rockets.
Mr. Aderholt. It is a pretty simple fact that, the smaller
the capability to take cargo to Moon orbit, the more launches
you will need to carry out of Moon mission; correct?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. So I also want to focus in on Doug Cooke, who
I am sure you are familiar with, former Associate Administrator
for Exploration, he did an op-ed on September the 13th in The
Hill, and in that op-ed he said that ``NASA's 2024 approach
will require eight new developments, eight launches, and
approximately 17 mission-critical operations to achieve its
goal,'' quote-unquote.
Are you familiar with that op-ed that he wrote last month
and would you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Bridenstine. So I do think--I have not read the op-ed,
I would love to read it before commenting on it, if that would
be all right, but I would be happy to take that for the record
and give you my feedback.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. How many commercial launch vehicles
will it take--well, let me go back one second. I know you
haven't read the article, but would you agree with what he--his
assessment on that?
Mr. Bridenstine. Can you say it one more time?
Mr. Aderholt. The approach would require ``eight new
developments, eight launches, and approximately 17 mission-
critical operations to achieve its goal.''
Mr. Bridenstine. I think that is a fair assessment.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And how many commercial vehicles will
it take to launch the human landing system, including having
the Gateway in the critical path?
Mr. Bridenstine. So that is open. We are not telling the
commercial providers how they need to do their landing system.
Some providers would indicate maybe they could do it with just
one vehicle, others indicate maybe you might need three. The
BAA, the Broad Agency Announcement for the landing system is
out and, because of that, I don't know how much we can comment
on those activities because of the blackout.
Mr. Aderholt. Oh. So, basically, that is open right now?
Mr. Bridenstine. We are not specifying how any of the
commercial providers for the human landing system ought to--how
their systems ought to be developed. We are waiting to have
them tell us what their approach is and then we will assess
their approaches.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. NASA's 2004 Exploration System
Architecture Study notes that after a launch plan requires more
than six to eight launch vehicles the likelihood of mission
loss goes up dramatically. Does that concern you?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, I guess the point is, the more
launches, the more one of them could have, you know, a problem.
Mr. Aderholt. Sure.
Mr. Bridenstine. That certainly is an issue. I would also
say we would need to look at the overall architecture and see
what creates more risk and less risk, how we are building the
architecture and for what reasons. You know, having a Gateway
in orbit around the Moon is important for a lot of reasons. It
is open architecture, so our international partners can have
their own landing systems, you know, developed to be worked
with the Gateway.
Again, the way we are building the architecture is
strategic in nature, it enables us to get to the Moon, it
enables our commercial partners to have opportunities to get to
the Moon themselves, our international partners to have
opportunities to get to the Moon.
I think in general we have to look at what we are trying to
achieve, and then the cost and risk associated with that, and I
think we have the right architecture at this point.
I would also say, when we use different types of rockets,
we have dissimilar redundancy. That actually reduces risk,
because, if one fails, another can continue to move forward.
The challenge we had in the 1980s after the Challenger accident
is DOD and NASA, everybody was entirely reliant on shuttle and,
when it went away, we were done. The DOD had no access to
space. Not a good position to be in in the 1980s, we don't want
to repeat that.
Mr. Aderholt. This study I referred to, this 2004 study, it
seems that it established benefits of using SLS-sized rockets
for a lunar landing mission, from a mission- reliability
standpoint. If that is the case, shouldn't NASA be working on
completing SLS No. 4, since it may be needed to help with the
Moon mission?
Mr. Bridenstine. Certainly, in fact, we did a letter
contract, I think we signed it this morning, for additional
SLSs and exploration upper stage. These are underway right now
and certainly we have a strong interest in seeing the fourth
one be successful.
Mr. Aderholt. And you said that was created this morning?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes. Did the letter go out?
Mr. Bowersox. I think the announcement went out this
morning----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Bowersox [continuing]. The signature was a little bit
earlier, I believe.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
China is ahead of us in space and I think we know this.
People that are supportive of this request have said to me, if
we don't move now, China will own space, and who owns space
owns the Earth and our technology in it. Knowing that
situation, how would the 2024 timeline to return to the Moon be
affected if the funding isn't provided in 2020?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think of it as a range of probabilities.
There is no definitive can we get there early if we don't have
the money or if we do have the money. It is a range of
probabilities.
I think if we look at what the Senate mark was, it wasn't
the entire budget request for the Artemis program, and because
of that it reduces the probability of success to land within 5
years, but it can't be ruled out either. It is achievable, it
is just the level of risk goes up. I am not talking about risk
to life, I am talking about risk to schedule.
I think, when we move forward, we need to think about what
puts us in the best probability of success. I think we put
together a budget request that puts us in the best probability
of success and I think that is what we are asking for.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bridenstine. We have been talking a lot about the
importance of commercial partners, which obviously will play a
key role in getting NASA back to the Moon and beyond, right?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is right.
Mr. Cartwright. And I was reading the 2020 budget request
from NASA and also the $1.6 billion supplemental request and
they both speak a lot about how NASA plans to leverage
innovative commercial partnerships with launch vehicle
providers and lander developers and companies like that.
I want you to go into some more detail on that. Would you
please describe how these fixed-price partnerships are helping
NASA to reduce costs and accelerate development in the Artemis
program.
Mr. Bridenstine. NASA is doing a lot of things, I think,
rightly, that are accelerating processes. The transition is--
and you are aware of this--that if we have a program we want to
develop, we spend 6 months developing--maybe a year developing
a request for information. Then industry spends 6 months to a
year developing the information that we requested. Then we
spend 6 months to a year reviewing that information and putting
out a request for proposal. Then they spend 6 months to a year
replying to those proposals.
Over the course of 3 to 4 years, we finally get under
contract, and, by the way, that doesn't include when all of the
contractors protest the decision that NASA made, which costs
the taxpayers lots of money, wastes a lot of time, and creates
all kinds of problems for the country, which is not good.
All that being said, what we are trying to do is we are
trying to move faster, and the way to do that is where
possible, where it makes sense, do, as you mentioned,
partnerships with industry where we put forth American taxpayer
dollars, they put forth their own private investment and
collaboratively, we figure out what the solution is.
Now, we are willing to do that because we expect that they
will one day go get customers that are not NASA. Those other
customers could be international partners--by the way, we want
to be in agreement with them on who those partners are--but not
just international partners; it could be commercial people who
want to go to the Moon for different reasons. Maybe it is a
technology that can only be developed in the microgravity or
the low gravity of the Moon.
It could be tourism. For goodness sake, there are people
out there willing to go to the Moon for vacation. I don't think
it would be much of a vacation, but many people do.
As long as there are people willing to invest money in the
capability to have customers who are not NASA, it drives down
our costs and it increases access for everybody. NASA doesn't
necessarily want to always be the purchaser, owner, and
operator of all of the hardware. That being said, there are
times when it is in our interests to be the purchaser, owner,
and operator of the hardware. Then, by the way, some of the
companies that develop that capability can even offer that
hardware as a commercial-like opportunity for the future. There
are different ways of doing different things.
The goal that I think is important, is that we open the
aperture of what is legally possible, and then stay within the
confines of legal requirements that we have been given--don't
go outside of that--but, ultimately, take advantage of what has
been provided in the law to do public-private partnerships.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that answer.
But knowing the vital part that private contractors are
going to be playing, are you satisfied that NASA has enough
personnel to do the work of overseeing--the oversight work to
make sure that the private contractors are doing what they are
supposed to be doing?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think at this point we are in good
shape. As programs move forward in a more robust way, we may
need to reconsider the number of personnel that we have
involved in these programs. I think right now we are okay. If
our budgets do go up and we have more development, we could
need more support.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NASA has a solicitation underway for industry to provide a
human lander system that will be used to land astronauts on the
Moon in 2024. It is my understanding that the SLS, with this
exploration upper stage could launch the entire lander system
on a single mission. NASA does not appear to be offering its
own SLS vehicle as an available option to launch the HLS;
rather, the solicitation instructs bidders to come up with
their own SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution.
So, my question is: Has there been any discussion with NASA
to offer the SLS as a government-furnished equipment to launch
the lander system?
Mr. Bridenstine. I haven't had any discussions regarding
that with industry or folks that might have an interest in
that. I do think this goes back to Representative Cartwright's
question regarding kind of new approaches. Certainly, we
thought it would be appropriate for SLS, if there is a
commercially viable option for an SLS, that is an opportunity
that any human-landing system provider or offeror could tap
into, but that would be an agreement between them and, you
know, Boeing for that activity or--I don't know--whoever. There
are a lot of prime contractors involved in that program.
I have got to be really careful because we do have that BAA
on the street. We don't want to say what the right answer is.
We want to leave it to the HLS providers to make that
determination.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. And with that BAA, you might not be
able to answer the next question: Will splitting the lander
system into three missions and assembling the system on orbit
negatively affect mission risks and schedule?
Mr. Bridenstine. Again, we are going to have to look at
what the commercial providers, you know, demonstrate they are
capable of doing. We will look at all of that and make
determinations in the source selection process. Again, we are
in a blackout, so----
Mr. Bowersox. Yes, I don't want to talk about details, but,
you know, the idea of doing everything with one big rocket
versus doing it with smaller rockets, each approach has its
advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of breaking
things into smaller pieces is we tend to do better with smaller
programs as we work through the management and production of
those different items. Breaking them into chunks that we can
handle could be very helpful.
One thing you mentioned--I think this is interesting--you
mentioned government-furnished equipment. Certainly, any
offeror for a human-landing system has an option to request
government-furnished equipment. If an offeror wanted to say to
NASA, Hey, provide this as government-furnished equipment, in
the BAA, that is perfectly appropriate for them to do that.
Now, what that means is we have to look at it and say, Do
we have an extra SLS that is available and are we willing--and
this is the other challenge--are we willing to pony up the
costs for that additional SLS, should it be available? Right
now, we are not appropriated for that activity; that is a lot
of money.
I would say doing the GFE approach on that, again, I am not
saying it's yes-or-no, offerors are going to have to offer, but
it does look awfully challenging to accommodate that, just from
an appropriations perspective, but also from a schedule
perspective.
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. Thank you.
And I really appreciate your written and oral testimony
here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. We have no further questions, here, but
I understand Mr. Aderholt----
Mr. Aderholt. If I could, what is the status of the
parachute test in the Commercial Crew program?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. My goodness.
We have two different Commercial Crew providers. SpaceX
right now is rapidly iterating testing of the Mark 3 parachute,
which is the most recent design and materials. The goal here is
we are trying to meet a specific factor of safety of 1.6, which
there is a whole host of numbers that go into that calculation.
We are confident that the Mark 3 parachute is the right
system to achieve that margin of safety. What we are looking
for now in that Mark 3 parachute is consistent and repeatable
performance at that 1.6 level. We are going to be looking at
the margins for every element of that parachute.
SpaceX has said that by the end of the year, they think
they could get as many as 10 drop tests done on the Mark 3,
which would be--you know, if that is possible, that would be
very positive. Then we are going to look and see how that
matches with the Mark 2, and if it matches with the Mark 2,
then we might not need to do as many drop tests. If those
parachute deployments do not match the Mark 2, then we would
probably need to do additional drop tests.
These are all things that we are going to be analyzing in
the coming days. With SpaceX, they have a static fire test
coming up. They have a high-altitude launch abort test coming
up, and then, of course, a lot of parachute testing. Remember,
this is a development program; that means we are going to learn
things that we were not anticipating and when that happens, we
need to be prepared for it.
Then on the Boeing side, with the Atlas V rocket and the
Starliner, a lot of the similar challenges with parachutes that
come from the asymmetry issue from a parachute deployment are
affecting them, as well. Again, NASA is making sure that what
we learn in each of these programs gets widely shared because
we are putting humans on these rockets and we can't afford to
have propriety information put some of our astronauts in
jeopardy.
Mr. Aderholt. And lastly, of course NASA, unfortunately,
has a reputation for overseeing projects that are sometimes
over budget and behind schedule. My question is, what has
changed and how are you hoping to overcome the difficulties of
that, that you have seen in the past?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes. The big thing is, I think the number
one thing that we have to do as an Agency is go forward with
realism. A lot of times, a contractor will tell us what they
can achieve and then we accept it and then they advertise it to
the public--and this is true for every contractor; I am not
singling out any one--and then those schedules get publicized
and then we are held to account for achieving them.
I think in a lot of cases, it is not based on realism. When
it comes to cost and scheduling, we need to bemore realistic in
our assessments and know that these programs--this is a big difference
and a lot of people don't know--there is a big difference between
development and operations. When we had the space shuttle, that was an
operations capability. We knew that we knew that we knew that we knew
that we had the shuttle. Yes, there were delays, but we had the
shuttle.
What we are doing now with Commercial Crew and SLS, these
are development programs, we don't know yet what we don't know.
As we go through the development and testing, we learn things
and then we have to make adjustments. It is a lot harder to pin
down what a schedule is when you are not in operations and you
are still in development. That being said, I do think we can
get better at being more realistic at schedule.
I can see that Ken has some thoughts.
Mr. Bowersox. I think a big part of it is the initial
estimates that we give people, right. You know, we tend to try
and be a little ambitious and maybe a little bit optimistic in
our initial cost estimates and schedule estimates and maybe we
need to start off, you know, a little more--I won't say
pessimistic--but realistic so we set out schedules and cost
goals that we can meet.
Mr. Aderholt. And last, let me just--what type of issues
continue to slow you down and what additional authority do you
need to stay on budget and to stay on schedule?
Mr. Bridenstine. There is a very delicate balance among the
contractors involved in this process and, quite frankly, we
need all of them and we need them all to be successful. A lot
of times what happens is there is contractor-on-contractor
violence that ultimately undercuts what we are trying to
achieve on a rapid schedule.
Here's what we know: China is not going to slow down. That
means that we, as a country, need to come together, figure out
what the architecture is, be committed to a process and then
move forward as rapidly as possible.
Sometimes, contractors are constantly undercutting each
other and that is not good for the agency. It is not good for
our country. When we make a plan to move forward, we need to
move forward. I think that is one thing.
As far as authorities, I will take that for the record. I
guarantee you, I will come up with some, but I might need a
little time.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
That brings us to the end of the hearing, gentlemen, and
notwithstanding whatever questions may have been asked or
comments made, we support the work that you do.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. We appreciate the work that you do. We can
differ on one issue and try to work it out, but, again, as I
look at my last year in Congress, I am proud of the fact that I
was able to deal with issues that ordinary people would think I
was stereotypically not capable of dealing with and NASA
supporting other things, and at the same time, looking out for
the guy and the woman who are, you know, paying rent for the
apartment and having trouble paying their mortgage.
And so, all those folks who are already writing on Twitter,
newspaper clippings, already--but not while we are sitting
here--saying that I just killed the mission. I don't have that
kind of power. I didn't kill the mission. I just asked some
questions that I know that you know need to be answered before
we move forward or not.
So, I thank you for your work. If you want a list of people
that I want to send to space, I will let you know. I am capable
of doing that. Send all the Houston Astros, but anyway, I
sincerely thank you for coming here today and for
participating.
And I thank you, Mr. Aderholt, for your input on making
sure that we held this hearing. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]