> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

An Interview with House Science Committee Chair Bart Gordon
By Barton Reppert

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) has been serving as chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology since the start of the 110^th Congress in January 2007. He is also dean of the Tennessee congressional delegation, currently serving his 12^th term in the House.

One of Rep. Gordon’s priorities for the committee is improving U.S. economic competitiveness. He has spearheaded development and passage of the America COMPETES Act, which aims to (1) put the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science on track to double their budgets; (2) improve science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education; (3) support young researchers by expanding early career grant programs; and (4) foster innovation by establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E).

Rep. Gordon has also been at the forefront of efforts to advance innovation in the emerging field of nanotechnology. In this field, the House has passed a bill to strengthen and provide transparency in federal research efforts to understand the potential environmental, health and safety risks of nanotechnology.

Gordon and the committee are working toward a multi-year authorization for NASA, after a one-year reauthorization passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in late 2008. The committee has been seeking to support a balanced and robust program of NASA in the areas of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight and exploration.

Rep. Gordon played a key role in gaining congressional approval for the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in his home state of Tennessee. The SNS is the most advanced scientific facility of its kind and is expected to be important for the next generation of materials research.

The Science and Technology Committee provided the following written responses to questions submitted by IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Online contributing writer Barton Reppert:

Q. What high-priority issues do you anticipate the Science and Technology Committee will be working on in the fall and next year?

A.  The committee has been busy this year; 18 committee bills have passed the House, three of which were enacted into law. This fall the committee will be working on authorizations for NASA and DHS [Department of Homeland Security] S&T and continuing our work on hazard mitigation, cybersecurity and fire grants.

Q. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for U.S. electrical and electronics engineers hit a new record in the second quarter (doubling from 4.1 percent in the first quarter to a record-high 8.6 percent in the second quarter), while the rate for all engineers increased for a second straight quarter (from 3.9 percent in the first quarter to 5.5 percent in the second quarter). If technology is an important driver of the U.S. economy, and engineering unemployment is a bellwether for economic recovery and job creation, these figures seem to suggest that we've still got a ways to go to regain our economic foothold. What is your take on the unemployment rate and loss of U.S. high-tech jobs? What can be done to reverse these trends?

A. Engineers are extremely valuable; their knowledge and skills help our nation stay competitive. Although their unemployment rates hit a new high, engineer unemployment rates are historically lower than other fields. Until consumer confidence goes up and banks reinvest in innovation and production, many Americans will continue to suffer. We’ve lost manufacturing jobs, and that has impacted the engineering sector.  Unfortunately, a lot of these jobs may not be coming back, which is why it is so important that we grow new industries and new sectors of the economy, like clean energy jobs.” 

Q. How would you rate our progress so far with respect to the recommendations set forth in the 2007 National Academies report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm"?

A. With the American COMPETES Act, which was signed into law in 2007, the committee has been successful in tackling roughly 90 percent of the suggested actions, within our jurisdiction, in the report and held an oversight hearing to address a few of the other recommendations. The recovery package brought funding for the programs in COMPETES to or above the FY09 authorized levels.  We’ve begun holding hearings on the programs, and will continue to do so as we move towards reauthorization in 2010.  We’ll address any remaining recommendations at that time.

Q. What is your assessment of progress made by the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (a.k.a. the Augustine Committee)? Overall, what do you believe the future holds for U.S. human spaceflight? Do you support a manned mission to Mars?

A. The committee needs a better assessment of the current human space flight program and what resources are needed to ensure the program’s success. The bottom line is that the mission has to match the money. We have two choices, either give NASA the resources it needs or decide what we want to take off its plate.

In addition to the direct benefits of the knowledge gained in exploring our solar system, it’s important to note that we rely on services and technologies every day that were developed, initially, as part of the space program.  Communications satellites, and space-based weather monitoring and prediction have become critical components of our basic national infrastructure.  Cordless power tools have their roots in the Apollo program, and some 18-wheeler trucks and commercial planes use NASA’s aerodynamic technology to improve fuel efficiency. 

In addition to technology, the successes of the human spaceflight program, especially the moon landing, have inspired a generation to pursue careers in science and engineering, which has had a rippling impact on innovation that has helped strengthen our national economic competitiveness over the past 40 years. With the last reauthorization, Congress spoke loudly in support of a balanced and robust NASA program of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight and exploration. If we do give up on human spaceflight, we would be ceding our international dominance in space when other nations are ready and willing to take our place. I believe the human spaceflight program is essential to maintaining our competitiveness and national security.

Q. You are among key leaders in Washington who believe that innovation — particularly new energy technologies — will be key to reinvigorating this country's economy over the next 50 years. What are some of your energy priorities for this Congress? What role do you envision ARPA-E playing in developing the new technologies?

A. About half of the growth in GDP in the past 50 years came from development and adoption of new technologies. In order to reinvigorate our economy, we will need to invest in technology and innovation, especially new energy technologies.  This Congress, the committee is working hard to fine tune the federal energy effort. We are in the process of authorizing robust and well-managed energy programs at DOE that encompass advanced vehicle technologies, carbon capture sequestration, solar and wind energy, and even the energy/water nexus.  With a new Administration and the considerable increases in funding, DOE has an opportunity to change the way it does business and really serve the public’s needs in energy technology development.

A large part of a reinvigorated DOE effort includes application of this new tool, ARPA-E.  Secretary Chu seems to understand the potential for innovation through ARPA-E, both in the research it sponsors and in the organizational model it employs.  ARPA-E has broad authority to do lots of things. The one thing it must do is be different (from the rest of DOE).  ARPA-E is bringing together some of the brightest minds in the field and providing them with the resources to do high-risk, high-reward energy technology development.  The beauty of ARPA-E is that it was designed with enough flexibility to handle virtually any task at hand, whether it be early-stage research or later-stage technology demonstration.  I believe ARPA-E is uniquely positioned to be the bridge to the new energy economy.

ARPA-E is on track to make their first round of awards in October.  The first Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) received an overwhelming response — 3,700 white papers — far exceeding anyone’s expectations.  We see that as proof of a pent-up need for this type of transformational research. There’s been a little bit of criticism in the press because the response letters to applicants pointed out that only a small percentage of the applications would receive funding, but I see that as a function of the huge number of applicants.  Because the agency has the set amount of $150 million for funding this round, and because they received an extraordinary amount of applicants, there will only be adequate funding for a small percentage of applicants.  If ARPA-E’s main problem is that there are too many people interested in developing transformational technologies and alternative sources of energy, that’s a good problem to have.

I’m encouraged that the agency was able to review concept papers from 3,700 applicants in eight weeks, especially considering that they’re still working to get fully staffed up.  I’m hopeful that that the agency will use lessons learned in this round to help inform the process moving forward.  I understand they have submitted a Request for Information for stakeholder input that will frame the next FOA, which is expected in the next few months. I’m very glad that the president recently named a director for ARPA-E, Arun Majumdar of [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory], and I hope the Senate confirmation process moves quickly.

Q. PHEVs are an exciting development for the U.S. auto industry. What do you see as the major technical obstacles to mass production and broader adoption of such vehicles? Are there policy considerations that could help to speed their development and broad-scale introduction into the automotive market?

A. Earlier this month, the House passed the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009 (H.R.3246).This committee legislation would authorize appropriations to the Secretary of Energy for research, development, demonstration and commercial application of a broad range of vehicles and related technologies for fiscal year 2010 through 2014. In addition, this bill would focus on the advanced technologies for medium-to heavy-duty commercial and transit vehicles.

 I think it’s important to note that, while Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles will almost certainly play an important role in our transportation future, the variety of technologies will extend well beyond that. The vehicle fleet of the future will include a diversity of more efficient and cleaner technologies that range from pure electric vehicles (such as the Nissan LEAF), to natural gas vehicles, to hybrid heavy duty trucks.  That said, vehicle electrification is critical, and progress on that front hinges on improvements in the manufacturing costs, reliability and energy-density of batteries.    

Q. Do you consider the AAAS Government Fellows program a valuable tool for informing members of Congress on important technical issues?

A. The AAAS Government Fellows Program is beneficial to both congressional offices and the committee. These fellows help inform members on technical issues, while congressional offices help the fellows to better understand the legislative process, leading to stronger more effective legislation in the end. The committee has benefited from the technical knowledge that a number of our staffers gained from their AAAS fellowship. These staffers bring a new perspective, from the science communities at large, to their work on the committee.

Q. Do you believe Congress receives adequate, impartial and timely tech-policy information from the Congressional Research Service, the National Academies etc. to help make decisions on difficult technology policy issues? Also, to what extent would Congress benefit from another Office of Technology Assessment or similar agency?

A. CRS and the National Academies are helpful, highly respected resources for congressional staffers and members. The committee thoroughly reviews NAS reports and often holds hearings or writes legislation based on their findings or recommendations. Last Congress, the committee enacted monumental legislation, the COMPETES Act, aimed at ensuring and strengthening U.S. competitiveness in the global economy, which was based on the top recommendations from the NAS report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm.” In the beginning of this year, the committee held a hearing to discuss the impact of current export controls on the nation’s science and technology competitiveness and to review the NAS report “Beyond ‘Fortress America’: National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a Globalized World.

I would also highlight the agencies’ Offices of the Inspector General and the GAO [Government Accountability Office] as important resources in maintaining accountability and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.  We rely on these watchdogs to help ensure that programs are being effectively managed and money is being spent wisely.

Barton Reppert is an independent science and technology writer, focusing mainly on Washington coverage of S&T policy issues. Previously he worked for 18 years as a reporter and editor with The Associated Press in Washington, New York and Moscow.

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.