As you can see, we have considerable member interest here this morning. And once the Republican Conference adjourns, I suspect we will get even more people here. So we will ask you to give us the short, the Reader's Digest version of your views, and then we'll go to questions. And Dr. Frieman, I will recognize you first. Thank you. STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD FRIEMAN, DIRECTOR, SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA Dr. FRIEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you specifically for your kind words on our study. As you know, I'm here representing the National Research Council colleagues who carried out the study you requested last spring on the Global Change Research Program and ÑASA's Mission to Planet Earth. Berrien Moore and I cochaired it. The study included a very broad array of experts with a wide divergence of views. We briefed it to you last September and promised a follow-up, which is supposed to be taking place as we speak. We thought, actually, that we might have done it right since we uniformly criticized everybody-the Feds, the Hill, the community, and so on and so forth. Let me reiterate the questions that you raised for us then, briefly. You asked about the performance of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, specifically, NASA's Mission to Planet Earth/EOS, use of small satellites, use of commercial involvement, and whether the science was of high quality and whether it was politically driv en. Before going into that, I might clarify one issue on the issue for the NRC and budget. I did check that issue with legal counsel to see what precisely our boundaries are, and just a word on that. We can receive budget information. We can discuss budget information. We can jump up and down and scream about it. We can do all these things. We make choices and recommendations on science with full knowledge of the budgetary impacts. What we cannot do is simply say, spend this amount on that and that amount on the other, because then we cross the boundary of becoming a Federal Advisory Committee. So I just wanted to assure you that we are aware of the budgetary problems and sensitive to those issues, although I cannot come back and make recommendations to you wearing my NRC hat. At the inception of the study, we understood the background of the complexity and challenge of the underlying science, a changing social atmosphere with terms of expectations with regard to large science programs, severe downward budget pressures, concerns raised by many over the program's political neutrality, and more important in some respects, a growing awareness on the part of the scientific community that it had to take more responsibility for and greater leadership in program governance. So these were the issues that surrounded us, if you will, as we went into this process. To give you the mini-, micro-Reader's Digest version, let me say we broke it into three broad categories-a discussion of scientific progress, programs, and priorities; a review of program management and integration issues which we keep seeing falling off the edge of the table; and a set of recommendations focused specifically on NASA's program. First, I think, we concluded that the quality of the program science is high. It is vital. The researchers involved go where science leads them and not where politics leads. We understand that there is a political controversy. But in terms of the researchers themselves involved in this program, I believe that they do what is adequate, what is necessary in peer review. This community is committed to understanding the state of the earth's environment and it's committed to its long-range goal of learning to predict the future evolution. Now we recognize the necessity for budgetary stringency and recommending focusing resources on the highest priority issues. Basically, they're four in number: Seasonal to inter-annual climate prediction. Here we want to improve the predictive skills. There are hints that the extreme flooding in the west and the east coast blizzard that we've experienced that you experienced here we in California escaped itnevertheless, there are hints that that may be related to the kinds of phenomenon we're talking about. Atmospheric chemistry, enhancing research on tropospheric chemistry. Ecosystems. Decadal to centennial climate. I won't go through these in detail. I think you've heard these many, many times. What is clear, however, is that there is a problem here that the science doesn't recognize whether it's NASA, whether it's NOAA, whether it's DOE, whether it's any agency you might want to name. And therefore, in order for this program to succeed out in the future, it requires-and focus it on these high-priority issuesit requires a significant interdisciplinary action on the part of the scientific community, and it requires inter-agency linkages which need to be much stronger than currently exist. It requires for its success a high level of programmatic integration. We expect that in the course of our discussions in the next few days, we will hear some of our responses from the Executive Office of the President and from the federal agencies on some of these issues. If we are not satisfied, as we promised you, we would do a phase two. We will continue. On program management and integration issues, we concluded that much-enhanced collaboration and management budget program decisions. We responded to your concerns, adopting advances in technology to improve performance and lower cost. We recommended utilizing systems and data products from related monitoring systems, such as_ground-based and satellite observations and so on and so forth. Let me then turn to EOS as sort of the centerpiece of the global change program. We made a number of recommendations, but let me focus on what I consider the major issue, and that was the EOS Data and Information System. It is clearly an enormous part of the budget. We, for the first time under Dr. Kennel's direction, were given a chart which showed the expenditures in detail of where all of the segments of that system, where the expenditures were made. It is rather clear that this needs to be examined. We made very strong recommendations about a different way of approaching it, a different architecture, and opening it up to competition and opening it up to industry. We know that as a result of those recommendations, that NASA has spent an enormous amount of time going through that in excruciating detail and we expect to hear what those results are and perhaps in Dr. Kennel's testimony, you will hear what the results of their studies have been to date. On the Mission to Planet Earth components, we've already stated that we should move ahead with AM-1, PM-1, CHEM-1, TRMM, Landsat-7, to avoid delay and we believe minimize costs. The other major issue we raised was the including of in-situ observations as central to EOS. We believe that NASA is addressing that, development, insertion of advanced technologies and so on. Mr. Chairman, if you'll permit me, then, I'd like to speak for a few minutes as myself and not for the NRC, because you have raised the issue of severe budgetary pressures. When we left the workshop last summer, we had hoped that the recommendations we made would result in savings and improvements in the program. If you look at it, there are only four ways that we see, at least in EOS, for these savings-cut back on the nearer-term launches and centers, cut back on EOS DIS, utilize new and cheaper technologies, and rely on other data sources. Let me comment briefly. I am a member of the MEDEA group which is examining in detail the use of data collected by the military and intelligence agencies for environmental applications. That was started some time ago. It exists today. I believe I can attest to the fact that the government has examined the kinds of issues you've raised and while it is promising, it doesn't map onto EOS. There can be some savings, but not a tremendous amount. In an appropriate setting, I'm sure that we can discuss this in greater detail because it involves information at other levels of classification. As of now, U-2 aircraft are being used. There's a recently declassified spyplane, the B-57, which is being used. At my own institution, we recently got declassified Navy GEOSAT data and mapped the oceanfloor, which the results were just absolutely spectacular. Much of the declassified early data is being stored at the EOS data center as we speak. And it is available to the global change EOS researchers. So I think what you're saying is absolutely correct-it is there, it is useful, it doesn't quite do what we would like to. On the revolutionary spacecraft technologies, again, you are correct. But it is our understanding that we are at a stage in the development cycle where we need more development before we can rely on this to a larger extent. And so that is an out-year issue. On the matter of an emerging remote sensing industry, I think you're again correct in pointing this out. I have been briefed within appropriate proprietary considerations on the license applications that NOAA has received I think from six companies, if I'm not correct. The proprietary aspects concern the business details, et cetera, for those, and I don't know what they are. But they include one- and three-meter visual systems and similar kinds of systems for the infrared and near-infrared, again, promising launches next year, two years, three years, five years. We're not clear when. It may contribute in the out-years, but it doesn't resolve our budgetary pressures at the moment, I'm afraid. On international cooperation, again, I think we agree that this needs to be pursued more vigorously. There is a great deal of it going on, but more can be done. So let me then state my conviction that the program, the Global Change Program and NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, are fundamentally sound scientific programs which we believe are of immense importance to the future welfare of our country and of the world. We continue to believe that there needs to be a sound, balanced and well-integrated management, including the imaginative use of advanced technology in both domestic and international partnerships. And under such a regime, I believe that a considerable savings can be found. It needs much more work than we've been able to undertake today, and I hope that perhaps you might direct us to continue that search to probe for the kinds of savings we believe are there. I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to present my conclusions. [The prepared statement and attachments of Dr. Frieman follow:] |