Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285792275
label
Industry - DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] [1991]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792275
contentType
document
title
Industry - DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] [1991]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62071-011
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792275
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
804e9f725360fc78
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
National Security Files
OA/ID Number:
62071
Folder ID Number:
62071-011
Folder Title:
Industry - DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] [1991]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
THE WHITE HOUSE
Dear John.
Afric7.91.
Panel repart thative descussed I would
there lithe Critical admologics
welcome any suggestions pumay
have regarding peruble counision
into an Alminis Irdian
document buttupenthin Misim That
legelatemreques That me supply
Hy Sunater. Left Bingsman etal.
m The mar fature.
Sincerely
Man
P.s. Amwarking outhe draftarlude
totell. MSIT : we have a wrygood stery
U
REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES PANEL
MARCH 1991
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY Duan
SUBJECT:
CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE
Herewith some information relevant to the Congressional action directing us to
establish a Critical Technologies Institute.
I would much appreciate an opportunity to discuss this with you sometime next week
if you have time on your calendar. I am providing these data to John Sununu, Roger
Porter, Dick Darman and Mike Boskin, as well as to you, because I want to be sure
that I have the benefit of input from all of you before proceeding.
We have $5 million appropriated and I have established that it can be stretched over
two years rather than the initially proposed one year.
I believe that this can provide an opportunity to structure something that can be
useful in supporting the President's programs and the activities of the EOP but we
need as much input as possible to insure the best possible result.
I shall call your office early next week to try to find some time when we can discuss
this and would much appreciate your help.
Attachment
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM:
BILL WELLS
SUBJECT: CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE
A number of considerations related to the Critical
Technologies Institute are reviewed in this memorandum. A question
and answer format is used to convey appropriate information and
pertinent appendices are enclosed.
What Are the Origins of the Institute?
It seems to have emerged as an organizational concept from an
extended series of hearings beginning in about 1988 held under the
jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee, specifically
the Subcommittee on Defense Industry and Technology, chaired by
Senator Jeff Bingaman.
When Did it Appear as a Legislative Proposal?
The legislation for the Institute was drafted, as best I can
determine, in the closing weeks of the First Session of the 101st
Congress -- in the September-October 1990 time period.
Was OSTP Involved With the Legislative Proposal?
The short answer is no. But there is a longer answer. During that
period, I had just stepped down from acting as Dr. Bromley's Chief
of Staff but was still fully engaged with a range of FY 1991
legislative and budgetary matters in a consulting role. During
October I was asked by congressional staff for OSTP comment and
support on the legislation during the Senate-House conference
process on the Defense Authorization. However, I declined on both
counts and immediately brought the request to Bob Howard's
attention -- personally, in a visit to his office.
Subsequently, in response to Bob Howard's request, Dr. Bromley and
Bill Phillips visited Senator Bingaman to convey the
Administration's opposition to the proposed legislation. To my
knowledge, no written objection on the Institute legislative
proposal was ever submitted by the Administration. We dealt only
with Bob Howard and did not have discussions with Defense.
I have stated elsewhere -- and will again now -- that if we had
been involved in drafting the legislation, it might well have come
out rather differently and perhaps a little less complex. I am
the most likely one to have been involved but I was not. Bill
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
91 AUG 13 P4: 11
August 13, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Auan
SUBJECT:
The National Critical Materials Council
The above mentioned Council was created by Congressional action (P.L. 98-373) in
July 1984 and was originally intended to provide national planning and oversight for
federal programs involving strategic materials (and their stockpiling against possible
emergencies); advanced materials (and the related science and technology); and,
finally, superconductivity (with special reference to its application and related
research).
In March 1990, on my recommendation, you appointed Henson Moore, Deputy
Secretary of Energy, TS Ary, Director of the Bureau of Mines, and me as the three
Members of the Council. You further asked that I serve as Chairman, and I have
been delighted to do so.
We have made substantial progress in all three areas mentioned above.
This year's Senate Appropriations language, however, sharply restricts the future
activities of the Council to the first of the areas originally specified--namely, strategic
materials and their appropriate stockpiling.
Because this is a field in which the Bureau of Mines has lead responsibility and one
OK
in which TS Ary has broad personal experience and qualifications, I would request
that you now designate TS Ary as Chairman replacing me. He would be pleased to
with
serve if asked, and Henson Moore and I will both be happy to continue as Members
of the Council if that is your wish.
GB
You have the authority under P.L. 98-373 to designate the Chairman of the Council;
the pertinent sentence is "The President shall designate one of the members to serve
as Chairman."
8.17
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR CONSTANCE HORNER
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY Allan
SUBJECT: CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE APPOINTMENTS
In response to the request from Les Csorba of your office today for
recommendations on appointments to the Operating Committee for the Critical
Technologies Institute, recently established in Section 822 of the FY1992
Defense Authorization Act, the following individuals are suggested:
- Secretary of the Treasury, Nicholas Brady
- Director, Office of Management and Budget, Richard Darman
- Director, National Security Council, Brent Scowcroft
- Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors, Michael Boskin
These appointments are called for in Section 822, paragraph (c), (H), (2).
If you have any additional questions, please give me a call. If I am unavailable,
please direct any questions to Dr. Eugene Wong, x3902.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 23, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Daw
SUBJECT:
CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE (CTI)
After substantial negotiations involving OSTP, OMB and the Senate Armed Services
Appropriations Subcommittee (Bingaman) concerning the CTI, the following agreement
has been reached:
1.
The sponsor is designated as the Director of the NSF but the National
Science Board, with the exception of its chairman, is excluded from
involvement.
2.
There shall be an Advisory Board comprised entirely of government
officials; there will be 11 members including the heads of OSTP, NSF,
DOD, NASA, DOE, DOC, HHS and four additional members to be
designated by the President.
3.
The Chairman of the Advisory Board will be designated by the President
and must be a senior EOP official.
4.
The Institute will be required to perform such duties as the Chairman of
the Advisory Board may specify consistent with the overall description of
the duties of the Institute.
Given that all of the specified duties are related to technologies, PCAST or FCCSET
and that OSTP has played the lead role in these areas throughout the Bush
Administration, were I not to be appointed as Chairman of the Advisory Board it
would be read throughout the scientific and technical communities as a major
rejection by the President of much that I have tried to accomplish as a member of
his Administration.
As the legislation is now written, the Director of OSTP is the only statutory member
qualified to serve as chairman although the President could well appoint as one of his
four nominees, an alternate EOP member.
The chairmanship was specifically not designated in the legislation to preserve it as a
Presidential prerogative. I would however, request that the President designate me as
chairman so that we can continue work in progress.
I believe that the new structure eliminates most, if not all, of the objections that have
been raised to the original Congressional CTI proposal. I do feel very strongly about
the matter of chairmanship in order that we be able to move forward with I consider
to be an important part of the Bush Administration's record of accomplishments in
the area of technology.
cc: Constance Horner
To: D. Allan Bromley
From: Eugene Wong EW
Re: The Critical Technologies Institute
Sponsor:
Director of NSF, but the National Science
Board may be involved only in having its
Chair be consulted.
Board:
The Board of Trustees is renamed the
Advisory Board.
Membership:
In the latest version, the Board consists of all
government officials. There are 11 members as
follows: Heads of OSTP, NSF, NASA, DOE,
DOD, DOC, HHS, and four additional
government members designated by the
President.
Chair:
The Chair is to be designated by the
President and must be a senior official of
EOP. (Note: the only statutory member who
qualifies is the Director of OSTP.)
Duties:
The Institute is required to perform such
duties as the Chair may specify consistent
with the overall description of duties.
It is clear that the legislative intention is to have the Director of OSTP be designated
as the Chair of CTI. The evidence for this is as follows:
a. Director of OSTP is the only statutory member who qualifies to serve
as the Chair.
b. All of the specified duties are related to technologies, PCAST, or
FCCSET.
c. Tasking of CTI is through the Chair of its Board.
The reason for not having it specified in legislation is to preserve it as a Presidential
perogative.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 27, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Anan
SUBJECT:
CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE
Here are some data and Q's and A's regarding the above mentioned Institute that we
have been required to establish in OSTP by Congressional action.
I am providing similar information to Boskin, Darman and Porter and am seeking
advice on how best to proceed.
I remain convinced that we can, if we use this wisely, evolve something that could be
useful to the President and to the entire EOP.
Your comments, advice and suggestions would be most welcome.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 27, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Anan
SUBJECT:
INDIVIDUALS WITH EXPERT CREDENTIALS
RELEVANT TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Pursuant to your request I am providing you herewith a listing of individuals with
expert credentials and common sense in the area of designation of endangered species.
ideological spectrum from middle of the road to conservative. I assume that you
I shall be happy to discuss this further with you. The list includes a relatively broad
have, as I have, already heard all you want to hear from the extreme activists.
Enclosure
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01a.
To: Boyden Gray From: Allan Bromley
2/21/91
(b)(6)
Memorandum
Re: Position of US Attorney for Connectivut [personal
information redacted] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
National Security Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industry - DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] [1991]
Date Closed:
5/12/2010
OA/ID Number:
62071-011
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01b. Resume
Resume [personal information redacted] (3 pp.)
(b)(6)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
National Security Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Industry - DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] [1991]
Date Closed:
5/12/2010
OA/ID Number:
62071-011
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY An
SUBJECT:
Newspaper Article on Critical Technologies
I thought you might be interested in the latest newspaper article on the critical
technologies issue.
Please call if you have any questions.
L.A. Times
5/9/91
INNOVATION MICHAEL SCHRAGE
Meaningless Lists of 'Critical' Technologies
D
rawing inspiration from both Santa
Claus and People magazine, the
Costello, an undersecretary of de-
Needless to say, the various
champions of competitiveness are
fense in the Reagan Administra-
critical technologies lists barely
tion who championed using Penta-
touch the issue of cost-effective-
making up lists and checking them twice.
These lists-generated with much fan-
gon procurement polices as a prod
ness. What price is America pre-
fare by the good folks at the White House
to industrial competitiveness. "But,
pared to pay to be "competitive" in
Office of Science and Technology Policy,
if you don't explicitly link them to
new materials and biotechnology?
the Commerce Department and the indus-
an action agenda, they're pretty
Will this price be borne by taxpay-
try-based Council on Competitiveness,
marginal."
ers? Or will innovative govern-
among others-are intended to show which
These lists are as marginal as
ment policies put industry in a
they come. If you wanted to write
technologies are naughty and nice. In other
position to cost-effectively com-
something important, you wouldn't
words, what are the 25 Most Intriguing
pete in global high-tech markets
make a list of the nouns, verbs and
Technologies? Where is the United States
by better leveraging existing re-
adjectives you planned to use;
sources?
ahead and Japan behind? What is the
you'd figure out what you really
Sexiest Technology Alive? Inquiring minds
There's no way to know the
wanted to say. The problem here is
want to know.
answers to those questions because
that people are focusing on the
They'll find no titillating technologies
they aren't being asked. Instead of
technologies rather than on the
here. The National Critical Technologies
thought-provoking ideas, we're
economic, industrial, governmental
Panel (mandated by Congress and appoint-
getting laundry lists of technologi-
and scientific processes that create
ed by White House Science Adviser D.
cal cliches. That's hardly shocking.
them.
Alan Bromley), for example, selected no
But cliches do nothing to boost
America isn't the undisputed
fewer than 22 technologies "deemed criti-
either our awareness or competi-
global leader in software because
cal to the national needs that have been
tiveness. The real debate isn't
the Defense Advanced Research
identified." These included software, bio-
about which technologies are eco-
Projects Agency, IBM and Micro-
technology, pollution minimization and re-
nomically important; it's about how
soft sat around in their respective
mediation, high-definition imaging and
best to manage those technologies
offices coming up with lists of
displays, ceramics, composites and several
to boost the quality of national life.
critical systems software and ap-
other obvious candidates.
plications to develop. This country
Come on! This is techno-pablum being
dominates the field because it
served up as meaningful analysis. Saying
evolved the appropriate infra-
that "software" is a critical technology is
structures of hardware, capital,
precisely like saying that physics is a
academic research and entrepre-
critical science. It's true, but so what? Does
neurs that stimulate state-of-the-
listing software-or biotechnology or com-
art innovations.
posites-as a critical technology give one
Technology isn't a product. It's a
any sense of how to prioritize research in
process-but you'd never know it
the area? Does it offer any insights into the
from scanning these lists.
commercialization process? Does it send
"We never make up lists," says
any kind of meaningful message to the
Michael C. Sekora, who once ran
investment community about how resourc-
the Pentagon's Project Socrates
es should be best allocated?
technology planning support soft-
Of course not. What we have here is
ware and is now providing support
"information" that adds virtually nothing
to American technology firms as
to the debate over the critical issues
president of Florida-based Tech-
surrounding America's massive public and
nology Strategic Planning. "Com-
private investments in technology. Your
ing up with a list has no value.
tax dollars at work. (Calls to the chairman
Instead of coming up with a list,
of the White House panel were not re-
you need a strategic plan."
turned.)
Plans don't begin with lists of
By the way, don't think that it's simply a
"critical" technologies, says Se-
happy coincidence that federal funding for
kora; they begin with an objec-
most of these "critical technologies" just
then you figure out how
happens to have been increased. These lists
you're going to effectively utilize
aren't just obvious; they're also politically
worldwide technology to achieve
correct. There's nothing challenging,
that objective."
counter-intuitive or provocative about
It's at that point that you begin
them.
to make the hard decisions about
"I don't think these lists have any
what technologies should be inter-
intrinsic merit at all," asserts Michael Odza,
nally developed, externally ac-
a technology transfer consultant and pub-
quired or jointly created with part-
lisher of the Berkeley-based Technology
ners. Competitiveness comes from
Access Report. "They don't seem to change
the ability to cost-effectively bal-
people's thinking in any way."
ance these different technology
"In general, lists force people to give at
paths.
least some level of priority,' says Robert
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Daw
SUBJECT: Critical Technologies Institute
Here is some additional information on the Critical Technologies Institute that we
talked about briefly the other day.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Sec. 822, Part C, TITLE
VIII, called for the establishment of a Critical Technologies Institute under the
sponsorship of OSTP. The format chosen by the Congress was as a Federally Funded
Research and Development Center (FFRDC).
In recent weeks we have been struggling with how best to respond to the legislative
mandate that also appropriated five million dollars for FY 1991. We have held
dozens of discussions with groups inside and outside of government, including OMB,
the Defense Department, and a representative sampling of existing FFRDCs.
We are exploring various alternatives for complying with the legislation as well as
taking into account a less than certain funding support outlook beyond FY 1991. In
the final analysis, we are seeking to devise an arrangement that will provide the most
utility in the form of solid analysis to the President, OSTP and the rest of the
Executive Office of the President.
I would be interested in any further thoughts you might have and I will keep you
posted on our progress.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 29, 1991
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your letter of January 23 regarding the National Critical
Technologies report. For a variety of reasons, the government/private
sector panel enlisted to identify "national critical technologies" got
off to a slower start than I had hoped. The study now appears to be on
track and I expect to have the report in the hands of the President in
February and to the Congress in March. We have had excellent
cooperation from a number of agency personnel during the course of this
study including, prominently, Everet Beckner and others from the
Department of Energy. As a result of this input, we expect the report
to have major impact.
Sincerely,
Alan
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired)
The Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
9160020
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
ACTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9120120
FROM:
WATKINS, JAMES D.
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE:
SUBJECT: THE NAT'L CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES REPORT FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO SEND TO CONGRESS
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
Bills qualle 1000B
ACTION REQUIRED: AS NECESSARY
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO:
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 01/23/91
FILE: ENERGY-NCT REPORT
ARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Secretary of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
STATES OF
January 23, 1991 SI JAN 24 A9:49
DIRECTOR
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Director, Office of Science
and Technology Policy
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley: / Allan.
This Department is working with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy to produce the National Critical
Technologies (NCT) Report for the President to send to
Congress, as mandated. At your request, I assigned
Under Secretary John Tuck to serve on the NCT Advisory
Panel.
I have been following the activities of the Panel and,
quite frankly, I am disappointed to find that not only
is the Report running very late in its preparation,
but it is also suffering from serious technical weakness
in many areas of interest to DOE. Mr. Tuck has found
it necessary to assign many sections of the Report
for rework by experts from the DOE staff and from the
Laboratories. Due to the importance of this work, I
hope that the other panel members are responding
similarly.
Sincerely,
James D. Watkins
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)