[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STEM EDUCATION:
THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSED REORGANIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-722 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Witnesses:
The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
(NSF)
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Mr. Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Discussion....................................................... 34
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President.... 62
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
(NSF).......................................................... 71
Mr. Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)........... 79
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by Representative Frederica
Wilson, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 96
Letter submitted by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 97
Submitted list of STEM programs for the record by The Honorable
John Holdren................................................... 99
Submitted letter to correct statements in the record by The
Honorable John Holdren......................................... 106
STEM EDUCATION: THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSED REORGANIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.004
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing, which is on the subject of
``STEM Education: The Administration's Proposed
Reorganization.'' Nice to see a full house today, and those who
are standing, you are welcome to come forward if you can find
some seats. And if not, you are welcome to stay where you are,
too. I am going to recognize myself for an opening statement
and then the Ranking Member for her opening statement.
The topic of today's hearing is the President's Proposed
Reorganization of Federal STEM education programs. The proposal
is part of the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request to
Congress and includes the consolidation of over 100 Federal
STEM education programs.
In order to achieve the innovations of tomorrow, we must
better educate American students today. The Science, Space, and
Technology Committee looks for ways not only to encourage
students to study science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics but also to inspire them to pursue careers in STEM
fields.
Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when
it comes to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in math
and 31st in science. This is not the record of a great country.
And it is not the record of a country that expects to remain a
world leader.
The COMPETES Act of 2010 required the National Science and
Technology Council to establish a committee on STEM. Today,
this is commonly referred to as CoSTEM, which seeks to
``coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM
education.'' CoSTEM was directed to develop and implement a
five-year strategic plan for the coordination of Federal STEM
programs.
Unfortunately, the Strategic Plan was significantly delayed
and was only received by Congress last Friday. The
Administration proposed a reorganization of Federal STEM
programs as part of the budget request in April, prior to the
release of the final Strategic Plan.
We need to carefully consider how best to streamline,
coordinate, and consolidate programs that specifically engage
children and the public in STEM subjects. Our country continues
to face a fiscal crisis, and part of our challenge is how to
achieve the most benefit from our limited resources in the
current budget environment. More graduates with STEM degrees
means more advanced technologies and a more robust economy. A
well-educated and trained STEM workforce undergirds our future
economic prosperity. But we have to capture and hold the desire
of our Nation's youth to study science and engineering so they
will want to pursue these careers.
Our hearing today will help us evaluate if the
Administration's proposal effectively accomplishes those goals.
Now, that concludes my opening statement. And the Ranking
Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized
for her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
The topic of today's hearing is the President's proposed re-
organization of federal STEM education programs. The proposal is part
of the President's FY14 budget request to Congress and includes the
consolidation of over 100 federal STEM education programs.
In order to achieve the innovations of tomorrow, we must better
educate American students today. The Science, Space and Technology
Committee looks for ways not only to encourage students to study
science, technology, engineering and mathematics but also to inspire
them to pursue careers in STEM fields.Unfortunately, America lags
behind many other nations when it comes to STEM education. American
students rank 23rd in math and 31st in science. This is not the record
of a great country. And it is not the record of a country that expects
to remain a world leader.
The COMPETES Act of 2010 required the National Science and
Technology Council to establish a Committee on STEM. Today this is
commonly referred to as CoSTEM, which seeks to ``coordinate federal
programs and activities in support of STEM education.'' CoSTEM was
directed to develop and implement a five-year Strategic Plan for the
coordination of federal STEM programs.
Unfortunately, the Strategic Plan was significantly delayed and was
only received by Congress last Friday. The Administration proposed a
re-organization of federal STEM programs as part of the budget request
in April, prior to the release of the final Strategic Plan. I hope our
witnesses can tell us what was wrong with the programs the
Administration wants to cut or consolidate.
We also need to carefully consider how best to streamline,
coordinate and consolidate programs that specifically engage children
and the public in STEM subjects. Our country continues to face a fiscal
crisis and part of our challenge is how to achieve the most benefit
from our limited resources in the current budget environment. More
graduates with STEM degrees means more advanced technologies and a more
robust economy. A well-educated and trained STEM workforce undergirds
our future economic prosperity.
But we have to capture and hold the desire of our nation's youth to
study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these
careers. Our hearing today will help us evaluate if the
Administration's proposal effectively accomplishes those goals.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
holding this hearing, and thanks to all of our distinguished
witnesses for taking time to appear before the Committee this
afternoon.
Improving STEM education is the United States--in the
United States has been a major focus of mine since before I
came to Congress and I am happy to see the increased focus on
STEM education across the Nation. States, universities,
companies, and nonprofits are working together in unprecedented
ways to improve STEM education at all levels. We have also
increased our efforts at the Federal level in both Congress and
our agencies to improve the effectiveness of our STEM education
investments.
In the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization, this Committee
required OSTP to form an interagency committee, which became
known as CoSTEM, to coordinate Federal STEM programs on an
ongoing basis and develop a five-year Strategic Plan for
Federal investments in STEM education. I was very supportive of
this mandate because I believed it was important to look at
what the Federal Government has been doing and how we can
improve our efforts. I appreciate all of the hard work that
Federal education leaders--especially Mr. Melvin and Dr.
Mundy--have put into developing the STEM education Strategic
Plan.
Unfortunately, prior to the release of the CoSTEM Strategic
Plan, OMB included a proposal in the President's Fiscal Year
2014 budget of a sweeping reorganization of Federal STEM
education programs. In addition to being concerned about the
process, I have serious concerns with the budget proposal
itself. To be blunt, it seems to me that it was not very well
thought out.
While I have many questions and concerns, one point I want
to emphasize here is the important role of NASA in supporting
outreach activities and informal STEM education. NASA seems to
have taken the biggest hit in the budget proposal, and this
doesn't make any sense to me. I have visited many classrooms in
my home State of Texas, and I can tell you there is nothing
that can replace the excitement for kids of hearing directly
from a NASA astronaut or visiting a NASA facility. Since the
1960s, NASA has been key in encouraging students to study
science and engineering and I hope we don't do anything to
compromise this.
That is just the beginning of my own concerns, and I am
sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have many
questions about both the process and the specifics of the
budget proposal. But in the end, all of us today share the same
goal of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal
investments in STEM education.
We have been investing a lot of money in many programs over
many years, and while there are many positive anecdotes and
some programs that have been evaluated rigorously, we are
failing--falling much too short on evidence and accountability.
This also applies to the programs to increase participation in
STEM by females and underrepresented minorities. It is not
enough just to fund these programs. We need to ensure that they
are effective.
Therefore, I hope we can use this hearing for more than
just attacking the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal. The five-
year Strategic Plan that we just received on Friday after much
delay is a separate document and hopefully one that stands on
its own and remains viable even if Congress refuses to support
the specifics of the Fiscal Year 2014 proposal. My hope is that
the CoSTEM Strategic Plan can serve as a new starting point for
more sensible and well thought out implementation steps in
Fiscal Year 2015 and beyond, and I look forward to discussing
this further with the panel today.
It is our responsibility on this Committee to work with the
agencies and the stakeholder groups to make sure that CoSTEM
process we required in COMPETES is successful.
I want to thank Chairman Smith again for calling this
hearing and the witnesses as well for being here and I look
forward to your testimony and a productive discussion. Thank
you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing, and thank you
to our distinguished witnesses for taking the time to appear before the
Committee this afternoon.
Improving STEM education in the United States has been a major
focus of mine since I came to Congress, and I am happy to see the
increased focus on STEM education across the nation. States,
universities, companies, and nonprofits are working together in
unprecedented ways to improve STEM education at all levels.
We have also increased our efforts at the Federal level, in both
Congress and our agencies, to improve the effectiveness of our STEM
education investments. In the 2010 COMPETES Reauthorization, this
Committee required OSTP to form an interagency Committee, which became
known as CoSTEM, to coordinate federal STEM programs on an ongoing
basis and develop a five-year strategic plan for federal investments in
STEM education.
I was very supportive of this mandate because I believed it was
important to look at what the Federal government has been doing and how
we can improve our efforts. I appreciate all of the hard work that
federal education leaders, especially Mr. Melvin and Dr. Ferrini-Mundy,
have put into developing a STEM education strategic plan.
Unfortunately, prior to the release of the CoSTEM strategic plan,
OMB included a proposal in the President's FY14 Budget for a sweeping
reorganization of Federal STEM education programs. In addition to being
concerned about the process, I have serious concerns with the budget
proposal itself. To be blunt, it seems to me it was not very well
thought out.
While I have many questions and concerns, one point I want to
emphasize here is the important role of NASA in supporting outreach
activities and informal STEM education. NASA seems to have taken the
biggest hit in the budget proposal and this doesn't make any sense to
me.
I have visited many classrooms in my home state of Texas and I can
tell you there is nothing that can replace the excitement for kids of
hearing directly from a NASA astronaut or visiting a NASA facility.
Since the 1960s, NASA has been key in encouraging students to study
science and engineering, and I hope we don't do anything to compromise
this.That's just the beginning of my own concerns, and I'm sure my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have many questions about
both the process and the specifics of the budget proposal.
But in the end, all of us today share the same goal of improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of federal investments in STEM
education. We've been investing a lot of money in many programs over
many years, and while there are many positive anecdotes and some
programs that have been evaluated rigorously, we are falling much too
short on evidence and accountability.
This also applies to the programs to increase participation in STEM
by females and underrepresented minorities. It's not enough just to
fund these programs, we need to ensure that they are effective.
Therefore, I hope we can use this hearing for more than just
attacking the FY14 budget proposal.
The five year strategic plan that we just received on Friday after
much delay is a separate document, and hopefully one that stands on its
own and remains viable even if Congress refuses to support the
specifics of the FY14 proposal. My hope is that the CoSTEM strategic
plan can serve as a new starting point for more sensible and well-
thought out implementation steps in FY15 and beyond and I look forward
to discussing this further with the panel today.
It is our responsibility on this Committee to work with the
agencies and the stakeholder groups to make sure the CoSTEM process we
required in COMPETES is successful.
I want to thank Chairman Smith again for calling this hearing, and
the witnesses as well for being here. I look forward to your testimony
and a productive discussion.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
You all heard the bells and they indicate that the votes
have been called. We originally thought there were three votes;
there are only two votes, so we should be able to return in
about 30 minutes. And I hope you all will stay here and we will
come back as soon as we can. I would also like to encourage all
the Members who are here to return as well. We will resume this
hearing immediately after that second vote. And until then, we
will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. The Science, Space, and Technology
Committee will reconvene. I will introduce our witnesses and
then we will hear their testimonies.
Our first witness today is the Honorable John Holdren. Dr.
Holdren serves as the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy at the White House where he is both the
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Co-
Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, or PCAST. Prior to his current appointment by
President Obama, Dr. Holdren was a professor in both the
Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth
Science at Harvard. Previously, he was a member of the faculty
at the University of California Berkeley where he founded and
led a graduate degree program in energy and resources. Dr.
Holdren graduated from MIT with degrees in aerospace
engineering and theoretical plasma physics.
Our second witness is Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant
Director of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources
at the National Science Foundation. From 2007 to 2009, Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy was a member of the National Science and
Technology Council Subcommittee on Education. She currently co-
chairs the Strategic Plan Workgroup of the NSTC's Committee on
STEM education or CoSTEM. From 1999 to 2011, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy
held an appointment at Michigan State University where she was
a University Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education
in the Departments of Mathematics and Teacher Education and
Associate Dean for Science and Mathematics Education in the
College of Natural Science. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy was elected a
fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in 2011. She holds a Ph.D. in mathematics education
from the University of New Hampshire.
Our third and final witness is Mr. Leland Melvin, the
Associate Administrator for Education at NASA. Mr. Melvin
chairs the Education Coordinating Committee, an agencywide
collaborative structure that maximizes NASA's ability to manage
and implement its education portfolio. Mr. Melvin entered
NASA's astronaut corps in 1998 and served as a mission
specialist on two space shuttle missions to the International
Space Station. Mr. Melvin earned a Bachelor of Science degree
in chemistry from the University of Richmond where he also
excelled as a wide receiver for the Spider Football team. He
became an academic All-American and a University of Richmond
Athletic Hall of Fame inductee. He was then drafted into the
National Football League by the Detroit Lions in 1986 and also
spent time at the Dallas Cowboys and the Toronto Argonauts.
After injuries sidelined his football career, he returned to
academia and earned his Master of Science degree in materials
science engineering from the University of Virginia.
We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony. And
Dr. Holdren, if you will start us off.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP),
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Smith,
Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. I am happy to
be here today to discuss with you the current state of Federal
support for science, technology, engineering, and math
education--that is STEM education--in the context of the
President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget; the five-year Strategic
Plan for STEM education delivered to Congress last Friday; and
our shared interest in improving the coordination, efficiency,
and effectiveness of Federal STEM ed programs.
I think all of us in this room understand that high-quality
education in the STEM fields is essential not only to provide
our citizens with the skills and training they will need to
create and fill the high-tech businesses and jobs of the future
but also to ensure that we have a science-savvy citizenry
needed for a well-functioning democracy in an era when many of
the issues facing government have significant science or
technology content.
The President certainly understands this and his Fiscal
Year 2014 budget supports that recognition with a STEM
education investment of $3.1 billion, a six percent increase
over the 2012 enacted funding level. As important as that
dollar amount, though, is the thought that the Administration
has given to how to derive maximum value from this investment.
That is the focus of the Administration's five-year Strategic
Plan for STEM education recently submitted to Members of this
Committee and others in Congress, and it is reflected in the
STEM education reorganization proposals in the President's
Fiscal Year 2014 budget.
Before I describe the key elements of that reorganization,
let me note that it is a priority of this Administration to
leverage the Federal Government's direct investments in STEM
education through partnerships with the philanthropic and
private sectors, partnerships that to date have resulted in
more than $700 million in contributions and in-kind services in
support of our STEM education goals.
The reorganization of the Federal STEM education programs
proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget would
designate a lead Federal agency for each of four key families
of educational activity. The Department of Education would have
the lead for K-12 instruction, the National Science Foundation
would have the lead both for undergraduate education and for
graduate fellowships, and the Smithsonian Institution would
have the lead for the informal education activities that
typically take place outside the classroom.
As part of the reorganization, 78 of the 226 STEM education
programs currently spread across 13 different Federal agencies
would be eliminated and another 48 would be consolidated within
agencies. Ten new programs would be added, making 110 programs
altogether going forward. The 78 programs that would be
eliminated accounted in Fiscal Year 2012 for about $175 million
or about six percent of the total appropriation for Federal
STEM education activities in that year. Those savings would be
distributed to the lead agencies, roughly 100 million to the
Department of Education, 50 million to NSF, 25 million to the
Smithsonian to help support their added responsibilities.
The Proposed Reorganization was designed to preserve the
most viable of the STEM education programs in the mission
agencies, those most effectively leveraging unique agency
assets were serving unique agency STEM education pipeline
needs, and every agency that had a STEM education portfolio in
2012 will continue to have one in 2014 with the addition of the
Smithsonian making a total of 14 Federal agencies active in the
STEM education domain. I believe that this new structure will
help ensure that related programs are coordinated, redundancies
are minimized, evaluation is improved, and resources are
focused on programs that can deliver the most impact per dollar
in their respective domains. I look forward to working with
this Committee on our common vision for improving STEM
education for all of America's students and I will be pleased
to try to answer any questions the Members may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.010
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Dr. Holdren.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE
FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, and other distinguished Members of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. My name is Joan
Ferrini-Mundy and I am the National Science Foundation
Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources. It is a
pleasure to testify before you today on the Proposed
Reorganization of Federal STEM education programs and to focus
on the role of the National Science Foundation in STEM
education.
From its beginnings in 1950, the NSF has supported basic
research and education across all fields of science and
engineering. The Education and Human Resources Directorate has
a unique Federal mission: supporting the preparation of a
diverse, globally competent STEM workforce and a STEM-literate
society. We do so by investing in research on and development
of evidence-based models and materials and approaches to better
understand and improve STEM learning and education for the
Nation.
Opportunities to learn STEM effectively are the foundation
for the diverse, strong workforce that this Nation needs, yet
today, the country is educating neither a diverse enough nor a
strong enough STEM workforce to power our Nation's economy in
the 21st century. NSF's ongoing investments in STEM education
are intended to address those complex challenges.
In the Fiscal Year 2014 President's budget request, NSF
proposes a coherent framework of investment and undergraduate
STEM education and an expansion of the Graduate Research
Fellowship program, activities that build on ongoing NSF
investment. In the Proposed Reorganization, NSF would have a
government-wide leadership role for undergraduate STEM
education improvement.
A new NSF-wide activity, Catalyzing Advances in
Undergraduate STEM Education, or CAUSE, will consolidate
several programs from across the NSF and will emphasize the
strong coupling of STEM disciplinary expertise with education
research expertise to improve undergraduate persistence and
diversity in STEM learning. Development of the framework for
CAUSE will be undertaken across all of NSF in concert with
other agencies that have been managing undergraduate programs.
These conversations build upon and are guided by ongoing work
of the NSTC Committee on STEM education, CoSTEM, to leverage
the Agency's collective expertise and assets. At NSF, CAUSE
will be implemented with full participation of the Science and
Engineering Directorates.
For Fiscal Year 2014 the President's budget also proposes
that our long-standing successful Graduate Research Fellowship
program be expanded into a National Graduate Research
Fellowship program. This expanded program will facilitate the
opportunities for fellows to gain special experiences and
training in key STEM areas of particular interest to the Nation
and to the mission agencies. It will also provide those
agencies access to a large pool of fellows to consider for
training that might be critical to their missions.
The interagency working group on STEM graduate fellowships
has been meeting since 2010 to share best practices in the
administration of Federal graduate fellowship programs and it
is now extending its work to collaborate on designing the
expanded program.
NSF is continuing its programs in informal STEM education
and in K-12 STEM education. These programs focus primarily on
STEM learning, research, and development. The evidence-based
materials and models that result are then available for use at
large scale through partnership and leveraging.
CoSTEM has a task force called the Federal Coordination in
Stem Education Task Force that I co-chair with Leland Melvin.
This task force was charged to produce a five-year strategic
plan for STEM education. Federal agencies, including the NSF,
the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy all have participated actively in the
discussions of this Committee, and earlier drafts of the plan
have been available to inform the development of the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2014 request, including the
reorganization.
The proposed Federal STEM education reorganization is
designed to provide a coherent, cohesive set of STEM education
programs to serve the Nation more effectively. NSF is committed
to better coordination within our own organization and to
participating in collaborations across agencies to leverage
investments, all in support of the goal of improving STEM
learning for the Nation.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today
and thank you for your support of, and interest in, STEM
education. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you
and other Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.017
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
And Mr. Melvin.
TESTIMONY OF MR. LELAND D. MELVIN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR EDUCATION,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Mr. Melvin. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and Members of the Committee, thank you for today's
invitation to talk about the Committee on Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education and NASA's involvement
in coordinating our STEM education assets with a broader STEM
framework.
When Congress formed NASA in 1958, it was with a bold goal.
Your predecessors charged us to reach for new heights and
reveal the unknown so that all we discover and all that we
learn will benefit all humankind. This is what inspires us to
come to work every single day. For me specifically, I know that
the discoveries we make and the things that we learn are
directly tied to the quality and quantity of future scientists,
technologists, engineers, and mathematicians that are available
and inspire to join us in our mission.
To that end, NASA Education's vision is to advance high-
quality STEM education using NASA's unique capabilities. NASA's
education programs are deliberate in developing and executing
strategic partnerships with governmental, academic, industrial,
entrepreneurial, and international communities to ensure NASA's
education mission and vision are properly addressed.
I am the Co-Chair of the Federal Coordination in STEM
Education Task Force, which helped guide the development of the
Administration's five-year strategic plan for STEM education. I
am also NASA's representative on the CoSTEM. My staff has
served in leadership roles on the Fast Track Inventory,
Evaluation, and Cross-Agency Priority Goal Subcommittees and
working groups. NASA enthusiastically supports greater
coordination among the Federal agencies and strengthening the
Nation's focus on STEM education. NASA also supports the STEM
education reorganization proposal in the President's 2014
budget.
For over two years, 13 Federal agencies have contributed
expertise from their education and technical workforce. The
strategic plan that my Co-Chair, Joan Ferrini-Mundy and I
provide a framework for increased collaboration among agencies.
The plan strengthens accountability of Federal project
managers, places an emphasis on rigorous evaluation, and
establishes increased linkages between federal, state and local
education efforts.
NASA's education portfolio will focus on four priorities
that contribute toward the Administration's STEM education
goals. Those priorities are STEM engagement; NASA internships,
fellowships, and scholarships; educator professional
development; and institutional engagement.
An overarching operating principle throughout NASA's
portfolio is a focus on creating opportunities for diverse
groups of institutions, educators, and learners. This includes
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. NASA will
consolidate the education functions, assets, and efforts of the
Mission directorate, offices, and field centers into a single
STEM Education and Accountability Project managed by my office.
As part of NASA's STEM interagency coordination effort, our
available assets will support STEM activities that will be
directed by the NSF, the Smithsonian Institution, and the
Department of Education. This includes the infrastructure that
supports the rigorous collection, evaluation, and dissemination
of evidence of NASA's contributions to the Administration's
goals.
The Executive Office of the President recommended and the
President accepted a Fiscal Year 2014 budget request based in
part on the work of the Committee on STEM and the goals are the
same. Representatives from the 13 Federal agencies will
continue to meet to ensure the Federal assets are coordinated
and put to use in support of the Nation's educators and
learners. NASA is committed to close collaboration with other
STEM agencies and to inspiring future generations to seek
careers in aerospace.
NASA has the ability to engage, educate, and prepare a
future generation of explorers for employment in the aerospace
fields. NASA's people, missions, and spirit of discovery
inspire our Nation's youth to pursue STEM careers to benefit
all of humankind.
Thank you for letting me testify, and I am happy to take
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melvin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.021
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Melvin.
I recognize myself for questions. And let me direct my
first question to Dr. Holdren. Now, Dr. Holdren, I just want to
understand the process a little bit better by which current
programs were designated as low priority, and I am just curious
as to who made the decisions and who evaluated those current
programs. Was it your office? Was it the agencies themselves?
Was it Office of Management and Budget, OMB? If you could
explain the process to us.
Dr. Holdren. Well, the process within the Executive Office
of the President involved OMB, OSTP, the Domestic Policy
Council, which has----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Holdren. --responsibility for education in general in
the Executive Office of the President. Of course, all of us
interacted. It was an iterative process. It involved, of
course, the usual budget inputs from the various agencies, and
it involved the use of a set of criteria that were developed
out of various reports that had led up to this reorganization
and had in part inspired the President to encourage it,
starting with the PCAST report in September 2010 and continuing
with the GAO report in January 2012.
Chairman Smith. Whose idea was it--who came up with the
original idea for consolidation and for elimination, that whole
subject? Was that OMB?
Dr. Holdren. No, I wouldn't say that that was OMB. I would
say that, again, leading out of these major reports both from
the Congressional side and from the Executive Branch side there
was clearly a need to focus more resources on high-priority
programs, and the only way you can focus more resources on
high-priority programs in a highly constrained budget is to
find lower-priority programs to reduce, and that is what we
did. It wasn't fun. Those are tough decisions. They are the
kinds of tough decisions that are made under constrained
budgets with a focus on feeding the most important priorities.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. I am glad the funding was
increased, as you mentioned, by six percent. That is a good
sign.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, why was the strategic plan not proposed
when the budget was released last April? By coming out with the
strategic plan after the budget, in fact just last Friday, it
seems to me that it has made CoSTEM almost irrelevant. In other
words, it would have been, I think, a lot more helpful had the
strategic plan come out either before the budget or concurrent
with the budget and I just was going to ask for an explanation.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for your question, sir. The
team that has been working on the budget has been working
diligently for some time and we were well aware when we
produced our progress report last spring that the work that it
would take to get from there to a final strategic plan would be
considerable. And, as you know, the strategic plan is a very
detailed plan that goes into substantial commentary about how
we will move forward with implementation. We wish it had been
earlier, but we were happy with the plan--or I am happy with
the plan that we have.
I think also the principles that are in the strategic plan
are quite aligned with the President's Proposed Reorganization.
Chairman Smith. Well, that is really no surprise since it
came out after the President's budget, right?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Well, the principles that were in place
even last year in the progress report, too, were still in
place, right, principles of coordination----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. --and consolidation.
Chairman Smith. Did you make any changes as a result of the
budget?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. The development of the strategic plan
was an ongoing process and we--of course, we were working
through that around the time of the budget release and beyond.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Melvin, how did you like the Dallas Cowboys?
Mr. Melvin. Well, they cut me so they are not my favorite--
--
Chairman Smith. I think you know this next question is
coming. You are a former astronaut. You have seen NASA from the
inside out, from the outside in, from 200 miles up. NASA's STEM
programs were cut by 1/3 from 150 million to 100 million, $50
million. Do you support those cuts?
Mr. Melvin. Well, as a member of the CoSTEM, we have been
working very hard with the other mission agencies. We have been
very focused on bringing our unique assets forward to be part
of this President's budget. No one likes to be cut, but this is
something that we are going to do to help bring our best assets
forward to support the Administration's budget. So it is a
fairly big cut but we have to make----
Chairman Smith. Well, it wasn't your idea, was it?
Mr. Melvin. NASA was part of the CoSTEM process, so
whatever pieces of the CoSTEM process that filtered into this
budget process that was there. But I didn't come up with the
idea, no.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your answers
and that--yield back the balance of my time and recognize the
Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Let me first make a
little comment that could be considered a little catty. You
know, I just appreciate the fact that you can sit there and
smile and bring us this report that you put together, and I
know how hard it is to try to work within budgets now. I have
received so many calls and letters from organizations
expressing concerns because they feel that the nonfederal
stakeholders--school districts, universities, science museums,
and many other nonprofit organizations--had no opportunity to
have any input. So I am hoping that you will continue to work
with that. And in view of that, I notice that you have
Smithsonian as a lead agency, and I would just like to have
some rationale for that and how they feel about it.
Dr. Holdren. Well, I am happy to take that on. First of
all, the rationale for it is the Smithsonian has enormous
experience and expertise and success in programs of engagement,
of reaching out to very broad communities with educational
materials, with inspiring materials, and we feel that by giving
the Smithsonian a coordinating role in those engagement
activities, we will bring more coherence and coordination to
them and we will have in the Smithsonian a--sort of a central
clearinghouse for the development of new materials in which all
the mission agencies will contribute.
The idea is not to eliminate access to the assets of the
mission agencies that have been engaged in this multiplicity of
outreach programs. We are reducing the multiplicity in the
agencies, but a lot of what is being reduced in specific named
programs in the agencies will be picked up and coordinated by
the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has an Office of Education and
Access. They have an Assistant Secretary for Education and
Access. They have an infrastructure. They are getting $25
million to do this. Our expectation is that this will actually
improve the engagement activities in the STEM Ed field across
the Federal Government.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now, I would take that $25 million,
too, and with a smile on my face, but I can't understand. They
have no federal research facilities; they have no external
grant-making power. And not having the kind of national
stakeholder networks that have been built over the decades with
these other agencies gives me somewhat of a concern. Have you
set up some type of communication network that would perhaps
bring a bit more expertise or knowledge, or do you plan to
staff it with someone who has had experience in some of the
labs and other scientific endeavors?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, we already have the
Smithsonian engaged with the rest of CoSTEM in the process of
working out in detail how this reorganization would be
implemented if in fact it is approved by the Congress. And the
Smithsonian folks who are participating in that process have
pledged to interact very closely with all the mission agencies
that they would be helping with their public engagement
efforts.
We intend for CoSTEM, the Committee on STEM education of
the National Science and Technology Council, to be the
continuing forum where all of the stakeholders come together,
where they can express their concerns if they have concerns. If
things are not working out as planned, if important activities
are being neglected, CoSTEM will be the forum where that comes
out and is addressed. And I can give you my personal commitment
as Co-Chair of the CoSTEM--in addition to chairing the NSTC--
that we intend to carry out that function.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. So you will have active participants
helping to develop this effective network to carry this out.
Will this be an additional staff, I guess, with the 25 million
and you would put together expertise?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, there will be additional staff at the
Smithsonian, and again, they will be interacting with staff
across all the mission agencies and of course in the Executive
Office of the President.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Hall,
is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will have a question of Dr. Holdren. I have a real
problem. I remember things. And I remember back--sometime back,
Mr. Chairman, when we came in one vote of losing NASA, and then
the next year, if you remember--I am not sure you were here
then--Dr. DeBakey came and walked this whole building out and
we carried the vote by over 100 votes.
That was a frightening thing, but I also remember when we
had Gina McCarthy here before us and we were talking about jobs
and her refusal to use science in making her decisions that
affected people and jobs, and her answer was this, ``I don't
want to give the impression that EPA is in the business to
create jobs.'' I think one of the meanest things I have ever
heard anybody say with the situation like it is today, people
going home telling their daughter they can't keep her in school
or whatever, whatever.
But Dr. Holdren, you made some statements and I imagine you
might like to change some time, but in 2010 you were quoted as
saying ``we can't expect to be number one in everything
indefinitely'' at the American Association for the Advancement
of Science. And is this still your view?
Dr. Holdren. Well, Congressman Hall, first of all, I would
say that we are in difficult budgetary times. We are making
tough choices.
Mr. Hall. I know that. Is this still your view? No matter
how you reach that attitude, is this still your view, yes or
no?
Dr. Holdren. I think it is already true, Congressman Hall,
that the United States is not number one in every aspect of
every scientific field, and we have to make choices. We have to
decide which are--the most important areas are and which we
need to lead, and we need to invest in those, just as within
STEM education we need to invest in the highest-priority
propositions, the one that--the ones that have the potential to
really lift our game in STEM education and make us overall
continuingly the world's leading science and technology nation,
which we remain today and we want to remain so in the future.
Mr. Hall. Well, you are certainly not attaining that. You
are not going in that direction, sir. I guess my question when
I ask you is this still your view, I will ask a second
question: does a Proposed Reorganization help to target areas
where the United States can and should strive to be number one
or does it do this?
Dr. Holdren. An area in which we are striving to be number
one, sir, is STEM education, and that is what this proposal is
all about.
Mr. Hall. And where are we?
Dr. Holdren. Well, right now, if you look at the rankings
of math scores, science scores around the world, the United
States is unfortunately only in the middle of the pack. We are
indeed no longer at the top of the pack in terms of the
proportion of our young people who get a college degree of any
kind.
The President has made very clear that he wants to change
that. He wants to bring us back to the top of the pack both in
the comparative scores in math and science across countries and
back to the top of the pack in terms of the proportion of our
young people who graduate from college.
Mr. Hall. And how do you do that? You know, I will follow
up with you on this. The participation of NASA's scientists and
engineers in these education programs provides a human
dimension to the inspiring work done by NASA. These scientists
and engineers also provide role models for students--role
models, you hear that--for students to enter into STEM careers
without the participation of NASA scientists and engineers. How
are you going to connect teachers, students, and the public to
NASA's inspiring work and workforce and expect to get to be
number one by the actions that you are taking place now over at
the Administration?
Dr. Holdren. We are not going to lose the participation of
NASA scientists and engineers in classrooms with teachers, with
kids, inspiring kids. We are taking a part what NASA has been
doing in that domain and consolidating some of it so that we
can better evaluate it and decide which are the most effective
programs. And some of it will be worked in partnership, as I
noted, with the Smithsonian Institution, which is expert in
these outreach and engagement activities. But we are by no
means even coming close to eliminating the engagement of NASA
scientists and engineers in these highly valued activities.
Mr. Hall. You really aren't, sir, and I agree with you on
that. I just don't understand why you refuse to encourage EPA,
your partner in--I am not going to say your partner in crime
because that is--that wouldn't be correct, but your partner in
really hurting small companies and hurting the continuation of
people obtaining jobs, because if you keep on going the
direction you are going, we not only are not going to have any
jobs, we are not going to have any employers. So I guess
without the participation of NASA scientists, I don't know how
you are going to connect teachers and students and the public
inspiring the workforce with the direction you are going in.
And I thank you for your answers. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hall. And the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much to all the witnesses for your testimony
about what we can do--what the Federal Government can do to do
better with STEM. This is a Proposed Reorganization and it is
change. Change is difficult. There is a lot of change here.
An important part of this conversation is how to make STEM
instruction and programming engaging and more effective. And I
join the growing group of stakeholders who submit that
integrating the arts and design into STEM--that makes STEAM--
can help make the difference. This is especially compelling
when we are talking about how to engage underserved
populations, including females and minorities, traditionally
not involved in STEM. I am pleased that the NSF has funded the
SEAD network, which stands for Sciences, Engineering, Arts, and
Design. The group is in the midst of some fascinating work on
the integration of the disciplines.
Also, recent research at Michigan State University, Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy, it is maybe your former colleagues--professors
found that there are 14 measurable skills linked to success in
sciences that are directly linked to arts education. This is
about using both halves of the brain and innovation. Those
skills include observing, imaging and visualization,
abstracting, pattern recognition and pattern invention,
analogizing, dimensional thinking, transforming data into
visual or graphic forms, converting theories into mechanical
procedures, and more.
When developing this reorganization proposal, did the
Administration consider innovative approaches that include
multidisciplinary collaboration in order to encourage
traditionally unrepresented groups to become more involved in
STEM education programs?
Dr. Holdren. I guess I am supposed to take the first crack
at that. Certainly, we looked at a variety of issues around
traditionally underrepresented groups, and one of the decisions
we made is, for now, there are no changes being proposed in the
range of programs that explicitly address minorities and other
underserved groups in the STEM domain. We think to the extent
that those programs need a closer look it should be done in
close collaboration with the institutions that provide those
programs. So that is something that is a task going forward.
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes, thank you. I think both within--
certainly in the CoSTEM plan and in the Proposed
Reorganization, the focus on engagement is the place where
there will be enough space and opportunity, I think, to really
explore these exciting connections with the arts. We at the
National Science Foundation are engaged in some discussions
with NEH and NEA at this time to think about what it might look
like to fund some explorations in the role of the arts in
promoting engagement in STEM education. And so I think we have
the infrastructure in place to be able to really take up these
questions within the engagement component.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. Thank you very much. And I also want to
ask about a program that is being used by the Oregon Health and
Science University; that is the Science Education Partnership
Award. I think it is called SEPA. This program that is
administered by NIH, it funds innovative K-12 and informational
science education, health education projects.
In Oregon, there is a program called Let's Get Healthy. It
has been a success since it began in 2007. It provides valuable
education about diet and nutrition at health fairs and
underserved communities. So OHSU, the university, has used
grant money through SEPA to fund these programs, and with this
consolidation, there is some concerns raised in the health
community about shifting authority to NSF, Department of
Education, and the Smithsonian that don't have a public health
focus. So can you talk a little bit about SEPA under the
reorganization? And additionally, if a program like Let's Get
Healthy is shifted to the Smithsonian, how would States apply
for grants considering that the Smithsonian lacks authority to
issue grants?
Dr. Holdren. I guess in terms of the details of exactly how
these collaborative activities would work under the new
structure, you know, I have to say that that is something that
is being worked out. We are working on it in the CoSTEM
Committee and we are determined to figure it out in a manner
that will not lose the effectiveness of the engagement programs
that already exist. And again, we have the commitments of all
concerned.
We had as recently as last Thursday a meeting of the full
CoSTEM in which all of the relevant departments and agencies
were represented, and we talked about this in detail. And the
folks around the table were in agreement that we will be able
to work together to ensure that the implementation details are
developed in a way that preserve these important functions.
That is our commitment. That is our determination.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I see my time is expired. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is
recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate the work
that you are doing and these important discussions that we are
having today.
Dr. Holdren, I wondered if I could start with you. I have
heard from many members from the Illinois science community
concerned about multiple aspects of the President's proposal. I
am normally one who is very supportive of consolidating
duplicative or overlapping Federal programs, but I share a
number of concerns with our community because the President's
proposal seems like it is taking a number of successful
initiatives being done by high-quality institutions at the
local level and running a majority of the future initiatives
through a central bureaucracy at the Department of Education in
Washington. I have got concerns about this approach as well as
other aspects of the proposal that seem rushed or poorly
planned out.
Dr. Holdren, why eliminate these grant programs or, in the
case of Smithsonian, consolidate them into a single pot for a
single institution with limited or no grant-making experience
when there are others outside the Beltway, like the Museum of
Science and Industry in Chicago, that are providing these exact
meaningful STEM experiences and opportunities for our Nation's
youth? And exactly how will the funds be expended and who will
provide oversight? I am wondering specifically with
Smithsonian, how will those projects the Smithsonian proposes
to fund be subject to peer review prior to funding?
Dr. Holdren. I am afraid I am going to find myself offering
the same answers over and over again. That is, when you ask
about oversight, the Committee on STEM education--which I co-
chair with the NSF Director--will be providing oversight and of
course reporting back to the EOP but will have the
participation of all of the affected individuals.
When you ask why should we take successful programs and
stop funding them or why should we take successful programs and
move them, we went through a long process of trying to decide
where we could effectively consolidate, where we could cut in
order to provide more resources for the highest priorities, all
of the reviews of STEM education programs and the Federal
Government that have been done.
And again, I say those have been done on the congressional
side, by the GAO. They have been done on the White House side,
by PCAST. They have been done by CoSTEM coming out with the
progress report in February 2012. Every one of these reviews
said our programs are too dispersed. They are not coordinated
enough. Many of them are not evaluatable enough. We have no
good way with this degree of dispersion of doing the sort of
coordination, creating the efficiencies, doing the evaluations
that we need, nor do we have any way to free up resources for
the high priorities such as creating 100,000 new high-quality
STEM ed teachers over the next decade or graduating an extra
million----
Mr. Hultgren. Let me get to my point real quick here
because, again, I don't want you to repeat answers over and
over again. I do understand what you are saying. I just am
concerned when you add layers of bureaucracy, it doesn't reduce
costs; it increases costs and certainly makes things, I think,
more expensive and the potential taking away programs that are
being very effective.
Specifically, you know, what can I say back to the Museum
of Science and Industry doing great STEM education programs to
alleviate their concerns?
Dr. Holdren. Well, what I would say to the Museum of
Science and Industry is under the new system--again, assuming
it is approved by the Congress--the Museum of Science and
Industry, which already has an excellent relationship with the
Smithsonian, will be able to use that relationship to find
resources and means of continuing the high-quality activities
in which they are engaged.
Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, how will NSF and
Department of Education address bio-STEM programs since
training and preparing for a bio workforce isn't really part of
their core missions? How specifically will you support health-
focused K-12 education programs?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for the question. At this
point, we do not support biomedical areas at the National
Science Foundation but, of course, at the K-12 level there is
great interest in general preparation in all of the sciences,
particularly the biological sciences. And we have a number of
programs at NSF that would be available for groups that are
interested in improving the instruction in biology at the K-12
level.
Mr. Hultgren. Let me move on. I just have a little bit of
time left. But Mr. Melvin, I wondered if you could quickly
address--you know, what, I shouldn't have run out. This time I
have a long question. Would it be all right if I follow up with
a question maybe that you could respond in writing to if that
is all right? I don't want to----
Mr. Melvin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hultgren. --take up too much time from the Committee.
So I have got a long question that I will forward on to you if
that is all right. Thank you very much. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding what I believe is
an extremely important hearing. And I want to thank our
witnesses for the research and the tremendous amount of legwork
that you have put in in preparation today and for being here to
testify.
I have got two basic questions for all the panelists if I
may. First, higher education is an essential part of our STEM
efforts but I worry that, in my review of the report, we miss a
critical area of the middle-skilled job training, jobs that
require a high school diploma and maybe some additional
coursework and certification but not necessarily an
undergraduate degree.
I represent a district in Massachusetts that has several
former industrial cities that have suffered from the economic
downturn in traditional manufacturing, cities like Attleboro
and Fall River. I see STEM education as a critical component in
ensuring that our citizens are ready to seize jobs in
industries like advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and IT,
but I couldn't find one mention of vocational schools in your
report and only limited mention of community colleges and
associate's degree programs at all. I was hoping that you might
be able to shed some light as to: one, how the Administration
believes these programs fit into the broader STEM goals; and
two, how the strategic plan factors them in, if it all.
And then, related to that, I applaud the work that you have
done focusing on minority communities and certainly female
participation in STEM fields, and I know that you have put a
great deal of focus on that. I would like to hear a little bit
more about that and how we plan to achieve that.
Beyond that, I was wondering how the plan will assist the
economically disadvantaged. So there are far too many
economically distressed communities around the country,
certainly in Massachusetts and in some of the communities that
I just mentioned. I believe that STEM fields are a crucial and
critical way to increase economic development and provide
opportunities to all students. How can we ensure that the
expansion of STEM efforts includes those communities as well?
So just briefly, I guess, the economic disadvantaged portion of
it and vocational schools and community colleges.
Dr. Holdren. Well, I will take an initial crack and then
see what my colleagues have to add.
With respect to middle-skilled job training, this is
actually something the Administration has been looking at and
working with the private sector and the community college
sector to engage on a regional basis, the companies that
operate in a given area and the community colleges, so that the
curricula at the community colleges will reflect the kind of
training that people need to get jobs in their region. And this
is something that has been proceeding under the broad rubric of
the Educate to Innovate initiative where we have had a huge
amount of private and philanthropic collaboration with the
Federal Government.
It has certainly been a theme for the President which he
has commented on and visited--made a number of visits
emphasizing this particular theme and its importance. So we are
certainly in agreement with you on the importance of that issue
and the value of getting corporations to work in concert with
our committee colleges to get kids better educated for the
kinds of jobs that are going to be there.
The other thing I would say is that the efforts we are
making on K-12 education are going to prepare people better for
the post-high school education, whether it is in a community
college or research university or a liberal arts college. It
will prepare people better to engage in and succeed in STEM
fields in ways that will help those that do not go on for a
four-year degree nonetheless get high-skills jobs.
Mr. Kennedy. Doctor?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for your questions.
Just briefly on the focus on higher ed, of course, the main
focus on undergraduate education in the CoSTEM report does
include all institutions of undergraduate education. And the
major focus on retaining students at the undergraduate level,
whether they are in two-year technical colleges or four year
schools is crucial, and that hinges on excellent instruction,
evidence-based processes for keeping students interested and
engaged. So I think the plan again has the space for us to
focus heavily on the preparation of the technical workforce,
and there are a number of programs at the--certainly at the
National Science Foundation.
I would cite the Advanced Technological Education program,
which is all about preparing technicians who are ready to work
in emerging areas of science and manufacturing and so forth.
As for focus on economically disadvantaged students, again,
I think that the K-12 focus in the strategic plan, as well as
the focus on underrepresented minorities, will both serve to
help us ensure that high-needs schools are well served, and
again, it will occur through partnerships among multiple
agencies in part making sure that students in high-needs areas
get good access to the STEM assets of the Federal agencies.
Ideally, this plan will make more of that possible.
Mr. Kennedy. I would really like to follow up. We can
follow up and writing but it just--how you plan to do that
would be great. And, Mr. Melvin, I will ask--I am out of time
but I am sorry you might have some busy writing to do. My
apologies.
Chairman Smith. That is--Mr. Melvin, if you want to respond
to the question, that is fine.
Mr. Melvin. Well, just in the community college area, we
have a program at NASA called the Curriculum Improvement
Partnership Award program, and that focuses on helping
strengthening community colleges using NASA content curriculum.
It also supports skills in faculty members to do research in
ensuring that underrepresented, underserved teachers and
students in community colleges have that access. So that is
something that we plan to continue moving forward with our
program in the future.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, is recognized for
questions.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses and for your time and preparation for this hearing. I
am all for consolidation and streamlining the process at the
Federal level and thanks for your work on that. My questions
are more technical about how you decided on which programs, and
some of those questions have been answered already, but the
focus on accountability and success of programs and if there
were specific metrics that you used to assess that, and how
many programs that you actually eliminated and actually had
data available for your use in assessing whether or not they
were successful or not? I will start with Dr. Holdren first.
Dr. Holdren. Okay. First of all, we had sort of a number of
layers of criteria that we used in this sorting process, and
one was to look at the priority areas that were identified in
the CoSTEM process, including in the progress report that came
out in 2012. And those priority areas were improving K-12
instruction, reforming undergraduate education around evidence-
based practices, streamlining the graduate fellowship process,
and amplifying engagement activities.
So we looked, first of all, to give priority to programs
that addressed one of those four goals. Within that framework,
we also tried to look, as your question suggests, at evaluation
and ask, for which of these programs do we have evaluations?
For the ones that we don't have evaluations for, how
evaluatable are they? Do we have a reasonable prospect of
developing evaluations? And of course we had to take into
account the inefficiency of trying to run rigorous evaluations
on very small programs. This is one of the reasons for
consolidating, to improve one's capacity to evaluate.
So all of those considerations were taken into account in
this process, which I have described as an iterative process in
which OMB, OSTP, Domestic Policy Council all participated.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you. I am not sure that I have a
lot to add other than that the report itself, the strategic
plan, is very clear about the importance of evaluation and of
metrics with a lot of focus on developing common metrics across
programs in these four--in these five areas of focus. And I am
very optimistic that this is going to lead to even stronger
evaluation efforts when we combine our resources and expertise.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I mean I would say going forward that
with this experience--from what you are describing, a lot of
the programs don't really have metrics and don't have a way to
assess them. And going forward, programs probably should have
those in place if we don't already have those because I am also
on the Education Workforce Committee. I am very interested in
these particular subjects. And as you probably know, across the
Federal Government, not only in this area but other areas, we
have all kinds of programs that haven't been evaluated for
their success in decades, literally decades, and I would
encourage you to make sure that you have metrics and evaluation
process in place.
The other thing I see that--it actually goes from 13 to 14
Federal agencies involved in the STEM education process, and,
you know, when you consolidate programs or eliminate programs,
are we actually going to downsize so to speak or make more
effective and efficient the Federal Government or are we just
going to have less programs on the books but really the
bureaucracy hasn't significantly changed? In fact, it has been
shifted to make it even maybe more difficult?
Dr. Holdren. We don't think it is--would be shifted under
this proposal to be more difficult or to have additional
layers. We think the fragmentation rather has been a source of
inefficiency. And again, I would point out that that was the
conclusion of the GAO that said very forcefully that we need to
reduce fragmentation, we need to increase coordination, and we
need to increase focus on the highest priorities. PCAST found
the same thing. CoSTEM found the same thing.
Mr. Bucshon. And just so you know I agree with that. I just
find that a lot of times when we, so to speak, consolidate and
streamline programs, we actually don't change a lot except the
paper--on paper and whether or not behind the scenes we
actually are making a dent in the bureaucracy. Are we making it
more effective and efficient or are we just putting less
programs continuing to be in an ineffective and inefficient
system?
Dr. Holdren. I understand the concern. Our aim is to avoid
that problem.
Mr. Bucshon. I would agree. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member. And I thank the witnesses for being here.
You know, I would echo some of the concerns or thoughts of
my colleagues from Indiana. Change for the sake of change is
not necessarily good nor a bad thing, so without drawing a
conclusion as to whether this change is a good change or a bad
change, what is important though is that we evaluate metrics
that say, okay, we are going to consolidate. We are going to
try to become more efficient. We are going to try to eliminate
redundancy. And I would just emphasize as we undergo this
transition that we make sure we have those metrics in place so
we are measuring whether we are actually becoming more
efficient, whether we are actually advocating for our goals.
That is not my question, however. You know, listening to
Mr. Kennedy, I also have a concern. You know, we have been hard
hit in the recession and, you know, particularly in that
workforce that is in their 30s to 40s, you know, individuals
that are well-educated, individuals that received an education
and training that prepared them for the 20th century workforce.
Unfortunately, we are now in the 21st century and things are
rapidly changing.
I want to make sure when we are thinking about training a
STEM workforce, there is this large group of individuals that
are highly educated, very motivated to get skill sets to fill
the workforce needs that we have. And in this consolidation,
you know, I see where we are directing funds to K-12, I see
where we are directing funds to undergraduate and graduate
education, but these are individuals that don't need to go back
and get an undergraduate degree or even a graduate degree. They
may need to get one year of on-the-job training so they could
rapidly fill some of these jobs. And, you know, I would wonder
where those of programs fit in a more consolidated program.
Dr. Holdren. Let me first resoundingly agree with the
concern you expressed about metrics, and if you look at the
strategic plan, there is really a tremendous amount of analysis
that has gone into the specific question of metrics and what
metrics we expect to use for all of the programs that are
ongoing. So we completely agree with that.
On the retraining issue, I would admit that that was not a
primary focus of the CoSTEM. And the primary focus was, as you
point out, K-12 now changed to P-12, that is pre-K-12,
undergraduate education, graduate education. That is already a
very big agenda, but the retraining question is an important
one and one in which I think, you know, a lot of effort is
going on out of the Department of Labor and elsewhere. But
maybe my colleagues have more to add on that.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I would just add quickly that whether
the retraining occurs in formal undergraduate degree programs
or bachelor's or associate's degree programs or in certificates
or badges or other approaches, there still is the central
problem of designing instruction and curriculum in ways that
will enable students to learn the kinds of skills that industry
demands, and we learned a lot about that through the
undergraduate focus.
Mr. Melvin. I think Joan and I were at a conference last
week and we saw this whole fusion of the social world with the
academic world with the workplace world. How do we get kids to
start thinking about themselves and bridging these different
gaps? The arts are in there, too. So I think one of the things
that we took back and we--this is a five-year strategic plan.
The first year is the implementation phase. We will iterate and
figure out what are the things that we need to ensure that the
students see themselves after they graduate and how they can
look at new careers, maybe new interests? The visual badging
was one of the pieces that they talked about where students can
do online badging and get certificates for it. They actually
get college credit for it. So how can we use those types of
things also in this new paradigm?
Mr. Bera. Well I would add as you go back and consider the
changes that will be taking place that we don't just think
about, you know, the folks at the beginning phase of their life
as well as those in undergraduate and graduate education, that
there really is an incredible talent pool here of individuals
that we can rapidly train and we probably do this most
efficiently through public-private partnership where in my own
community we have a large Intel presence and they are very much
engaged in, you know, both going into the K-12 classrooms with
Project Lead the Way and some of their programs that they are
fending, but many of these technology companies are also taking
a chance on this workforce and training them on the job and I
would ask us to be open to directing resources in an efficient
way to the private sector. So I will yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
witnesses, for your appearance and your testimony and your
answers to questions.
Can any of you advise me if the Common Core Initiative is
at all tied in with the new STEM programs you propose?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for the question. Our
proposals and the CoSTEM strategic plan are very general and
they aim for quality instruction at K-12 and aim for improved
undergraduate education, graduate fellowships, and groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented with STEM along with
engagement. So they don't speak directly to the Common Core
Initiatives.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Doctor?
Dr. Holdren. I agree with my colleague's testimony.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Mr. Melvin. Likewise.
Mr. Posey. All right. So there is no connection whatsoever
to the proposed STEM programs and the Common Core Initiatives?
We agree unequivocally?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I am going to say a little bit more then
on this point. The Common Core Initiative is an activity
underway in parts of the country, and so as these investments
move forward, that will be something, at least for the National
Science Foundation, that we are interested in understanding:
What is the impact of an effort initiated by States to make for
Common Core standards? But it is not a direct part of this
reorg.
Dr. Holdren. Let me add one further point. At the
Department of Education under the Fiscal Year 2014 budget
proposal of the President, there would be $265 million focused
on STEM instruction. And obviously, in the framework of that
focus clearly the questions of the effectiveness of the core
curriculum will come into play.
The other thing I would mention that is germane as to what
would go on in the Department of Education under the Proposed
Reorganization is a set of STEM innovation networks which would
connect schools, businesses, national laboratories,
universities to work on the most effective ways to lift our
game collaboratively and collectively in STEM education. And
again, in that context clearly the core curriculum issues would
arise.
Mr. Posey. Okay. So we have gone from three noes to two
yeses?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I think, Congressman, with respect, the
point was that the strategic plan does not address that issue
in detail but the budget provides for substantial resources and
programs that clearly would incorporate certainly looking at
and understanding the benefits as well as any liabilities of
the various approaches that are out there.
Mr. Posey. I think you have said for the STEM programs
pretty forthright and it seems like the Common Core Initiative
has already begun to morph and there is a lot of uncertainty
about where it is going to end up. I noticed $5 million for a
new STEM office at the Department of Education, and I wondered
if you could give me four or five examples of successful
departments in the Department of Education that we would like
this new one to emulate.
Dr. Holdren. I think you probably need a witness from the
Department of Education up here to provide that sort of list,
but I think--you know, I mean I would certainly say that the
Invest in Innovation grant program at the Department of
Education has been very successful. It has funded a variety of
programs that are increasing participation, increasing success
rates. The Pell grant program has been very successful. There
is good research that shows that the Pell grant program has
very substantially affected the number of people going to
college. Folks who otherwise would not have been able to go to
college have been able to do so under the Pell grant program.
I think--you know, the Department of Education occasionally
comes in for something of a beating in some of these contexts,
but in fact I think there are some great successes in the
Department. But its own representative might be a better and
more effective spokesperson for that.
Mr. Posey. Does anyone have any idea how many employees we
have at the Department of Education now?
Dr. Holdren. I assume that you do.
Mr. Posey. No, I mean I would guess probably 35, 40,000
people over there, you know, looking for a job description
every day but I don't know.
Dr. Holdren. We can obviously get you that number.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Posey.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You all know that I have a background in K-12 education as
a 23-year teacher, not in the sciences but in humanities, and
22 years as a community college trustee. My question, first of
all, is directed to Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. The 2007 America
COMPETES Act authorized NSF to award grants to Hispanic-serving
institutions to enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM
education at such institutions. Despite guidance from Congress,
the NSF has not requested separate funding for HSIs. La Sierra
University, Riverside Community College, UC Riverside are three
schools in my district that could benefit from this dedicated
funding.
As the Administration moves forward with the strategic
plan, how will NSF ensure that minority-serving institutions,
particularly HSIs, are receiving the support they need to
promote STEM education among minority students?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for the question, sir. As you
know, the National Science Foundation has a very strong
commitment to broadening participation and has a number of
programs, an entire division in my directorate that is focused
on human resource development and broadening participation, so
several programs within that unit that are very--particularly
aimed at minority-serving institutions. We track very carefully
the success rates, and the application rates. We do substantial
outreach with Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-
serving institutions. That is an area of great concern and
interest for us.
I think going forward the CoSTEM proposed plan is actually
wonderful in terms of its focus on improving the participation
in STEM of students from groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented in STEM, including Hispanic students. And the
plan, I believe, is to work in the next several months very
closely with stakeholder communities to look across government
at the full portfolio of investment for groups that have been
underrepresented in STEM to think about the most efficient and
effective ways to make a difference. So it is a strong
commitment in the strategic plan and for the National Science
Foundation.
Mr. Takano. Wait. Can you tell me--and one of the areas I
am concerned about that I have observed as a weakness in STEM
education is elementary school. We are lucky if we get that
teacher who has the snakes and the ant farms and all that to
engage those students early on, but it is so important to get
them early.
And you all--I am glad to hear that you are also interested
in pre-K. So can you tell me about this reorganization and what
opportunities there are for improving pre-K curriculum and
teaching and also what we are going to do to train and provide
the portfolio of activities for those elementary school
teachers?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So I can give the beginnings of an
answer really as we are just embarking on this plan and the
first stages will be transitioning and implementing the ideas.
But I do know that both the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Education have invested in pre-K STEM-oriented
programs and work to try to improve student learning in those
fields and those areas.
And because there is a teacher education component in the
strategic plan goal on K-12 instruction, that is a P-12 teacher
focus, a lot of the focus there would be on the pre-service
preparation of teachers. So the idea about what does the
undergraduate curriculum look like for those preschool and
primary grades and elementary school teachers, that is
certainly very much on the table in this discussion. The
planning will take shape as we go but I think there is a strong
commitment to it.
Mr. Takano. Well, I am really glad to hear it because, you
know, often the teachers who prepare for--people who prepare
for elementary and pre-K service, they don't often come with
that preparation. So obviously we have to get to them in the
undergraduate, the general education----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely.
Mr. Takano.----before they actually do specialize. Can you
tell me more about what we are going to do about computer
science as a part of STEM? About half of the country's 9.2
million jobs in the STEM fields will be in computing. I don't
know if you can----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I can start and my colleagues may have
more to say, but we at the National Science Foundation
certainly recognize the need to have a number of initiatives
and partnerships between the Directorate for Computer and
Information Sciences and Engineering and the Directorate for
Education. In particular, we have had a focus on improving high
school participation in computer science, so we have had a
program to actually stimulate activity to get more high schools
across the country to a point where they have the capacity to
offer computer science courses, not just advanced placement
computer science but prerequisite courses that recognize the
centrality of computing, of big data, since so many careers in
STEM that are going to depend upon those kinds of capacities
and capabilities. So we are actively engaged in investing in
those areas, and that can as well fall into the strategic plan.
Mr. Takano. Great. I can have the rest of that question
answered later, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you Mr. Chairman. To the panelists,
thank you for being with us. Thanks for hanging in there. I
know it has become a rather lengthy hearing. I am impressed
with your ability to pack the house as I look around at this
hearing. I have never been to one that had quite so many
people, which means you are either the most brilliant set of
witnesses ever assembled or maybe the sexiest or whatever it
is. Thanks for doing that.
You know, as--all of you have either said this directly or
indirectly, alluded to it, and that is your concern--Mr.
Holdren, you mentioned that we are in the middle of the pack
when it comes to comparative scores of other nations in math
and sciences. True? And I mean that is not really an opinion.
That is pretty much--I mean it is a provable fact where we are
in these comparative test scores. And the rest of the panel
would agree with that determination. That is about where we
are, right?
And, I actually wanted to say here, because this is a
question that doesn't relate directly to most of the
conversation today, but I would really appreciate your opinion
on this. That is you have this apparent dichotomy where there
is no other nation on earth--on one hand, we are in the middle
of the pack and probably have been for a long time. This isn't
something that developed in the last 10 or 15 years in, you
know, STEM education, yet there is no other nation on Earth
that leads as we do in innovation, in business development and
patents and job creation in what I would describe as the
creative process of taking this information and actually doing
something with it, actually creating something with it. You
know, when it comes to applying that innovation and doing
something that benefits humanity, there is really--no one does
it better than we do.
Now, look, there is lots of examples. You know, eBay,
Google, NASA, IBM, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, I mean there is
lots and lots of areas that are driven by science and
technology that we are still the leader and have always been
the leader in the world. And I wonder if you could help me
explain that a little bit or help me understand that. How is it
on one hand we are average and yet when you are--the outcome of
this is you are trying to create innovation, you are trying to
create jobs, you are trying to better people's lives and we are
still the very, very best at that.
And do you have any ideas? Have you considered that, of why
it is that, you know, we could have one on the one hand and yet
have this real positive outcome on the other still?
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely. We have thought about that. I will
make a couple of quick points. One is that we still have by far
the best university system in the world. Our research
universities are the envy of all of the rest of the world, and
to some extent some of the shortfalls in our K-12 STEM
education system are compensated for by the enormous
capabilities of our university system. A second point that----
Mr. Stewart. Well--and so just very quickly, so the
universities are able to overcome what we would agree is a
deficiency up to that point----
Dr. Holdren. In part.
Mr. Stewart. --up to the university point?
Dr. Holdren. In part, but as the PCAST study of the first
two years of college education in the STEM fields also showed,
we are still losing a lot of talent that we don't need to lose.
Only 40 percent of American students who enter our universities
intending to get a STEM degree do get a STEM degree. The 60
percent that we lose are a loss to our innovation capacity
going forward.
The second point I would make is a crucial aspect of our
success is having an economic and policy environment that
encourages and supports risk-taking and entrepreneurship. And
again, we lead the world in that respect and we need to
preserve the policy and economic environment which involves tax
policy, intellectual property rights policy, and many other
dimensions of policy including even immigration policy to
ensure that we retained an environment that nurtures this
creativity, this entrepreneurship, this risk-taking, which has
produced so much for our society.
Mr. Stewart. And could I just interrupt to agree with you
on that? And that is maybe one of the points of my question is
to recognize that these are important subjects that we are
talking about with this--with the funding and the organization
around STEM and the sciences and math. But there is another
very important element to that and that is, you know, who we
are as a nation, and as you said, the creativity, the
innovation, the risk-taking, the entrepreneurship is something
that is also an important consideration.
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely.
Mr. Stewart. Yes. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. The one other thing I would add though is when
you are in the lead, you still need to look over your shoulder
from time to time to see if anybody is gaining on you, and it
is becoming a more competitive world in these respects. And
that is one of the reasons why we have to be concerned about
lifting our game in STEM education because we want to continue
to be the leader in innovation and creativity, and development
of new products and businesses. And with other folks around the
world investing larger and larger sums in trying to be able to
compete with us in these dimensions, we cannot rest on our
laurels.
Mr. Stewart. And I agree with that. And my time is up. I
wish it wasn't because I would be interested in the other
members of the panel and your thoughts on that because I think
it is worth considering. And I agree as well. We should look
over our shoulder. We should be aware of who is behind us, but
I do think that--you know, I don't prophesize our future demise
because of this. I think there are some things that are just
inherently a part of our nation that give us some advantages
there as well. So again, thank you.
Chairman Smith. I thank you, Mr. Stewart.
The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
witnesses today. And I think you can see both by the fact that
the packed room has stayed but also Members are engaged that we
really consider this an important area of focus. And I have to
tell you, you have to register me as one of the skeptics about
the consolidation proposal. I want to ask Mr. Melvin. Recently
in a hearing--and you are like the go-to guy on education in
NASA, right? You can just say yes.
Mr. Melvin. Yes, I am.
Ms. Edwards. Okay. So at a recent hearing Administrator
Bolden highlighted some of this progress that NASA has made to
improve its STEM programs and to establish the first-ever
metrics that measure effectiveness. How much of that--and that
was under a lot of your guidance and leadership and it is not
the first reorganization but it is one that--you know, that you
have overseen. How much of those measures have been put into
place up until this proposal came forward?
Mr. Melvin. So before the proposal came forward, we were
looking at redesigning one of our flagship programs Summer of
Innovation, a program that would do hands-on experiential
activities with students in the summertime to try to combat
that summer slide, and that program over the course of its
inception in 2010 had been redone many, many times, but the
final redoing of the program we worked with Gil Noam and the
PEAR Institute at Harvard University to see what the dimensions
of success would be for the evaluation process of getting this
program done. So right now, we are in the process of getting
back some of that data from last year to see how effective the
program is because one of the toughest things to do is to
measure how effective a STEM engagement program is.
Ms. Edwards. So let me just ask this. So the data that you
are in the process of getting back, was that actually used to
develop the consolidation plan?
Mr. Melvin. That data was not.
Ms. Edwards. Okay. And so--and then just in terms of--how
many programs were actually cut from NASA in this
consolidation?
Mr. Melvin. There were 78 programs with a science mission
directorate that were cut. We were given a pot of money to look
at the best programs----
Ms. Edwards. Less 40 not--you looked at those best
programs?
Mr. Melvin. We are in the process of doing that right now.
My team, the Education Coordinating Council, all the center and
directors at the agent centers, as well as my mission
directorate leads, we are all going through a process right now
to distill down what those programs will be coming forward for
the '14.
Ms. Edwards. So how much input did you or the Administrator
have in the programs that--I mean in the reduction of the $49
million from NASA? How much input did you provide for that?
Mr. Melvin. So our input was through the CoSTEM process and
just what programs we had. We did not say this should be the
program; this should be cut. It was not----
Ms. Edwards. So you guys actually have the expertise but
you didn't make the recommendation about which programs should
be cut or not?
Mr. Melvin. Correct.
Ms. Edwards. And, Dr. Holdren, was that true for the other
agencies that are impacted as well?
Dr. Holdren. The agencies all provided their information
about programs, about budgets, about the evaluations that they
had or didn't have, and that information was then taken into
account in the process I described----
Ms. Edwards. But the people who are the experts didn't
contribute to making the decision about what should be cut or
not?
Dr. Holdren. Ordinarily, if you ask people if they would
like any of their programs to be cut, they will say no.
Ms. Edwards. Right, but I mean they do have some level of
expertise----
Dr. Holdren. Yes, and----
Ms. Edwards. --about the things that are working and the
things that are not?
Dr. Holdren. And we drew on that in the inputs we got from
all of the agencies about their programs and about their
evaluations and so on.
Ms. Edwards. So--Mr. Melvin, so if you were to look at the
programs that you would identify as the most successful
programs at NASA run through STEM, do you still have
responsibility for those?
Mr. Melvin. I still have responsibility and I have
resources to bring forward what are the best programs in NASA.
So our budget did get cut. We have got tough times. We have got
to make sure we bring forward the best things that we have,
that we can for the President's plan.
Ms. Edwards. Okay. So--and, Dr. Holdren, the Department of
Education now is going to get an additional $285 million, and I
think many of us would agree that it is important to build the
capacity for the Department of Education around STEM. But
wouldn't it be more effective to build that capacity and then
enable them to make a decision about how it is that they could
most effectively run rather than throwing in a pile of $285
million in addition and now saying now build your capacity and
figure out what you do best?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, Congresswoman Edwards, I
would say that there are already many strong programs and a lot
of real capacity in Education. It is not as if the Department
of Education is starting from scratch here. They have a lot of
activity, a lot of capability, and we are proposing to add to
it in areas of priority that the President has endorsed. And
those include the Math and Science Partnership program, the
STEM innovation networks that I mentioned, and ARPA-ED to
look--which would be under the Investing in Innovation program
that would look at out-of-the-box, paradigm-breaking ways to
improve our game in STEM education.
We think it is time to place some bets on the highest
priorities, on the most transformative potential activities
that we can undertake. And we think that the transfer of
actually a modest fraction of the total resources being spent
in STEM education to those priorities is a good idea.
Obviously, people initially can disagree. There is a sense in
which transitions are always stressful because people are clear
about what is going away and less clear about what they are
going to get.
Ms. Edwards. Well, so--but currently, the Department of
Education only really has one staffer on STEM education.
Wouldn't you agree that to get this additional resource and
capacity that they have to develop more capacity?
Dr. Holdren. Well, there is $5 million inthe proposal to
build up a STEM education office within the Department of
Education to coordinate a lot of this but it is not as if there
isn't an enormous amount of relevant capacity spread across the
different domains of the Department of Education that we would
be drawing on to expand some of these programs. But we do agree
that we need more focused STEM education expertise right
attached to the Office of the Director, and that will happen
under the proposed plan.
Ms. Edwards. Well, I--and my time is greatly run out. I
hope we will have, Mr. Chairman, some additional opportunity to
discuss this because I think that there--as you can see, the
interest and the programs that are there and people who--as a
parent as I was or in community have deep experience with
agencies like NASA who actually already know what they are
doing in STEM, and it feels like why--I mean, you know, if it
ain't broke, don't fix that. I yield.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the evidence is clear from all of the witnesses
that right now in the United States we are facing a shortage of
high-skilled workers in technology, advanced manufacturing that
our employers are just not able to fill. And I represent
northern Silicon Valley and I spent the last week going across
the valley talking to these employers, and it is clear that
there are positions today that they would like to fill. They
can't fill them because of not having enough workers. That
means we don't have enough students coming up through the
pipeline.
So I think the short-term solution for that of course is
comprehensive immigration reform. That includes increasing the
H-1B visas.
But the long-term solution is what I believe we are here
today to talk about, which is making sure that children in our
own country are able to fill those jobs one day because of
their STEM education. And their STEM skills will be their
ticket to the innovation economy. And so there is certainly a
role for the Federal Government to play in helping our children
obtain those skills.
I believe education should always be a national obsession
but a local possession, and relying on local stakeholders, I
think, can really guide us. And so I wanted to first talk
about--as we talk about and consider the Proposed
Reorganization of STEM, we need to make sure that this
reorganization does not come at the expense of valuable
programs like in my district at Lawrence Livermore laboratory
we have the Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program
known as CSGF. It has played a vital role in our lab's effort
to have that pipeline of qualified graduate students who can go
into our workforce.
A number of students have written to me about their
concerns about this program being consolidated into NSF. I have
heard from students Jeffrey Oxbury, Teresa Bailey, Brian Gunny,
Sam Schofield, and Dr. Jeff Hittinger, who runs the Center for
Applied Scientific Computation, and I was hoping, Dr. Ferrini-
Mundy, you could address the concerns from these students that
moving this away from DOE could affect their ability to obtain
meaningful training and then move into the workforce.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thanks for your comments and for your
question. The NSF is absolutely committed in this
reorganization to making sure that we have individual
conversations--and those are well underway--with every single
agency and every single program that is involved in this
Graduate Fellowship consolidation. And our plan for this is
fairly straightforward and we hope is one that will serve the
needs of the mission agencies and the students that they
support really quite well, and that is to enlarge our Graduate
Research Fellowship program, which is a very strong selective
program. It spans 11 different disciplines of STEM and has 180
different fields of study that are allowable, so it is quite
likely to span the areas of computer science and engineering
and mathematics that would be the likely fields that the
students in this Computational Science Graduate Fellowship
program are in.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. And I will move to Dr. Holdren. Dr.
Holdren, you told my colleague Joe Kennedy that vocational
schools were a priority for STEM under the Educate to Innovate
program. And I went back and looked at the memo that was
prepared for us from your office regarding this program, and
that Educate to Innovate program was only mentioned once and is
not listed as having a funding source. And also I didn't see
any use of the word vocational training.
And I share the same concerns from--that Congressman
Kennedy has, which is that of course we want to make sure that
all of our students can learn STEM skills and perhaps an
undergraduate and graduate or doctoral degree and maybe start
the next Google, but not every student is going to be able to
do that. And it is just as important that they are able to
participate in the innovation economy in other roles, which
will help them grow into our middle class. And so what will be
the role of vocational training in this program?
Dr. Holdren. Well, as I have already said, vocational
training was not a major focus of the CoSTEM review, which had
a narrower focus, but the role of the community colleges in
particular is something that has been of interest to the
President, of interest to the OSTP and the OMB and the DPC, and
we have been generating in part with substantial private
resources partnerships, as I mentioned before, that address
that problem by improving the curricula of community colleges
to better match the jobs that are available in those regions.
When you ask where the resource is coming from, this is one
of the domains in which the private sector has really stepped
up precisely for the reason you mention, that high-tech
companies are not able to hire the workers that they need. And
so they know they have to feed the pipeline and they are
stepping up with their own resources to do that.
Mr. Swalwell. And I will conclude with a concern. I don't
think I have time for another question. But I am concerned that
right now it appears that as far as underrepresented groups,
there is not an assigned lead agency. I understand all three
agencies could deal with them right now, but if we are going to
move to this lead agency process, which I have concerns just
like Congresswoman Edwards does, I do hope that we are not in
the scenario where underrepresented groups have no representing
agency. So I would like to see underrepresented groups have a
lead agency that focuses on them. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return
again to one of the issues that was raised early on, which is
our communities who have very active organizations in
Connecticut. We have a science museum that has long-standing
programs, just as we mentioned the Museum of Science and
Industry, which I remember as a child. What sort of outreach is
being done right now to these nongovernmental organizations who
have long records of activity, particularly with the K-12, to
give them a heads up about how the process is going to work
going forward because we are all getting a lot of questions in
our district, a great deal of concern. State budgets are being
cut and suddenly they are hearing through the grapevine that
this is going away. So how are you reaching out to them? How
can we ensure proper information is being shared?
Dr. Holdren. Let me start by mentioning again that the
Department of Education will have a major role here through its
STEM innovation networks, which is a program that, under the
President's proposal, would provide $150 million to school
districts to build partnerships with the Federal science
agencies, with universities, with businesses, with museums. I
think because this is relatively new, the extent of the
outreach to these various constituencies is, up until now, not
all that extensive, but it will become more so particularly if
this budget is approved.
I mean there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. We
are still in Fiscal Year 2013 and we don't have the
reorganization plan in place except in the President's proposed
budget. But obviously, that sort of outreach is already
starting and would have to be expanded.
Ms. Esty. All right. And if we could turn back to the
question about with the Department of Education taking lead for
K-12, we know from the work being done on science and certainly
from the excitement over decades that NASA has generated in
schoolchildren and the importance of having practitioners, of
having researchers, of having people who do science being
engaged with the youngest of our students, not just with
graduate students but the youngest of our students.
How is this--how do we contemplate this is going to work?
How is NSF and our other major research institutions, NASA
going to share their expertise because there is a content there
that is important and an excitement level about what real-world
science means--with the Department of Education, which does
not--obviously they are the practitioners under the pedagogical
side. And how is it contemplated we are going to build out this
capacity within the Department of Education as well as sharing
that expertise, which admittedly doesn't have. That hasn't been
its mission.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So one thing that the Department of
Education does have is reach and extensive opportunity to
connect to States, districts, regions around the country. And
so we at NSF are very excited about the partnerships that will
evolve and in fact that have some precursors in previous work
actually. Our Math and Science Partnership program has had good
partnering activity with the Department over the years where
the kinds of things that NSF invests in, the content that gets
developed, the evidence-based practices and tools and learning
materials that get developed can then be scaled out in good
partnership with the Department, and we are excited about
figuring out how that will work well. But I will admit we are
at the very beginning stages of this work.
Mr. Melvin. There is a program called the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, which is an afterschool program
that we are currently partnering with the Department of
Education and we have this Summer of Innovation content that
has hands-on experiential activities that can be done inside of
21st century. So we are currently actively working on a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Education right
now to utilize our content in 50 States and 2 territories. So
that is one example of how we could start this process of
partnering with mission agencies and then the three lead
agencies to ensure that we get that content out.
Ms. Esty. And if I may also add my voice to those of
Congressman Kennedy and Swalwell on the importance of
vocational education being incorporated. I know it wasn't
specifically your focus but it is essential that we have those
mid-level skills. It is vital that those get included for those
of us--as I come from an aging industrial manufacturing base of
the United States, which now is in that transition phase that
it is going to be absolutely vital that we incorporate that and
that we incorporate computing as an integral part of this.
We have had multiple hearings in this Committee on the
importance of big data. If we do not incorporate computing as a
core part of this, we are really missing an incredibly
important opportunity and strategic necessity for this country.
Dr. Holdren. May I just say we agree? Thank you. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Brownley, is
recognized.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the
panel for being here this afternoon and answering all of our
questions. I might be towards the end so--of the line here in
terms of questioning. And a lot of my questions have been asked
and answered but--so I will just sort of focus on my agreement
really with you that restructuring and consolidating is very
important and I think we all probably agree that creating a
razor-sharp focus on STEM education in our country is very,
very important to do.
And I guess, you know, my question I think is focused more
around the pre-K-12 education understanding and believing that
we need to engage our children at a very early age and there
needs to be coherence and relevance and rigor. We have talked
about all of those things here today in this hearing. I am
wondering if there has been any assessment or look at comparing
what we are doing compared to other countries in the world.
Certainly countries around the world don't necessarily have
all of the same agencies and expertise that we do, but I think
in terms of earlier education, we may lag behind. I think the
President has already proposed that in terms of more pre-K
education. But have we looked at best practices around the
country?
And clearly, I think Dr. Holdren mentioned at the beginning
of the hearing that the data--achievement data shows that we
are certainly falling behind. And have we looked at--also, have
we looked to compare really our investment specifically into
STEM education with other countries around the world and how
are we doing?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thanks for the question and the
comments. And I agree; the importance of the early years in
terms of both engagement and also a solid foundation in
learning to set in place some open pathways for later choice is
important.
What I think I would like to do with this question though
is ask if we could get back to you with some details about at
least what NSF has funded if anything by way of particular
looks at comparisons with other countries' early childhood
practices or preparation of teachers of early childhood years.
I would just have to check the portfolio.
Ms. Brownley. Any other responses?
Mr. Melvin. I would have to check also to get back to you.
Dr. Holdren. One of the things we do know about some of the
other countries that we see when we look over our shoulder and
ask who is gaining on us is an underscoring of a proposition we
haven't really mentioned here, but it relates to the importance
of the local in education and particularly the importance not
just of teachers and principals and school districts but of
parents.
What we find in a lot of these countries--and I know
President Obama talked about this when he came back from a
visit to South Korea some time ago--when he was talking with
the South Korean president about education and the South Korean
president said you are really lucky you don't have parents
hounding you all the time to improve your STEM education
system. The engagement of parents in helping to inspire and
excite their kids about education in general and about STEM
fields in particular is immensely important and is something
that some other countries seem to have an advantage on the
United States at this particular point. This is anecdotal, not
systematic research, but it is an impression I have also gotten
in my travels across some of these countries.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And I would appreciate certainly
the feedback. And I think, just to conclude, I really firmly
believe that intelligence is something that can be learned. It
is not a God-given gift that some children have it and others
don't, and I think the investment piece of it I think is an
important area to look at. And I also, as some of my colleagues
have mentioned around vocational education I think is very
important but I tend to focus more around career technical
education because I do believe that in the earlier years with
our children that we have to provide them with, you know, the
rigor that they need to be able to choose what they want to do
as time goes on.
And certainly I think, you know, one of the benchmarks if
you will, for example, in mathematics is 8th grade algebra and,
you know, can all of our children in our country really get to
a place where they are ready and prepared to be successful in
8th grade algebra? And that is, you know, a gatekeeper in terms
of where kids tend to go. So that is not really in the form of
a question but I was wondering the thinking around--you know,
for the committee on these--I think these early and important
investments in the earlier educational years.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So I think the fact that we--that the
first priority is about improving K-12 instruction really does
reflect the Committee's sense that, unless we are doing a
really wonderful job there, that all of this later career focus
and career opportunity really can't come to fruition. And so I
think I can assure you that we have a strong interest in and
focus on that level. Now, we will work through implementation
and we will figure out how to, within there, make the right
focus. But it is quite important.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I will yield the
balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
The gentleman from California, the Vice Chairman of the
Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am sorry that I have been running
between different events here and have not been able to
participate in the discussion.
And let me just state for the record that when we do talk
about education, there is a distinct difference--philosophical
difference--between the people who come to Washington, D.C., to
want to structure their government. Those people who believe
that government is a solution and that giving the Federal
Government more power and authority to make changes are
definitely going to be focused on if we are going to--this
problem with STEM education and the solution is going to be
found in Washington, D.C., by restructuring the way various
government employees operate and the flow of funds from--that
are collected by Federal tax collectors and are shifted to
various power sources throughout the country in terms of
educational power.
I--that is one group. I think that I represent and a number
of people on the Republican side at least believe that that is
contrary to what will bring progress to our country. The more
centralized our decision-making process, the more restructuring
that we do and changing the seats here in Washington and the
little flow of money comes to this department rather than that
department is not going to change the dynamics that are at play
in our country which are leaving us behind when it comes to
STEM challenges.
What will help--I will note I meet every student that comes
from my district and I always ask them--and they are always
interested in education. I always ask them if they have ever
driven by the Department of Education while they have been in
town and most of them have not. I suggest to their people to do
that because there is a huge amount of money being spent on the
salaries of the people in those buildings, yet they never see a
student.
And perhaps it is a better idea to have more money kept at
the local level and provide our local communities with the
money they need to handle their own education rather than to
focus on how we can restructure things here in Washington, D.C.
For example, in Orange County we have--believe it or not, we
have some areas that are very depressed financially and mainly
through people who live there are mainly illegal immigrants
living there in fairly bad conditions for their schools, et
cetera, although we are trying to increase the level of
education in those community schools as well.
We are experimenting in Santa Ana with a new system of
education for these kids for learning mathematics and it is all
done at a computer and you don't need the teacher there to
teach and it is some--they have--private--or private foundation
has developed a system in which these kids can learn basic math
and algebra, et cetera, by interacting with a computer system.
And I might add I went down there to check this out and the
kids that I saw five years ago were--had--are at the bottom of
the run on the testing scores in Orange County in terms of
mathematics. And guess what? After introducing the system, they
are now at the top level and these are kids who barely speak
English.
And I think that type of experimentation that you can do
locally, we wouldn't want to have mandates like this or
necessarily having Federal dollars being that far out of
control of Washington, but we feel very comfortable in having
these things done by local schools. And quite frankly, I
believe and I am happy to hear the Administration is going to
try to do what is best based on their view of what government--
the role of government, and I would suggest that there probably
are many other things that could be done experimentally, et
cetera, that would give us an edge and give us a new creative
approach to this challenge, this STEM challenge if we would
actually look back to the local areas rather than rearranging
the chairs here in Washington, D.C.
But I would be happy to have my friend, the President's
Advisor on Science refute what I just said, go right ahead.
Dr. Holdren. Congressman Rohrabacher, it is always a
pleasure to interact with you on these topics. And I agree with
much of what you said about the importance of local
experimentation and learning from those experiments. That is
one of the things we want to do more of. We want to understand
what experiments are successful and where we identify them to
assist in their propagation so that successful models can
become more widespread and success therefore also more
widespread.
This is really at its core about partnerships. The amount
of money being spent by the Federal Government on STEM
education is a very small fraction of the amount of money being
spent on education as a whole around the country. That is as it
should be. We are looking for ways to leverage that relatively
small percentage in ways that beneficially affect the much
larger expenditures that go on across our school districts and
systems in universities and colleges around the country.
But we are talking about strengthening federal, state, and
local partnerships. We are talking about public-private
philanthropic partnerships to leverage this actually relatively
modest Federal investment in ways that will empower more local
experiments, more local successes. So we don't have as huge a
disagreement as you might think.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
That concludes our hearing. I think we have had a very
healthy discussion today. Clearly, there has been a mixed
response to the Administration's consolidation proposals, but I
think today's discussion has made Members better informed and
we certainly appreciate the expert testimony we heard today as
well. I want to--I don't need to--I started to say the Members
here have two weeks to submit questions but I assume they know
that and will submit questions to you all over the next couple
of weeks.
Thank you again for being here and I appreciate the
interest by the audience today as well in such an important
subject. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Honorable John Holdren
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.032
Responses by Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.047
Responses by Mr. Leland D. Melvin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.065
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by Representative Frederica Wilson
Submitted letter for the record by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.023
Submitted list of STEM programs for the record
by The Honorable John Holdren
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81722.039
Submitted letter to correct statements in the record
by The Honorable John Holdren