[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSALS
FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-08
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-886PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-91800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. ZOE LOFGREN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MO BROOKS, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
STEVE KNIGHT, California ERIC SWALWELL, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY PALMER, Alabama
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
February 26, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
The Honorable France Cordova, Director, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
The Honorable Daniel Arvizu, Chariman, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Dr. Willie E. May, Acting Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Discussion....................................................... 53
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable France Cordova, Director, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 70
The Honorable Daniel Arvizu, Chariman, National Science Board.... 84
Dr. Willie E. May, Acting Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology....................................... 90
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSALS
FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara
Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Research and Technology will come to order. Excuse me.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Proposals for the National Science
Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology
for Fiscal Year 2016.''
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for
today's witnesses.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
I would first like to thank our witnesses for appearing
today to discuss these budget requests: Dr. France Cordova,
Director of the NSF, Dr. David--okay, I am going to get these
names right here--Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science
Board; and Dr. Willie May, Acting Director of NIST, who I want
to acknowledge has been nominated by the President for the
position of Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology.
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for NSF totals $7.72
billion, an increase of $379.34 million, 5.2 percent over the
Fiscal Year 2015 enacted level. NSF is the primary source of
federal funding for non-medical basic research. Basic research
is about good jobs and a secure future. We want to be strong
advocates for federal support of basic research that advances
science in the national interest.
But in this budget environment, just maintaining the
current level of basic research support is a challenge. We have
a constitutional obligation and a responsibility to ensure
every dollar allocated for scientific research is spent as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how NSF
plans to prioritize and manage the funding in Fiscal Year 2016.
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for NIST totals $1.12
billion, an increase of $255.8 million or almost 30 percent
from the Fiscal Year 2015 enacted level.
The Committee has a long bipartisan record of support for
NIST and its contributions to research and development. Just
last year the House passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the
Institute. A 30 percent increase will be difficult to achieve
and would require significant changes in other areas, so we can
keep that in mind as we have today's discussion.
The requested increases would be devoted in large part to
bolster advanced manufacturing initiatives at NIST. $150
million dollars is requested for the Network for Manufacturing
Innovation, which I believe is set in law at $5 million
annually. We are here today to learn more about the
justification for this request, and I am appreciative of the
opportunity to learn more about how Fiscal Year 2016 funds
would be prioritized by NIST.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
learning how priorities and budgets are set by both
organizations.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Comstock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee
Chairwoman Barbara Comstock
I would first like to thank our witnesses for appearing today to
discuss these budget requests: Dr. France Cordova, Director of the NSF,
Dr. David Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science Board, and Dr.
Willie May, Acting Director of NIST, who I want to acknowledge has been
nominated by the President for the position of Under Secretary of
Commerce for Standards and Technology.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for NSF totals $7.72 billion,
an increase of $379.34 million, 5.2 percent over the fiscal year 2015
enacted level.
NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic
research. Basic research is about good jobs and a secure future. We
want to be strong advocates for federal support of basic research that
advances science in the national interest.
But in this budget environment, just maintaining the current level
of basic research support is a big challenge. We have a constitutional
obligation and a responsibility to ensure every dollar allocated for
scientific research is spent as effectively and efficiently as
possible.I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Dr. Cordova and
Dr. Arvizu, on how NSF plans to prioritize and manage funding in
fiscalyear 2016.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for NIST totals $1.12 billion,
an increase of $255.8 million or almost 30 percent from the fiscal year
2015 enacted level.
This Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for NIST
and its contributions to research and development. Just last year the
House passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the Institute. But a 30
percent increase will be difficult to achieve and would require
significant changes in other areas. The requested increases would be
devoted in large part to bolster advanced manufacturing initiatives at
NIST, $150 million dollars is requested for the Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, which I believe is set in law at $5 million
annually.
We are here today to learn more about the justification for this
request, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about
how fiscal year 2016 funds would be prioritized by NIST. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses and learning how priorities and budgets
are set by both organizations.
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize our Ranking Member,
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome to
our distinguished panel here today.
I am pleased we are having this hearing to review the
Fiscal Year 2016 budget proposals for the National Science
Foundation and the National Institute for--of Standards and
Technology.
There is a lot to cover when we discuss these two critical
agencies, and I believe that we would have been better able to
examine these budgets with two separate hearings but I am
hopeful that we can give a thoughtful and thorough
consideration here today.
As many of you know, I have said many times from when I
first came here ten years ago how NSF and the role that this
Committee plays in overseeing NSF is one of the big reasons I
wanted to serve on this Committee when I got to Congress, and I
want to thank both NSF and NIST for the great work that you are
doing.
The National Science Foundation is the only agency in our
government that supports fundamental research across all fields
of science and engineering. NSF has always been the primary
source of federal support in a variety of fields, including the
social and economic sciences. As other agencies such as DARPA
and NIH have increasingly shifted to a more mission-focused and
translational research, NSF has become the primary source of
support for many more fields.
$7 billion sounds like a lot of money and of course it is.
However, given the breadth and depth of our nation's scientific
talent and their capacity to transform the world through
scientific and technological breakthroughs, $7 billion still
leaves a lot of excellent ideas on the cutting room floor. NSF
is requesting a 5.2 percent increase in its budget for Fiscal
Year 2016, which I believe is fully justified and I am going to
strongly support.
I would like to highlight a couple of items in the NSF
request. I am pleased to see the increase for the very
successful Innovation Corps, also known as the I-Corps program.
If my newer colleagues are unfamiliar with I-Corps, I urge them
to get a briefing from NSF.
Being from Chicago, I am also interested in the INFEWS
Initiative and the positive impacts research in that area could
have on water quality in the Great Lakes.
Today, we are also looking at the budget request for NIST,
the most important, least-known agency in our government, which
has a budget of less than $900 million. NIST has always been
the world's premier measurement science and standards
organization. In recent years, policymakers in Congress and the
White House have called on NIST to take on leadership roles in
an increasing number of critical areas, including
cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and
advanced manufacturing. On the one hand it is a great
compliment to NIST that we entrust them with these
responsibilities and they continue to live up to our
expectations. On the other hand, many of these responsibilities
have been making it difficult for the agency to carry out its
mission.
NIST is requesting a 30 percent increase but over a
relatively small base. I fully support NIST's request in light
of all the increased responsibilities.
I hope that all my colleagues will join me in urging full
funding for NIST laboratories and construction budget. NIST
infrastructure is 40 to 50 years old and much of it is
crumbling. As they face the same wave of retirements that many
of our agencies face, NIST is struggling to attract top new
talent. If we do not fully fund this agency, we may be
compromising its ability to remain the world's leader in
measurement science and standards development. This would be a
heavy blow to our economic growth and security given the
importance of NIST's work.
Before I close, I want to say a few words about legislation
I expect will come before this Committee soon in regards to
reauthorizing both of these agencies. Last year, the agencies
were not given the opportunity to testify on the reauthorizing
legislation before we marked it up. I am sure there will be
some questions from both sides today that will be relevant to
any new reauthorization bill, but it is important to allow
these agencies to testify again once legislation has been
introduced. This will allow our Subcommittee and full Committee
to better understand the impact of any proposals for
consequential policy changes.
I look forward to this morning's testimony and discussion
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee
Minority Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Thank you Madam Chairwoman and welcome to our distinguished panel.
I am pleased we are having this hearing to review the Fiscal Year 2016
budget proposals for the National Science Foundation and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. There is a lot to cover when we
discuss these two critical agencies and I believe that we would have
been able to examine these budgets better with two separate hearings.
But I am hopeful that we can give a thoughtful and thorough
consideration here today.
The National Science Foundation is the only agency in our
government that supports fundamental research across all fields of
science and engineering. NSF has always been the primary source of
federal support in a variety of fields, including the social and
economic sciences. As other agencies such as DARPA and NIH have
increasingly shifted toward more mission-focused and translational
research, NSF has become the primary source of support for many more
fields. $7 billion sounds like a lot of money, and of course it is.
However, given the breadth and depth of our nation's scientific talent,
and their capacity to transform the world through scientific and
technological breakthroughs, $7 billion still leaves a lot of excellent
ideas on the cutting-room floor. NSF is requesting a 5.2 percent
increase in its budget for FY 2016 which I believe is fully justified
and I will strongly support.
I would like to highlight a couple of the items in the NSF request.
I am pleased to see the increase for the very successful Innovation
Corps, aka the I-Corps program. If my newer colleagues are unfamiliar
with I-Corps, I urge them to get a briefing from NSF. Being from
Chicago, I'm also interested in the INFEWS initiative and the positive
impacts research in that area could have on water quality in the Great
Lakes.
Today we are also looking at the budget request for NIST, the most
important least-known agency in our government, which has a budget of
less than $900 million. NIST has always been the world's premier
measurement science and standards organization. In recent years,
policymakers in Congress and the White House have called on NIST to
take on leadership roles in an increasing number of critical areas,
including cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and
advanced manufacturing. On the one hand, it is a great compliment to
NIST that we entrust them with these responsibilities and they continue
to live up to our expectations. On the other hand, many of these
responsibilities have been assigned without needed increases in
funding, making it difficult for the agency to carry out its mission.
NIST is requesting a nearly 30 percent increase, but over a relatively
small base. I fully support NIST's request in light of all the
increased responsibilities.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in urging full
funding for NIST's laboratories and construction budget. NIST's
infrastructure is 40-50 years old and much of it is crumbling. As they
face the same wave of retirements that many of our agencies face, NIST
is struggling to attract top new technical talent. If we do not fully
fund this agency, we may be compromising its ability to remain the
world's leader in measurement science and standards development. This
would be a heavy blow to our economic growth and security given the
importance of NIST's work.
Before I close, I want to say a few words about legislation that I
expect will come before this Committee soon in regard to reauthorizing
both of these agencies. Last year, the agencies were not given the
opportunity to testify on the reauthorizing legislation before we
marked up it. I'm sure there will be some questions from both sides
today that will be relevant to any new reauthorization bill, but it's
important to allow these agencies to testify again once legislation has
been introduced. This will allow our Subcommittee and the full
Committee to better understand the impact of any proposals for
consequential policy changes.
I look forward to this morning's testimony and discussion, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
Now, Chairman Smith--I recognize Chairman Smith, our
Chairman of the full Committee.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me observe
and state the obvious at the beginning that we have an
excellent panel with us today and we look forward to hearing
from them shortly.
The National Science Foundation and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology support fundamental scientific
research that is critical to American innovation and
competitiveness. Our challenge is to set funding priorities
that ensure America remains first in the global marketplace of
ideas and products, without misusing the American people's
hard-earned tax dollars.
For example, why does the Administration increase funding
for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Directorate by
over seven percent while proposing an average of less than four
percent for the Biology, Computer Science, Engineering and
Mathematical and Physical Science Directorates?
But I do want to emphasize and mention and applaud the
steps taken by NSF to improve transparency and accountability.
NSF's new policy acknowledges the need for NSF to communicate
clearly and in nontechnical terms when the agency describes the
research projects it funds. The new policy also emphasizes that
the title and abstract for each funded grant should act as the
public justification for NSF funding. It should explain how the
project serves the national interest and is consistent with the
NSF mission, as set forth in the 1950 legislation that created
the Foundation. And I understand Dr. Cordova presented this at
the November National Science Board meeting and received
positive comments.
It appears the new NSF policy parallels a significant
provision of the FIRST Act approved by this Committee last
fall, a requirement that NSF publish a justification for each
funded grant that sets forth the project's scientific merit and
national interest. The reference to the 1950 original enabling
legislation and its NSF mission statement is consistent with
the FIRST Act, too.
NIST does valuable, important work as well, which includes
maintaining industrial and technical standards and managing
cybersecurity guidelines for federal agencies. But the proposed
30 percent increase in the NIST budget for next year is
unrealistic.
Although there are a number of areas proposed for very
large increases, the $150 million for the National Network of
Manufacturing Innovation program is of particular concern. Last
year, with strong bipartisan support, this Committee, the full
House, and the Senate approved H.R. 2996, the Revitalize
American Manufacturing Innovation Act, or RAMI. This bill
authorized about $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST with
the bulk of the program funding to be transferred from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget at the
Energy Department's Office of Science. I don't know why the
Administration is ignoring the duly enacted RAMI Act.
Other than that, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today on the subject that I mentioned above and yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar Smith
Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to Dr. C"rdova, Dr. Arvizu and
Dr. May for being with us here today.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) support fundamental scientific research
that is critical to American innovation and competitiveness. Our
challenge is to set funding priorities that ensure America remains
first in the global marketplace of ideas and products, without misusing
the American people's hard-earned tax dollars.
For example, why does the administration increase funding for the
Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Directorate by over seven
percent while proposing an average of less than four percent for the
Biology, Computer science, Engineering and Mathematical and Physical
science directorates?
I do want to mention and applaud the steps taken by NSF to improve
transparency and accountability. NSF's new policy acknowledges the need
for NSF to communicate clearly and in non-technical terms when the
agency describes the research projects it funds.
The new policy also emphasizes that the title and abstract for each
funded grant should act as the public justification for NSF funding. It
should explain how the project serves the national interest and is
consistent with the NSF mission, as set forth in the 1950 legislation
that created the Foundation.
I understand Dr. C"rdova presented this at the November National
Science Board meeting and received positive comments.
It appears the new NSF policy parallels a significant provision of
the FIRST Act approved by this Committee last fall--a requirement that
NSF publish a justification for each funded grant that sets forth the
project's scientific merit and national interest. The reference to the
1950 original enabling legislation and its NSF mission statement is
consistent with the FIRST Act, too.
NIST does valuable, important work as well, which includes
maintaining industrial and technical standards and managing
cybersecurity guidelines for federal agencies. But the proposed 30
percent increase in the NIST budget for next year is unrealistic.
Although there are a number of areas proposed for very large
increases, the $150 million for the National Network of Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI) program is of particular concern. Last year, with
strong bipartisan support, this Committee, the full House, and the
Senate approved HR 2996, the Revitalize American Manufacturing
Innovation Act (RAMI).
This bill authorized about $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST
with the bulk of the program funding to be transferred from the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget at the Energy
Department's Office of Science.
I don't know why the administration is ignoring the duly enacted
RAMI Act.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the subjects
I mentioned above.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
And now I recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee for a statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
holding this important hearing, and I welcome the National
Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology witnesses here. Both are agencies that are central
to the federal role in advancing science, promoting innovation,
and creating a more prosperous nation.
I look forward to hearing from the distinguished witnesses
before us this morning. I only wish they could each have had in
their own hearing because there are so many important topics to
discuss for each of the agencies.
I am pleased with the budget request for both NSF and NIST.
I hope Congress will have the wisdom to fully fund both
requests. There are many worthy programs across the government
and we cannot fund everything. However, I believe that funding
science and innovation should be an easy choice, for this is
about our future, and even more important, it is about our
children's future.
That said, there are a few programs in the budget request
that I would like to highlight. First, I am pleased to see NIST
and NSF's increased investments in engineered biology. Many of
the experts believe that biology will be the driver of economic
prosperity in the 21st century, as physics was in the 20th
century. Mr. Sensenbrenner joined me in introducing the
Engineering Biology Act of 2015, which would create a framework
for coordinated federal initiative in engineering biology. I
hope we have the opportunity to move the bill this Congress.
Next, I am happy to see NIST leadership in the area of
forensic science and standards. The partnership between NIST
and the Department of Justice must continue to recognize NIST's
critical role in developing technical standards for forensic
evidence. The justice system must be just for all, including
the wrongfully accused. I would be reintroducing my Forensic
Science and Standards Act soon and I welcome my colleagues to
cosponsor the legislation with me.
Also, while public access is not addressed in the budget
request directly, it is a timely issue. I am pleased to see
that several agencies, including NIST, have released their
public access plans for federally funded research, a process
that this Committee started back in the year 2009. Dr. Cordova,
I understand you will still be negotiating with OSTP on your
plan and I encourage you to resolve that as soon as possible.
Let me conclude with a few words about the debates in this
Committee regarding our support for different fields of science
and for merit review. We all have beliefs we would hold very
strongly whether or not there is evidence to support them. Some
of my colleagues believe very strongly that some fields of
science are less valuable than other fields and that some
grants are less worthy than other brands. Personally, I do not
presume to have the expertise to make that determination. I
trust the merit review process, and I trust NSF to make those
decisions. The experts before us today will have an opportunity
to educate us as to why we must invest in all STEM fields, and
why it is so important to keep the merit review process free
from political review. I just hope that all of my colleagues
truly listen and consider what our witnesses have to say.
I very much look forward to the testimony, and with that,
yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for holding this important hearing. The
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology are both agencies that are central to the federal role in
advancing science, promoting innovation, and creating a more prosperous
nation. I look forward to hearing from the distinguished witnesses
before us this morning. I only wish they could each have their own
hearing because there are so many important topics to discuss for each
agency.
I am pleased with the budget requests for both NSF and NIST. I hope
Congress will have the wisdom to fully fund both requests. There are
many worthy programs across the government, and we cannot fund
everything. However, I believe that funding science and innovation
should be an easy choice. This is about our future, and even more
important, it is about our children's future.
That said, there are a few programs in the budget requests that I
would like to highlight. First, I am pleased to see NIST's and NSF's
increased investments in engineered biology. Many of the experts
believe that biology will be the driver of economic prosperity in the
21st Century as physics was in the 20th Century. Mr. Sensenbrenner
joined me in introducing the Engineering Biology Act of 2015, which
would create a framework for a coordinated federal initiative in
engineering biology. I hope we have the opportunity to move the bill
this Congress.
Next, I am happy to see NIST's leadership in the area of forensic
science and standards. The partnership between NIST and the Department
of Justice must continue to recognize NIST's critical role in
developing technical standards for forensic evidence. The justice
system must be just for all, including the wrongfully accused. I will
be reintroducing my Forensic Science and Standards Act soon, and I
welcome my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation with me.
Also, while public access is not addressed in the budget request
directly, it is a timely issue. I am pleased to see that several
agencies, including NIST, have released their public access plans for
federally funded research, a process that this Committee started back
in 2009. Dr. C"rdova, I understand you are still negotiating with OSTP
on your plan. I encourage you to resolve that as soon as possible.
Let me conclude with a few words about the debates in this
Committee regarding our support for different fields of science and for
merit-review. We all have beliefs we hold very strongly whether or not
there is evidence to support them. Some of my colleagues believe very
strongly that some fields of science are less valuable than other
fields, and that some grants are less worthy than other grants.
Personally, I do not presume to have the expertise to make that
determination. I trust the merit-review process, and I trust NSF to
make those decisions.
The experts before us today will have an opportunity to educate us
as to why we must invest in all STEM fields, and why it is so important
to keep the merit-review process free from political review. I just
hope that all of my colleagues truly listen and consider what they have
to say.
I very much look forward to the testimony and with that I yield
back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Now, if there are Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Hon.
France Cordova is the Director of the National Science
Foundation; Hon. Dan Arvizu is the Chairman of the National
Science Board; and Dr. Willie May is the Acting Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes and your entire written statement
will be made part of the record.
I now recognize Dr. Cordova for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANCE CORDOVA,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Cordova. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Madam
Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members, I am very
pleased to be with you today to present the National Science
Foundation's Fiscal Year 2016 budget request.
I would like to begin my remarks with three short stories
about breakthroughs in NSF-funded science in 2014. Dr. Danielle
Bassett of the University of Pennsylvania was awarded a
MacArthur Fellowship, often called the ``genius grant,'' for
her NSF-sponsored work on how different regions of the brain
interact. She uses MRI technology and computer algorithms in
her research, which may ultimately lead to what she calls
``personalized therapeutics for rehabilitation and treatment of
brain injury and psychiatric disorders.'' Her work may have
application to Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy,
and Parkinson's disease.
Dr. Perena Gouma, material science research at SUNY Stony
Brook, has created a novel nanogrid that when activated by
sunlight can break down oil from a spill. She was the first
scientist to receive an I-Corps grant and has started a company
based on patents from this original research.
Dr. Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley was awarded a
Breakthrough Prize by leading technology companies. Her
inspiration, she says, was her father, a literature professor
who introduced her to cryptograms. Today, she has decrypted
bacterial immunity, and with that discovery enabled the
development of a precision genome editing tool, which could be
used to treat diseases like cancer and AIDS, as well as
hereditary disorders. At a recent session where I joined her to
talk about future breakthroughs, she spoke of her experiences
with K through 12 students. There is a scientist in every
child, she said.
These young women scientists and their game-changing
discoveries were all funded by NSF. They were all drawn into
science by family, friends, or teachers at a young age. Their
research is truly innovative and interdisciplinary and shows a
commitment to the STEM workforce.
NSF has a long history of funding research that leads to
breakthroughs in science and engineering. These breakthroughs
excite the next generation and generate promise for the future.
NSF has funded 214 Nobel Prize winners, including the most
recent winners, W.E. Moerner in chemistry and Jean Tirole in
economics.
This past year, the NSF-funded supercomputer called
Stampede at UT Austin has been used to explore a new method of
DNA sequencing, which could make getting one's genome
affordable. The new telescope in Chile called ALMA produced an
iconic image of a proto-solar system forming around a
relatively nearby star in our galaxy. This telescope is managed
by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory located in
Virginia.
In addition, the NSF-funded Blue Waters supercomputer at
the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is being used by
researchers from the Mayo Clinic to understand gene expression
in the brain with an eye to better understanding Alzheimer's
disease.
How do these stories and examples inform NSF's future
investments? In Fiscal Year 2016 NSF proposes to uphold the
essential approach that it has pursued for more than 60 years,
to invest in discovery research and education in science and
engineering, and by doing so, to address complex challenges
facing the Nation for our Nation.
In Fiscal Year 2016 there are four NSF-wide investments
that address issues of major scientific national and societal
importance. The first focus is on understanding the brain and
it will offer novel insights into how cognitive abilities
develop and can be maintained and improved throughout people's
lives. The second is focused on the discovery science needed to
understand the complicated and interconnected food-energy-water
nexus. The third area of emphasis in 2016 is risk and
resilience. It focuses on the advances needed to address
pressing challenges associated with extreme events and how we
can be prepared for them. The fourth is to develop an
integrated national effort to increase the participation of
young people who have been traditionally underserved and/or
underrepresented in the STEM enterprise.
What we are presenting today is therefore a robust
investment in discovery. The total budget request is for $7.7
billion, a 5.2 percent increase above the current level. This
request builds on the foundation strength in funding
breakthroughs and discoveries across a broad range of fields
and in educating the STEM workforce.
My written remarks provide additional detail on these
investments.
Most of all, it continues NSF's tradition of funding great
ideas and growing great talent and ensures that NSF remains the
place where discoveries began.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for your support of the National
Science Foundation. I look forward to working with you as
together we advance science in the national interest.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cordova follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And I now recognize Dr. Arvizu for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL ARVIZU,
CHARIMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Arvizu. Thank you.
Full Committee Chair, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, Subcommittee Chairwoman Comstock, and Ranking Member
Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to speak with you today in support of the National
Science Foundation's fiscal 2016 budget request.
I am Dan Arvizu, the Chairman of the Science Board, and in
my day job I am the Director and the Chief Executive at the
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The National Science Board, as you know, is the governing board
of the National Science Foundation and an independent advisor
to both Congress and the President.
To begin, I would like to take a few moments to comment on
my colleague here, the National Science Foundation Director
France Cordova. Dr. Cordova has been at the agency's helm for
almost a year now and the board is very appreciative and
impressed by her leadership. From day one she has worked to
ensure that the NSF supports and will be able to continue to
support the strongest portfolio of discovery research in the
world. She attends to both processes and to people embracing
the Foundation's efforts to enhance transparency and
accountability and strengthen its workforce. And Dr. Cordova is
a terrific ambassador, as many of you know, for the agency
connecting with other nations and scientists across all fields
so that NSF can achieve its mission in advancing the frontiers
of science.
Chairwoman Comstock, this morning on behalf of my 24
colleagues on the National Science Board, the science and
engineering education communities which I represent as well, I
would like to thank Members of the Subcommittee for their long-
standing support of the NSF. The board takes very seriously our
shared responsibility to provide strong governance and proper
stewardship of this critical taxpayer investment.
As you know, NSF is the only agency that supports
fundamental science and engineering research across all fields
advancing the national interest by enabling scientific
breakthroughs and the next generation of scientists and
engineers. At the core, NSF is simple. We fund the best ideas,
proposed and evaluated by scientists and engineers throughout
the country, and we do this in fact relying on a lean,
dedicated workforce that is supplemented by rotating experts
and volunteers and volunteer reviewers. This approach has
delivered enormous value to the U.S. taxpayer and become part
of the well-known international gold standard, as we like to
say, that the Foundation has always worked to both protect and
improve.
NSF discovery science exists at the core of much larger
national science and technology ecosystem. The early-stage
research that NSF drives lays the foundation for the
application-oriented science pursued by other agencies and the
technological innovations developed by our nation's businesses.
For example, ten years ago NSF invested in research on how to
design and build a secure cyber infrastructure for the power
grid. The DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability and the Department of Homeland Security have
carried this research forward, and thanks to these successive
investments, today, the trustworthy cyber infrastructure for
the power grid project is collaborating with national labs and
utility sectors to improve the design security, safety, and
resiliency of the U.S. power grid.
We are always looking to improve our processes, and as a
result, NSF, as you know, the agency has implemented new
policies to begin and to better communicate how awards serve
the national interest, how management of the NSF's large
facilities is--are managed as well, and the Board and the
Director planned a joint commission, an external independent
review, to look at how NSF manages its cooperative agreements
and to explore areas where they might make improvements to our
procedures and processes.
The National Science Foundation's 2016 budget request
reflects a strategic commitment to support the best basic
research, economic growth, job creation through innovation, and
a globally competitive science and engineering workforce. The
Board believes that the proposal reflects the priorities set by
the scientific community and a clear commitment to investments
that will strengthen our nation over the long term.
I particularly ask for your support for funding of--full
funding of the Agency Operations Award Management account. This
request reflects the need to bring on additional staff to meet
the requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency
Act, cost effectively supporting high-quality, transparent
federal spending information.
Like all Americans, the research community must make tough
choices and set a priority, a challenge that my colleagues and
I, along with the Director, have embraced. Even in times of
severe budget constraints, the Board believes that the
investment in our science and technology capabilities,
including our S&E workforce are essential to our Nation's long-
term prosperity and security.
Our researcherships, observatories have led to
revolutionary technologies, Nobel prizes, and even new states
of matter, accomplishments that are a result of 65 years of a
partnership among scientists, universities, NSF, and Congress.
Thank you for your leadership and for this opportunity to
testify and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Arvizu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr. May
for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIE E. MAY,
ACTING DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. May. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the President's Fiscal Year 2016 budget
request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
NIST, whose mission is to promote U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science
standards and technology in ways that enhance our economic
security and improve our quality of life. The budget reflects
NIST's important role in establishing and addressing the
Nation's top scientific and technical challenges that will
indeed foster the innovation that creates jobs and strengthens
the U.S. economy.
Specifically, the President has proposed a budget for NIST
of $1.1 billion that we--as we have heard earlier. This is a
$256 million increase in the 2015-enacted level. The budget
will support U.S. manufacturers, aid our communities in
recovering from disasters, and improve the ways that we connect
to the world around us from online banking transactions to
using technology to effectively and efficiently manage the
smart grid to support the implementation of smart cities.
The largest portion of the requested increase, $194.4
million, focuses on U.S.-based manufacturing. This includes
research in the NIST labs, support for the Hollings Marine--
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and a new
request for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,
or NNMI.
The NIST laboratories represent the core of our mission.
Our researchers conduct world-class research that advances the
Nation's technological infrastructure and helps U.S. companies
continually improve their products and services. The basic
research in the NIST laboratories has garnered five Nobel
prizes over the last 18 years, a Kyoto Prize in material
science, two National Medals of Science, and over 100 other
national and international scientific awards and prizes.
NIST conducts more applied research in the standards area
in areas of national and global importance including but not
limited to cybersecurity, advanced communications, advanced
manufacturing, advanced materials, and strengthening the
science that underpins the forensic data and information used
to make decisions in our criminal justice system.
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for--on Standards and
Technology Research Services account is for $754.7 million.
This is an increase of $79.2 million over the 2015 budget, and
this is to grow our capacity in advanced manufacturing,
cybersecurity and privacy for our nation's growing digital
economy and for the fundamental measurement science and
technology that is critical to U.S. innovation and improved
quality of life.
The increase will also provide for continued operation of
our world-class Center for Neutron Research and will strengthen
our efforts to support the Nation's community disaster
resilience programs.
Madame Chairwoman, NIST Industrial Technology Services
appropriations supports our External Partnership programs
designed to enhance American innovation and global
competitiveness through partnerships at the state and local
level. For ITS account the Fiscal Year 2016 request is for $306
million. That is a $167 million increase and we recognize that.
$150 million of that would support the establishment of the
NNMI that we have heard about envisioned to be a globally
diverse set of regional hubs coordinated by NIST to accelerate
the development and adoption of new cutting-edge manufacturing
technologies.
The major portion of this amount is to establish two
manufacturing innovation institutes to address the advanced
manufacturing needs identified by industry. The eight
institutes that have been identified to date are focused on
U.S. Government agency needs, namely those of the DOD and the
DOE. The ITS report also supports an $11 million increase--$11
million to increase the ability of our MEP centers to service
small, rural, and young companies.
Our construction budget request is for $59 million. It
represents an $8.7 million over 2015. Simply put, the aging and
deteriorating buildings and infrastructure on our two campuses
are beginning to threaten our ability to accomplish our
mission.
Ms. Chairwoman, the NIST labs play a unique role in the
Nation's research and technology development enterprise. We sit
at the nexus of the science and industry conducting cutting-
edge world-class science and developing standards that will
allow industry to innovate and compete successfully. Both our
labs and our extramural programs are clearly focused on
providing the tools to allow U.S. manufacturing to experience a
renaissance of technological leadership.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today and I will be
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. May follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And thank you to all of our
witnesses. I appreciate having you here today and now we are
going to have five minute question rounds. And I will recognize
myself initially for a five minute round.
Following up on really what all of you talked about in some
regard, could you give us a little bit more detail on the role
that private industry plays in terms of creating and retaining
science and engineering jobs and how--versus the public and how
the money that we are spending can then leverage that private
money? I think you all spoke to that a little bit but if maybe
we could detail that a little bit more and how can we ensure
that we are targeting our resources into areas that will
leverage and create these new 21st century jobs that we all are
very committed to expanding?
Dr. Cordova. I will be happy to start, Madam Chairwoman. So
just two comments. One is that, as you know, NSF has a very
strong STEM workforce investment, and we--especially at the
undergraduate and graduate level but also in K through 12 and
really the whole spectrum of training for science and
engineering careers. In my experience as a university professor
being very close to the students and close to their passion for
getting a job and contributing to the economy and being happy
was that business--private business was very, very interested
in our students because of the skill sets that they got when
they were at the university, and most of our students have the
opportunity to participate because of the funding of places
like NSF and NIST in science and engineering with--along with
their faculty members. And this was just excellent training.
Chairwoman Comstock. In terms of internships and things
that were----
Dr. Cordova. Absolutely. Internships for the summer and
engineering programs. There are internship programs for a whole
year. So that is one aspect of this investment.
And the other is that NSF--I did a broad survey of the
partnerships that our agency has with private industry, and we
have over a couple of hundred partnerships, maybe even more
than that across the whole spectrum of dollar funding that
really leverage our federal investment with private funding.
And sometimes that is on workforce and investment in students
and university, say, centers, engineering centers, industry
university research centers that we fund, and sometimes it is
in the actual science and engineering programs themselves. So
we are--I think we are very good partners. We have an emphasis
this year in particular on accelerating the numbers and kinds
of partnerships that we have with the private sector.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
Dr. Arvizu. If I may just add slightly to that, I will be
brief. I mentioned the ecosystem of the Nation and how NSF
supports fundamental research that ultimately finds its way
into the marketplace. There is probably nothing better than a
few examples----
Chairwoman Comstock. Yes.
Dr. Arvizu. --to describe kind of how that might occur and
so I have got a couple that I think might be useful. I will
just focus on one.
NSF has sponsored fundamental research on synthetic
chemistry and transforming positron emission tomography, PET
imaging, which is an important new technique, and an NSF-funded
chemist, Stephen DiMagno, discovered how to create some organic
compounds rapidly and efficiently. After that, PI was
recognized and went through the I-Corps program that NSF
sponsors along with SBIR, which is special grants. That has
resulted in ground-floor pharmaceuticals from Lincoln,
Nebraska, a company that produces radio tags for this kind of
imaging and they have recently signed an exclusive license with
Massachusetts General Hospital, which will give rise to a whole
suite of new diagnostic techniques in a competitive manner and
allow there to be the fundamental work that was done to provide
a great opportunity for an expansion of things that really I
think offer great and wonderful applications in the
marketplace.
Chairwoman Comstock. Great. Very good.
Dr. May. I think each of us is going to answer this a
little different, so here is my spin on this.
When I came to NIST 43 years ago we had 3,000 employees.
We--actually we had 3,300. Today, with all of the new
assignments and the growth in the organization, we have 3,000
employees, less than we had then, but we have 3,500 associates.
These are people who work on our campus almost on a daily basis
that are not employees that we interact with. So we have
changed our interaction platform considerably.
We have associates from industry, from academia, from other
government laboratories, some foreign laboratories. A large
portion of those are with our students, postdocs and students
who spend time on our campus. We are also gaining new
capabilities that we need to carry out our mission and do some
of the new activities that I heard many of you speak about
through something called joint institutes or centers of
excellence that we are establishing with the university sector.
So as we are growing our program, addressing the new
challenges that we are being asked by the Administration, the
Congress, and industry to take on, we are not doing that by
hiring more federal employees; we are doing more collaborations
and using the talents in the university system and the private
sector to work with us to deliver our mission.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. Thank you.
And I would ask any of you, if you have additional examples
because those examples are always very helpful for us to really
have the object lessons on how this is impacting, so thank you.
And I did--my time is up but I did want to maybe for the
record ask about regulatory and reporting burdens that might--
you know, we have heard that from the universities and
researchers and any of those things that might limit your
ability to target the resources to the best use, and if you
would like to identify any of those for us for the record.
So now I will recognize our Ranking Member Lipinski for his
questions.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to start with Dr. Cordova,
and I have a number of questions. Hopefully we can have a
second round and maybe get through a couple here. But, Dr.
Cordova, I know you have been actively engaged on improving
transparency and accountability at NSF and I want to thank you
for that. I want to join the Chairman in thanking you for that
because all of us want to make sure that the research dollars
are being spent in the best way possible.
But I want to give you an opportunity to explain to the
Members, especially new Members on the Committee, just what you
are doing that is new for transparency and accountability.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Member Lipinski.
So we have been very engaged in enhancing our transparency
and accountability processes since I came 11 months ago to the
agency, and the first thing I want to do is just thank Chairman
Smith and the Members of the overall Committee for moving us
more in that very important direction. It was definitely the
right time and we want to be very responsive. We completely
agree that this is very, very important that the public
understands the investment that this country is making in
science and engineering and STEM education.
We--so we--as of last May, we instituted some new
practices, which--on transparency and accountability which
focused on clarifying, communicating better the titles and the
abstracts for proposals. Those two things were online for all
proposals, and having a nontechnical description which would
clearly say what the proposal's goals were about in clear
English and also what is the potential impact of the research
and how it serves the national interest.
And so that was the order of the day as of last May. As you
can imagine, this is a big change. We get over 50,000 proposes
a year from which we select about 11,000, so it is a big,
complicated engine that works on the whole merit review
process. So we then instituted our practices into guidance,
which came out at the same time as the OMB Uniform Guidance
that--they come out together. We changed our manuals, which are
both internal for program officers doing the overseeing of the
review process and for--and another one for the external
community so that they could see what the expectation was.
And so the effective date of all these changes I would like
to call January 1 of 2015 that we will really see a difference
in what is being done and how it looks to the public and how
they proposals are being reviewed.
On top of that we have training, new kinds of training for
the program officers and division directors that really do the
bulk of the merit review process, and it is--basically it is a
cultural change for the agency. And as you know, Representative
Lipinski, culture change takes a while to take hold. And so--
but all the system directors who are sitting behind me are just
firmly committed to this, each in their own disciplinary area,
and I expect that we will see some real changes here.
I also should add I sent a so-called important notice,
which is sent very rarely--I have only sent out one as NSF
Director so far--to all the university presidents letting them
know of these changes and we have a website of course for
further clarification. We have working groups internally. Every
speech that I have made--I would say every speech that I have
made for the last few months has included a description of our
efforts in this regard.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. I know as a former
academic how tough cultural change is.
I don't have much time but I want to throw this question
out. SBE, the Social and Behavioral Science and Economics
directorate, can you--Dr. Cordova, can you talk about how
important that is to solving grand challenges that we have in
health, energy, education, national security, cybersecurity,
and so many other things?
Dr. Cordova. So the social and behavioral economic sciences
are incorporated--when I go around my university visits--and I
just came back from visiting a few universities and research
centers in the country--are incorporated into really everything
we do and think about as scientists and engineers. So there are
lots of centers, some of which have been funded by NSF, some by
other agencies and some by the universities themselves, or all
of them, and they invariably include social and behavioral and
economic scientists now because they are trying to address some
grand challenges that face our country and our world and they
realize the importance of having the social and behavioral
sciences there to inform.
Let me just give you one example for Chairwoman Comstock
that there is--and the Arizona State University there is a big
bio-design center that embraces lots of particular kinds of
research around that incorporates physics and biology and so
on. They also have as an integral part of that a center called
Nanoscience in Society which everyone goes through, all the
other centers connect to, to evaluate if you are thinking of a
new concept in nanotechnology or really any of the bio and
physical sciences what could be the potential impact and what
are the ethical and legal and kind of public considerations for
how that technology could be used? And I was told that
sometimes scientists just actually make a pause and head off
maybe in a different direction based on being informed by
social and behavioral economic scientists sitting at the table
with them and looking at the potential impact of what they are
developing in their new technological approaches.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. I----
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I thank the Chairwoman for
indulging me there.
Chairwoman Comstock. Great.
And I now recognize Chairman Smith for questions.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cordova, let me say at the outset that that was
wonderful to hear your three examples of breakthrough winners
dealing with treating diseases and oil spills and the brain.
And you quoted the individual I think who won the award for
treating diseases as saying that there is a scientist in every
child. That is a wonderful quote. I intend to plagiarize that
in the future. But I think it does point to frankly the
responsibility we all have and that is to make the study of
science more interesting to young people. And that is the
subject of another hearing, but that certainly should be a goal
of ours in lots and lots of ways.
Thank you, too, for mentioning the computer--the
supercomputer at University of Texas. I only wish I became
Chairman of the Committee a few years earlier so I could have
taken more credit for that supercomputer. But they are pleased
with it and it is doing a lot of good work.
I would like to address my first couple of questions to you
and ask about your policy, which I appreciate and which you
mentioned a few minutes ago as well. And I just want to make
sure that I understand the policy and see if you feel if the
National Science Foundation policy is compatible and agreeable
to the similar provision in the FIRST Act. I am not asking you
to endorse the FIRST Act but just to focus on that provision as
parallel.
Dr. Cordova. Mr. Chairman, thank you for--and Mr. Lipinski
for raising the important issue of greater transparency and
accountability. Your legislative provision--I think it was
Section 106 of the FIRST Act from the last Congress, which
focuses on the national interest is very compatible with the
new NSF internal guidelines and with the mission statement of
NSF, which I quote ``to promote the progress of science to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare and to
secure the national defense.'' We share the same goals and
believe that these policies--transparency, accountability, the
national interest--are to be found in the 1950 law that created
NSF and established our mission.
And so we likewise thought it was important and appropriate
to add the explicit reference the national interest in our
revised guidelines.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And you I assume then support the
language we have in the FIRST Act that deals with that
particular subject?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, we do.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
And, Dr. Arvizu, as Chairman of the Science Board, do you
concur with that? I shouldn't ask you if you agree with Dr.
Cordova because that is not fair but do you agree with the idea
that the provisions in the FIRST Act that we are talking about
and the NSF policy that Dr. Cordova has been promoting and
when--we appreciate that--are compatible and similar and you
support the language in the FIRST Act as well?
Dr. Arvizu. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for the
questions and for asking our input on that.
I think I can speak without reservation that my colleagues
and I on the board--I support the goal that is clearly
articulated in this section and we agree that awards that NSF
makes need to be able to support the best ideas and fulfillment
of the mission that was essentially just quoted by Dr. Cordova.
And we like the whole quote, which includes ``and other
purposes'' but I think the main thing to say here is that we
concur with her assessment of the changes that are being made--
--
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Arvizu. --so I want to thank you for your leadership on
that.
Chairman Smith. And again, it goes below--it goes beyond
agreement, you agree with our language as well and you support
the language we have?
Dr. Arvizu. I think, again, we will offer the opportunity
to offer additional input to make and strengthen that but----
Chairman Smith. Dr. Cordova said she agreed with the
language. Don't you as well or----
Dr. Arvizu. Well, we agree in principle that this is
actually meeting the goals that we are trying to accomplish and
I think it is probably best to wait until the language actually
comes out, but I--with what I have seen so far, I think we can
agree with that language.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you very much.
I have two other questions. Let me come back to
transparency and accountability because I want to ask you, Dr.
Cordova, what you think needs to be done yet. But before I get
there, you had a question a while ago about the SBE
directorate. Do you consider the SBE directorate any more
important than any other directorates? I mentioned in my
opening statement that SBE got a seven percent increase. The
others--Biology, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematical,
and Physical Science Directorates got less. Do you think SBE is
there--more important than the other directorates? Why should
it get a greater increase than the others if it should?
Dr. Cordova. Well, Chairman Smith, those are two different
questions.
The reason why they have a bigger increase is in large part
because of the funding--the increase in funding for the
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, which
is within SBE.
Chairman Smith. If you take that out--what is the increase
if you take that out?
Dr. Cordova. Well, let me just ask Mr. Sievert behind me--
--
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Cordova. --what is the increase if we take out the
Center because that center of course is the basis for the
science and engineering indicators and the Congressional
Research Service depends on----
Chairman Smith. Okay. Well----
Dr. Cordova. --the statistics----
Chairman Smith. Well, that is being----
Dr. Cordova. Sure. Thank you. Fine.
Chairman Smith. --determined--if I can, let me just ask you
to elaborate because I know you are doing some----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Chairman Smith. --positive things in this regard and that
is what remains to be done in the areas of transparency and
accountability? I know you are making some changes and I didn't
know if you wanted to elaborate on those or not.
Dr. Cordova. I think improving communication is always
important when you are making cultural change and so that
people understand clearly what the expectations are. I think we
will have a lot of work to do internally which we would like to
share with the external proposing community on writing
nontechnical descriptions of the research. This will be--this
is kind of a new adventure for some, not for all, and so we--
rather than--as you know, the number of proposals has--over the
last decade has increased tremendously and the number of FTE
have not, so workload is a consideration so we will have to
figure out and we are trying out new pilot programs and merit
review, including virtual panels and all the rest of it to try
to have the merit review process itself be efficient and
effective. And this is all part of it is communicating how we
do this work in that overall context.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Cordova. My time is way
over.
And do you have a quick percentage--and here comes the
answer. You feel like you are--oh, not yet? Okay.
Dr. Cordova. For the record. We will submit it for the
record.
Chairman Smith. Okay. We will look forward to getting that.
Dr. Cordova. Okay.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Dr. Cordova. That is the answer.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I now recognize Mr. Tonko for his questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all of
our panelists. The information feed is awesome.
I represent the capital region of New York, which has been
dubbed by many to be one of the strongest hubs of growth--job
growth in the clean energy innovation high tech economy. And
with that we have great organizations like Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute and the corporate headquarters of GE with
a lot of their innovation that they are incorporating, and the
Polytechnic Institute. So my desire is to continue to build the
foundations to further underpin that regional economy and
certainly the Nation's economy with this growth that is so
important.
By the two agencies that you speak for today, I am really
impressed by the work that you do. So my question is--my focus
is on the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, the
NNMI effort. Dr. May, can you discuss the level of demand for
additional institutes under NNMI and what area of focus do you
envision for those future institutes?
Dr. May. Well, there is a lot of pent-up demand. There is
more than 135 needs that have been identified by NIST, and as I
said earlier, there are eight institutes that have been stood
up and they are mainly stood up to address the needs that were
coherent with the needs of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy.
What are the specific needs that we address? Once we--when
and if we have funding in '16, we will begin a process to
winnow down those unmet needs and have plans to move forward
and establish two institutes going forward and then begin
processing those needs that we have, allowing additional input
obviously to--and then set up a plan for setting up additional
institutes in the out years.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I am a solid advocate for additional
funding for those innovative concepts. What--when making a
selection for a new institute, what other factors are given
consideration? Is it geography, for instance, taken into
account or any prioritization for legacy cities that are
transitioning from an older industrial reliance to perhaps a
new day for--that comes via advanced manufacturing?
Dr. May. Excuse the analogy but we are looking to pick the
best horse and the best jockey.
Mr. Tonko. Okay.
Dr. May. We don't care where that horse and jockey comes
from.
Mr. Tonko. I represent Saratoga so I understand the
language. I understand that language very well.
Dr. May. So we expect to make merit-based decisions.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. I appreciate that.
And to Dr. Cordova, again, welcome. My district includes
the Stratton Air National Guard Base, which hosts, as you know,
the 109th Airlift Wing in Schenectady, and I am proud of the
fact that this year we share the 27th year that the 109th
Airlift Wing has been supported by the National Science
Foundation's Antarctic program as part of Operation Deep
Freeze.
Over the past few months the Guard flew 241 missions
delivering more than 3,000 passengers and 4.5 million pounds of
cargo. Can you provide a brief update on NSF's polar research?
Dr. Cordova. With respect to the 109th I can provide what
the investment is for both Arctic and Antarctic, yes.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. That is fine.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. And then more globally, polar research,
whatever your particular questions are, I would be happy to do
that.
So we have--the Arctic research, the expenditures for 2014
were approximately $2.5 million and we expect to spend the same
in 2015. Spending for the 109th for the Antarctic program were
about $29 million in the last fiscal year. In this Fiscal Year
they will increase to $31.5 million due to higher personnel and
aircraft maintenance costs.
And, by the way, Representative, we are pleased to be part
of that cargo as well.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Dr. Cordova. That is really a wonderful contribution to our
overall program. We depend on the logistics of the Department
of Defense.
Mr. Tonko. And, further, do you see any future plans to
modernize the polar program's aging equipment and aircraft?
Dr. Cordova. We--I--since we get the aircraft support from
a different agency, that is really a question I think that is
appropriate for them. We are looking at substantial
modernization program for the ground support, which of course
services the aircraft, the landing bases and so on. And we are
heavily engaged in preparing a modernization proposal for the
coming fiscal years that is in response to the Blue Ribbon
Committee known as the Augustine Committee. It is desperately
needed after so many decades.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I see my time is out. Just let me
throw a thank you out there for a focus on STEM education. We
are working via some legislation that I have authored that I
hope will continue to bolster our efforts in STEM.
And with that I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Palmer. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
Dr. Cordova, at one point the National Science Foundation
had over $1 billion in expired grant money. Is that still the
case?
Dr. Cordova. I have no idea, Representative. Does--we will
certainly supply that response for the record but--
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Well, one of the reasons I ask is when
you have--you are under a time limit, that that can create some
incentives to fund projects that I would say the public would
find questionable in terms of scientific research. For
instance, I believe we funded a grant to study the gambling
habits of monkeys at $171,000. You spent $856,000 on studying--
teaching lions to run on a treadmill and I am just wondering
if--what the rationale would be for funding some of those
projects because as a Member, we get some pretty intense
criticism, particularly in such a tight budget environment that
we are living in right now.
Dr. Cordova. I understand the question. I don't know about
those proposals. We can certainly get back to you on that
detail. But this really goes to our discussion earlier,
Representative, on the transparency and accountability, and we
just have to be better at communicating what are the goals of
research and what are the potential impacts because sometimes
things that sound obscure can actually be just absolutely
revolutionary and groundbreaking, as you know. The--I--we like
to point out that the original proposal that turned into Google
was called Backrub. Now, that would be something that would
catch your eye, would it not? And--
Mr. Palmer. And I would be interested.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. So--but you see the point and that is why
we really need good titles and nontechnical descriptions and
that makes everybody stop and pause and say, yes, what are the
goals and what could be the impact for society.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Also, could you update us on your
decision to relocate headquarters to Alexandria and explain
some of the factors that are causing a delay in that move?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, of course. So we will--we are in the
process of moving to Alexandria. We should have the shell of
the building all completed I am told by this fall and so our
budget for the relocation effort includes some systems, IT
systems, and some furniture consistent with having that all
ready by Fiscal Year 2016.
You--about the delay, we were told by GSA that they had
accepted the proposal of Alexandria to move there and I believe
that was in the summer of--before this summer in 2013 and then
we reached an impasse with the union on what the--in particular
the office space size would look like and that went to the
Federal Impasse Panel in the late spring and we got the
response in the fall on how that would settle out. And so we
have been working with--we are following the guidance of the
Federal Impasse Panel and actually I--they are--we are able
to--because of the hard work of the team, a very talented team
which I assure you is on this constantly, we are able to
actually be cutting substantially the--in time delay the
initial projections of how long this impasse would lead us to
be delayed, Representative. And so----
Mr. Palmer. Let me----
Dr. Cordova. --this is--this situation is actually got
worse and now is improving substantially and we are hoping to
bring this is close to--as we possibly can----
Mr. Palmer. So you asked for----
Dr. Cordova. --by making compromises.
Mr. Palmer. Let me throw this in----
Dr. Cordova. Yeah.
Mr. Palmer. --real quick. You asked for almost $31 million
to----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Palmer. --to fund the move. Does that include a
potential cost as a result of the delays?
Dr. Cordova. No, it doesn't because those would be in
2017----
Mr. Palmer. Okay.
Dr. Cordova. --the delays.
Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you all for being here. I am
fascinated with the work you are doing, particularly the
quantum-based information, Dr. May.
My time is expired. I now yield to Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Chairman
and Ranking Member for today's hearing and to the three of you
for the tremendous work you are doing every day and for being
so informative for us and ensuring that our country maintains
its position as the leader in research and development really
for the world.
Dr. Cordova, you had spoken about NSF's risk and resilience
initiative so I want to hit two--your topics 3 and 4, risk and
resilience and STEM education. So starting with the first one,
living in Connecticut as I do and we are seeing the effects--
still seeing some of the effects from Superstorm Sandy and
Hurricane Irene. We are acutely aware of the impact that it is
having on our economy as we see more and more extreme weather
events and we are seeing it again with subzero temperatures
almost into March now. Could you speak a little bit further
about what NSF's goals are in focusing on risk and resilience;
and as a follow-up, as someone who serves on the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee where we are also looking at these
issues, can you let us know whether you will be working with
other agencies, including particularly FEMA and Department of
Transportation as part of these initiatives?
Dr. Cordova. So risk and resilience is one of the four
cross directorate initiatives that we are putting a focus on
for the Fiscal Year 2016 budget just because of what you said,
Representative Esty. It is a--we have been experiencing
significant events that are natural, as well as human-made, but
mostly natural events and we just feel that we have to put in
an investment in basic research so that we can be prepared for
those events.
The Fiscal Year 2016 request includes $8.5 million for
cross directorate program that is called Critical Resilience
Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes, so we call
it CRISP for short. It further--it goes a step further than our
other programs that enable research on earthquakes and winds to
include being resilient to all kinds of hazards like tornadoes
and storms and so forth. It focuses on multiple interconnected
systems like electrical power, water, gas, roads, and
communications. And as you know, we have to consider all of
these as a system to be truly prepared and resilient.
We do of course work with other agencies on this and I
don't know the details about what their investments are but we
could describe our particular programs and where they come into
this, but this is something that concerns all the other
agencies. I think our unique contributions are in a systems
approach that brings in engineering as well as basic science
and the social sciences, too, because as you know, you can be
told that a tornado is coming but if you don't have the right
social preparedness among agencies on the ground and the mayor
and the police force and respond to crises appropriately, lives
can still definitely be lost. And so to make us more resilient
so we--because we embraced all of the sciences and engineering,
we figured we can do a lot of basic work.
And also in computer modeling, we have mentioned throughout
this testimony that we have these big supercomputers, and those
are really working very hard and I have gone to see the effort
that they are doing on risk and resilience to really model the
interactions of all the different components, you know, social
and natural.
Ms. Esty. Terrific. That is very helpful, and I am pleased
to hear about that systems-wide approach, sort of an ecosystem
of utilities, as well as transportation, critical
infrastructure, which is also our schools and, you know, our
core institutions.
I was struck by your testimony and highly supportive to
hear you quotes the ``there is a scientist in every child.'' So
I wanted to give you an opportunity to expand a little bit on
the INCLUDES initiative. I have been doing an enormous amount
of work in my district on ensuring that every child,
particularly that young women and children of color have an
opportunity to get excellent STEM skills in each and every one
of our schools and can see themselves as future engineers,
scientists, researchers. So can you tell me a little bit about
what you are doing, how you are collaborating with stakeholder
communities? Thank you.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Representative Esty. The--INCLUDES
is something that is a very personal effort to me. In fact, I
have nominated myself team captain for this effort. It is--we
spend--just if you look at the Congressional Research Service
report, we do make a great investment in what we call
broadening participation, which is another way of looking at
inclusion. We have focused programs, we have emphasis programs
in different areas. But--and as we go around the country and I
do make lots of on-the-ground looks at our efforts--we notice
that they can be very brilliant in their local ecosystem but
they--what we have learned from them and the best practices are
often not communicated to other potential groups and
communities that want to do similar work.
So this emphasis and I think the small amount of money that
we have requested here leverages that huge investment that we
are already making, and this emphasis is on communication of
those best practices, it is on networking. It is really almost
a systems engineering approach and that is why the assistant
directors that are all sitting in this room are--it is the goal
that they are most excited about because they realize that who
is sitting in the seats in our universities are the engineers
of the future is--it should be a critical concern to us to tap
into our national talent.
So we are enthusiastic. We will embrace lots of
communities. We believe that this is a whole community effort.
It starts when you are born and ends when you leave us, and we
want to take advantage of all the talent and excitement and
interest around there and have different approaches to this
challenge.
Ms. Esty. Terrific. Thank you very much. And I see my time
is way expired but we appreciate your commitment on all these
issues. Thank you so much.
Mr. Palmer. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Cordova, welcome back to the Committee.
Dr. Cordova. Oh, welcome back from Antarctica.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Great trip. Thank you. As you have
heard today in this Committee and as you frequently hear, so
much of what the NSF does is important to our country's future
and there are so many important priorities in your budget. I am
glad to see on behalf of my constituents in Oregon--I will name
just a few that are important--clean energy technology, secure
and trustworthy cyberspace. In fact at the state level we are
working with our institutions of higher education and industry
on a Center for Cyber Excellence. STEM education, thank you for
your passion on that issue. As a member of the Education
Committee, there is so much we could be doing. And then as you
discussed with my colleague from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, risk
and resilience. On the West Coast we have different issues from
the issues they face in Connecticut. However, my constituents
are very concerned of course about natural disasters being on
the Cascadia subduction zone.
But I wanted to ask you, Dr. Cordova, about a particular
issue that currently the Oregon State University is leading an
effort to design a regional class research vessel for NSF and
will be operating the first of these new vessels that is built.
We are very fortunate to have this opportunity in Oregon, not
just for the university to have that experience of designing a
vessel, but also for the potential of what we can learn through
the observations made possible by this equipment.
So I was a little concerned because there was a recent
survey conducted by the National Academies that recommended
some reduced funding for operations within the Ocean Sciences
facilities budget, so can you give us an idea on how a
rebalancing of funding within OCE might influence plans to
continue development of this new vessel?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. And let me
just first say that I am just so impressed by your method as a
Congresswoman. When we were on the Antarctica trip you were so
committed to the students in your region that you were
constantly doing very special videos and a whole series to
bring back to the classroom, and you are a role model so----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I just went out to the school
and did a presentation before I came back to D.C. and they were
thrilled.
Dr. Cordova. So on the regional class research vessels, so
you are right. This is an opportunity, and ocean observing and
understanding 70 percent of the planet and what is in there and
how it functions with, you know, the whole world system is
incredibly important research.
So there is intense study at NSF on how many regional class
research vessels are needed and appropriate for the future. We
completed the preliminary design review for this program in
August of 2014 and we presented it as an information item at
the February National Science Board meeting, and it is being
considered right now for presentation as an action item at the
May National Science Board meeting and then the next step would
be if it were put in front of the NSB to request approval for
the advancement to final design phase and inclusion in a future
budget request.
Now, you mentioned the decadal panel. Okay. So that is--
then the decadal panel, as you know, just came to us at the end
of January and so that--an initial preliminary report was made
to the board. It has not been fully digested by the agency. As
you know, we are a very thinking agency----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Cordova. --and we study things very closely and all the
potential impacts and we always--we like to say we set our
priorities based on community input. And so here, as you have
pointed out, Representative Bonamici, there are lots of
different kinds of input so that is being assessed and we will
make a decision.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. That sounds promising and I look
forward to keeping in touch on that.
I wanted to get into questions for Dr. May. Thank you for
your testimony. I look forward to having you visit the
Collaborative Life Sciences Building at Oregon Health and
Science University. We are doing some great work out there. Our
Life Sciences Building is a great partnership between OHSU,
Oregon State, and Portland State to expand the research
activities and really offer a new approach to healthcare
education, so I look forward to your visit.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program has really
done a lot of good in Oregon leveraging federal funds in
conjunction with state and local funding support. I wanted you
to address of course the importance of growing American
manufacturing. How can this budget proposal support a renewed
focus on American manufacturing, especially through the MEP
program?
Dr. May. Well, certainly the MEP program is a program that
is currently authorized that reaches down and touches small and
midsized manufacturers. Right now, we are undergoing a
reshuffling of the deck if you will in the MEP program to try
to do a better job of rightsizing the funding for the
individual centers to the manufacturing ecosystem that they sit
in. Initially for the--most of the MEP grants were made more
than ten years ago. The world has changed a lot in the last ten
years so we are right now trying to--we have just completed the
re-competition for 10 centers. We will do an additional at
least 10 States. We will do an additional 12 this year to try
to make sure we can make sure that the federal contribution to
the state is congruent with the needs of that particular
manufacturing community.
Ms. Bonamici. It is a very important program. I have seen
it working on the ground at some of our businesses so thank you
for your work on that.
My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. I now recognize Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the panelists for being here today.
I am extremely lucky to represent the 5th District of
Massachusetts, which is really a center of life sciences,
biotech, and it is not only an economic engine for
Massachusetts and for the country but it is also, as I--a very
personal effect on the research that you do and sponsor. As I
heard one dad say, a rare disease is only rare until it affects
your child. And the difference is that you are making not only
in jobs and the economy in Massachusetts and across this
country but also in the real effect on people's lives.
And people do not come to my district for the weather. In
fact, when Dr. Cordova was welcoming back my colleague from
Antarctica, I thought you had mixed us up.
But I am concerned. They come to Boston because we have
incredible universities and we have incredible institutions
doing research. That is why they come and that is why keeping
that innovation pipeline is so critical. But there is cynicism
and there is criticism of much of the work that you are doing.
And so I am very interested if any of you can tell me a little
bit more about the STAR METRICS program and how you are
proceeding in being able to put real dollars and really track
the impact of the investment and research that is going
forward.
Dr. Cordova. Should I start?
Ms. Clark. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. All right. Thank you very much. And actually
my first experience as a graduate student, my first field trip
from California was to one of your great institutions to the
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory to do some
research--satellite research.
So NSF really cares about the evaluation of its programs,
especially in the STEM area that you are referring to. We lead
the STAR METRICS, and STAR stands for Science and Technology
for America's Reinvestment Measuring the Effects of Research on
Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science. It is federal and
research institution collaboration, as you know, Representative
Clark, to create a repository of data and tools that would be
useful to assess the impact of federal R&D investments. So we
are very heavily engaged in that.
In addition, our Directorate of Education, Human Resources
invests in foundational research and evaluation through a
program we call PRIME, which stands for Promoting Research and
Innovation in Methodologies for Evaluation program. It
encourages the community to develop new evaluation
methodologies, adapt methods that are successful in other
disciplines, and expand the workforce with the capacity to
conduct evaluation. In addition, we have an evaluation and
monitoring group, which has a five-year evaluation monitoring
plan for everything we do.
So we do take evaluation and educational research very
seriously. In fact, when you see the 11 percent increase in the
EHR, Education Human Resource Directorate, it is mainly for an
increase in undergraduate education and in what you are talking
about in educational research, which includes evaluation and
monitoring.
Ms. Clark. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. May, back to our historic snowfall, I wonder if
you could discuss the progress around the disaster resilience
framework that NIST is developing and other efforts that might
be underway around disaster resilience.
Dr. May. I would say that--well, NIST is not operating by
itself in this space----
Mr. Palmer. Dr. May, will you hit your button please?
Dr. May. I apologize. We don't operate alone in this space.
I mean you have heard some of the things that NSF does. Even
within the Department of Commerce there are equities when--in
NOAA----
Ms. Clark. Yeah.
Dr. May. --since they predict the weather and they look at
the coastal environment, the Economic Development Agency, the
Minority Business Development Agency, so we are all working
together. But the unique thing that NIST does is sort of looks
at what our science and engineering investigations can do to
influence regulations and codes that might support the built
environment. And speaking to recent activities in your area of
the country, we have not dispatched a team there yet because
one of the guidelines we have is that there is some new
occurrence where we can glean things, so we don't go out like
FEMA anytime there is an emergency. Our engagements are highly
measured.
But certainly what will happen and would happen is we would
look at what changes are there in the climate or whatever that
would warrant scientific investigations that might need to have
changes in the building codes and so forth to better protect
the built environment.
Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you.
I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. Without objection, I recognize Ranking Member
Lipinski for one minute.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much.
I know we have a hard stop so we can't ask any more
questions. I just wanted to thank you all for being here. One
thing I was going to address but we talked about I-Corps. I am
glad--very happy to see the strong support, strong number for
I-Corps in the budget. I have been--everyone knows I have been
the biggest supporter of that and it is great to see that it is
very successful.
And, Dr. May, I am going to submit a question for the
record about NIST activities concerning spectrum sharing also,
but thank you all again very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments and written questions from
the Members. The witnesses are excused and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Honorable France Cordova
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by The Honorable Daniel Arvizu
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Willie E. May
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]