[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MAINTAINING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 6, 2019 __________ Serial No. 116-4 __________ 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 35-402PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma NEAL DUNN, Florida MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana DON BEYER, Virginia VACANCY CHARLIE CRIST, Florida VACANCY SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KATIE HILL, California BEN McADAMS, Utah JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia C O N T E N T S March 6, 2019 Page Hearing Charter.................................................. 2 Opening Statements Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives................................................ 8 Written Statement............................................ 10 Statement by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives................................................ 12 Written Statement............................................ 14 Witnesses: Dr. Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences Oral Statement............................................... 18 Written Statement............................................ 20 Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh Oral Statement............................................... 27 Written Statement............................................ 29 Dr. Mehmood Khan, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, PepsiCo; and Chair, Council on Competitiveness Oral Statement............................................... 36 Written Statement............................................ 38 Discussion....................................................... 50 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Dr. Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences....... 82 Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh...... 87 Dr. Mehmood Khan, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, PepsiCo; and Chair, Council on Competitiveness................. 94 Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record Document submitted by Representative Michael Cloud, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology................................. 102 MAINTAINING U.S. LEADERSHIP. IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. Committee will come to order. Before I begin my opening statement, let me just apologize for being late. We were on the floor, and I know that there are Members en route, and I'll try to get my breath so we can get started. Good afternoon, and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. We called you here today because of your decades of collective experience and wisdom about the U.S. science and technology (S&T) enterprise, and I look forward to learning from you. I've always said that there is no more important Committee in Congress than the Science Committee when it comes to determining our Nation's future. In this Committee, we have an opportunity to look beyond the politics of today to develop the best policies for tomorrow. This afternoon the Committee will discuss key opportunities and challenges as we develop legislation, and lead discussions within Congress, on what we need to do to secure our future prosperity. We will hear about the current state and history of S&T enterprise, the increasing international competition, and what that means to our economic and national security, how we can best educate and train a skilled workforce for the 21st century, and how the government, universities, and private sector can best partner to maintain U.S. leadership. According to data reported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. now ranks number 11 in the world in research intensity. We are behind several countries in R&D (research and development) as a share of the GDP. China has surpassed us in total research publication output, and East Asian countries as a group have surpassed the U.S. In total number of R&D dollars invested, the U.S. was still leading in 2016, which is the latest data that the NSF has reported, but China likely surpassed us last year. It has also been a given that the U.S. leads in investments in fundamental research at our universities and national labs, but we are close to dropping out of the top ten, even in basic research investments. The numbers are sobering, but they don't tell the full story, so I look forward to hearing from our experts about what this all means. When we look at the state of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education and STEM workforce in the U.S., we also have cause for concern. Our students have not shown improvements in math or science assessments in the last decade, and they continue to perform well behind the average for top-performing countries internationally. There are significant achievement gaps across economic, and racial, and ethnic lines. The underrepresentation of minority groups persists through STEM-degree attainment, and participation in the STEM workforce. While women are doing much better than they used to, they continue to be significantly underrepresented in fields key to U.S. competitiveness, including computing and engineering. There is high demand for STEM skills that don't require a 4-year degree, but there is still a stigma associated with these jobs, even though they pay well. By 2050, today's minorities will be the majority. Simple math tells us that if we do not increase the number of women and minorities earning STEM degrees and participating in the STEM workforce at all levels, we will experience dire workforce shortfalls in the not-too-distant future. Some companies in the technology sector tell us that the shortfall is already here. I'm an optimist. These numbers are cause for concern, but we should also view them as a rallying cry for action. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us. We have many ideas on our agenda already, but I'm sure today's hearing will give us more. I'm confident that we will hear good ideas from the scientific experts, and from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to today's discussion. [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. With that I yield back, and recognize Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this important hearing on Maintaining United States Leadership in Science and Technology. Science and technology are central to America's national defense and economic security. Our Nation's founders understood that science was fundamental to our Nation's ability to prosper. Article 1 of the Constitution gave Congress the power to promote the progress of science. Americans are pioneers, and their spirit has always driven our support for science. In 1862, President Lincoln signed a land grant bill to fund a system of industrial colleges, one in each State, to conduct valuable research. I'm a proud graduate of one of those land grant institutions. He also signed the charter that created the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s saw exponential increases in our scientific capacities, and the creation of the National Science Foundation, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the Department of Energy, and the National Laboratories. Basic research forms the foundation of discoveries that fuel private-sector development and commercialization. It also provides a training ground for our Nation's scientists, engineers, and other STEM workers. Companies across the country are desperate for workers with skills to fill 21st century jobs. The United States is the world's largest research and development investor. U.S. Government and industry spent a combined $511 billion in 2016, generating over $860 billion for our Nation's economy, while supporting over 8 million jobs. The basic research our government supports is foundational to our economic success. It allows us to stay at the forefront of cybersecurity, medical treatments, agricultural production, and technology exports. Government-funded research is translated into technology that supports our lives on a daily basis. For example, government supported research has given us a better understanding of the relationship between food production, water, energy, and making agriculture more productive. That benefits the farmers and ranchers in my home State of Oklahoma, of course, but it also improves our food supply, and reduces consumer food prices. A gene editing technique that allows for precise interventions that revolutionize healthcare by treating genetic disorders, and creating targeted cancer therapies. It also has the potential to improve our food supply by enhancing crop production, and improving livestock health. Americans in every part of the country can access high- performing wireless networks thanks to the NSF-funded research, which provided the basis for 4G wireless communications. And Mammoth Trading, an online market system to lease water rights grew from NSF-funded research on groundwater pumping rights. Farmers now enjoy better risk management tools, lower costs for water reallocation, and increased productivity and improved water sustainability. I can go on and on, but I think it's clear that America's technology supremacy is a pillar of our economy. Unfortunately, our dominance is under threat. China is narrowing the gap, and may surpass the United States in total R&D spending this year. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to prioritize basic research and development, and this is not an easy task as we face enormous budget challenges, but it can be done. On a bipartisan basis this year, Congress supported $151.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2019 for Federal R&D, a 6 percent increase, and the highest point ever in inflation-adjusted dollars. As the Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I'm committed to working with Chairwoman Johnson and the appropriators to continue to meet this challenge. To achieve this, however, I believe we need to collectively do a better job of explaining why science matters to all Americans. We need to break down the barrier between the ivory tower of academia, the hallways of Silicon Valley, and the Main Street of Cheyenne, Oklahoma. My family has lived and farmed in Oklahoma for 100 years. When I look out my front porch, I can see a living laboratory of what science has done to improve American life. From the disease-resistant wheat that grows on my farm, to the vaccines that keep our cattle healthy, to the wind turbines on the horizon that provide a third of the State's electricity, these are real, tangible ways that science and technology have made our lives better. And it would not have happened without the longstanding government, academic, and industry research ecosystem that is the envy of the world. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses about how we can work together to meet this challenge, and to ensure that America continues to lead technological advancement. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. We will now introduce our witnesses. We have Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Sciences. She has a Bachelor's in Physics from Colorado College, a PhD in Earth Sciences, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and is a geophysicist, and the 27th--second President of the National Academy of Sciences. From 2013 to 2016 she was Editor-in-Chief of Science journal. She was Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from 2009 to 2013, during which time USGS responded to a number of major disasters, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. For her work to help contain that spill, she was awarded the U.S. Coast Guard's Meritorious Service Medal. She is a Fellow of the American Geophysics Union (AGU), the Geological Society of America, the American Association of the Advancement of Science, and the International Association of Geodesy. Ms. McNutt is a member of the American Physiological Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a foreign member of the Royal Society of the U.K., and the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1998 she was awarded the AGU's Macelwane--Macelwane Medal for research accomplishments by a young scientist, and she received the Maurice Ewing Medal in 2007 for her contributions to deep sea exploration. Thank you for being here. Following Ms. McNutt, Mr. Patrick Gallagher. As the University of Pittsburgh's 18th Chancellor, Mr. Gallagher directs one of the Nation's premiere public institutions of higher education and research. In this role, he oversees a community on the move of more than 34,000 students at five distinct campuses. He also supports the work of more than 13,000 faculty and staff members, who are committed to advancing the University's legacy of academic excellence, community service, and research innovation. Under his leadership, Pitt has strengthened its status as one of the Nation's premiere public institutions for higher education and research, including being named the top public university in the Northeast by The Wall Street Journal and Time's Higher Education. Prior to his installation at Pitt, Mr. Gallagher spent more than 2 decades in public service. In 2009 President Barack Obama appointed him to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). While in this role, he also served as Acting Deputy Secretary of Commerce before leaving for Pitt in the summer of 2014. Today he serves as the Chair of Internet2, and is active as a member of boards and forums, including the NCAA Division I President Forum and the Allegheny Conference of Community Development. He also completed terms of a wide range of community boards and committees, including President Obama's 12-person Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity in 2016. He holds a PhD in Physics from Pitt-- it's Pitt, Pitt, Pitt, isn't it? And a Bachelor's Degree--I'm just jealous. I'm from Texas. A Bachelor's Degree in Physics and Philosophy from Benedictine College in Kansas. Thank you. Mr. Mehmood--Dr. Mehmood Khan, the Vice Chair and Chief Scientific Officer of PepsiCo. He is PepsiCo's Vice Chair and Chief Scientific Officer, head of global R&D. PepsiCo's businesses make hundreds of foods and beverages that are respected names globally. Prior to joining PepsiCo, Dr. Khan was President of the Takeda Global Research and Development Center, overseeing Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company's worldwide R&D efforts. Previously, he was an attending--he was attending staff endocrinologist at Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School in Rochester, Minnesota, serving as director of diabetes, endocrine trials unit. Dr. Khan has been recognized by academic and international organizations, including honorary doctorate degrees, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, Career Achievement Award, and Pinnacle Award, and is an elected fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in London. He serves as Chair of both the U.S.- Pakistan Business Council, and the U.S. Council of Competitiveness in Washington, D.C., and is a member of the board of FFAR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He also serves as judge for the Lemelson Innovation Prize at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thank you for being here. We will begin with our first witness, Dr. McNutt. TESTIMONY OF DR. MARCIA MCNUTT, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. McNutt. Well, Chairwoman Johnson, and Members of this distinguished Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you've heard, I'm Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization that was chartered by Abraham Lincoln as non-partisan advisors to the Nation. I'd like to discuss what I believe is one of the most important issues facing our Nation, the health of the U.S. innovation enterprise, and the implications for our long-term global competitiveness. Allow me to begin with the following question. How do we gauge the competitiveness of American science and technology on an international scale? So it's true that the U.S. is the world leader in Nobel Prizes. We also lead in creating new industries from science discoveries, and in translating basic science into novel medical therapies that improve our lives, but these are all lagging measures of our competitiveness. An operator of a manufacturing plant would not wait until products stop coming off the assembly line to realize that she needs to order more raw materials. In the same way, the U.S. cannot afford to wait for a decline in top international awards, or until our high- tech industries stagnate to realize that we've already lost our edge. So then, what are the leading measures of our competitiveness that we should be tracking, and how are we doing in those leading measures? The first measure is investment in research and development. Well, thanks to the farsightedness of this Committee, and Congress in general, the U.S. is doing OK, but I'm concerned. You've already heard that China's catching up, and may surpass us, and with the sequestration caps, we could fall behind. And there is nothing more disruptive to the U.S. science enterprise than huge swings in science budgets. That could be crippling to us. Therefore, we can't stop now in continuing our investment. Also, when I ask people from all perspectives, whether it's young researchers, established researchers, or industry consumers of government-funded science, where we are underinvesting, they say it's in high-risk, high-reward research. Too many of the Federal funding programs have become overly conservative, such that only incremental research that looks like a sure bet can get funded. This is not the sort of research that leads to the breakthroughs that fuels tomorrow's new industries. A second indicator of our competitiveness in science and technology is the extent to which the world's most brilliant young researchers seek to train and work in the U.S. research enterprise. Without a doubt, we are in a global competition for the best talent. What has put the U.S. on top in science and technology is that for decades the world's best and brightest have flocked to our universities to be educated, and the most capable of these have stayed in it to enrich our enterprise. So the question is, is that still the case today? The answer is, sadly, no. Applications for graduate school in science and engineering departments nationwide from abroad are in the decline. There is a strong perception, if not the reality, that international students are not welcome here. On top of that, international students, even if we train them here, are now being lured back home by excellent jobs, first-class equipment, and better funding. While we should still try to attract the most promising young scientists, no matter what their national origin, and work to keep them here, if they are the best, we should resign ourselves to the fact that we will no longer have the same supply of talent from overseas. I agree completely with Chairwoman Johnson that we have to draw upon the full human resources we have here at home. It used to be that science was a white male occupation. Thanks to concerted effort, now a significant faction of excellent women scientists populate the ranks in many science departments. Unfortunately, science still fails to attract minorities to the field. We cannot meet our need for top scientists if we do not aggressively attract a workforce that reflects the full diverse talent of America. While the U.S. needs to remain the top competitor, at the same time, I believe strongly in scientific cooperation. There exists a certain scale of science that transcends the ability of a single nation to invest sufficiently to solve problems at the cutting edge. All problems benefit from such cooperation, but no one lines up to cooperate with the B team. If we lose our edge as the A team, opportunities for international cooperation will suffer as well. The U.S. has already ceded leadership in a number of areas. Why would we cede leadership in science? It benefits our quality of life, and it feeds our innovation machine. We can keep our edge if we invest in high- risk, high-reward research, attract a more diverse scientific workforce, and keep our doors open to international talent. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. Now Dr. Gallagher. TESTIMONY OF DR. PATRICK GALLAGHER, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Dr. Gallagher. Thank you. Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Lucas, and all the Members of the Committee, you know, after being in front of this Committee regularly for many years, it's a distinct pleasure to be back before you today to talk on this important topic of Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology. As investments, the investments we make in science and technology are among the highest payback investments that any nation can make. And, in fact, the United States owes much of its current economic leadership, military superiority, high standard of living, health and safety for our citizens, energy security, and our dominant geopolitical leadership position to these S&T investments. By any measure, the return on investment has been remarkable. But the United States faces a dramatically different global S&T enterprise now. Instead of standing alone, other nations have recognized the importance of R&D to their industrial competitiveness, and so any assessment of U.S. leadership must be a comparison of the U.S. S&T enterprise against this changing global enterprise. And the rapid growth of science and technology in these other countries should cause us to re- evaluate and re-examine our approach. More than anything else, our S&T success is built on talent, so leadership must be assessed by the quantity, the quality, and the usefulness of that talent to our national needs. We must face these international competitive pressures first by remaining an attractive location for worldwide talent. America's university system is immensely capable, which is why the United States has been the destination of choice for the best and brightest international students for decades. But now our competitors are making a concerted effort to attract these same students, and they are beginning to succeed. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) data show that the share of the world's internationally mobile students enrolled in the United States fell by 25 percent between 2000 and 2014. Our universities must remain welcoming, engaging, and respectful of higher--of international students, employees, and visitors regardless of their country of origin. Indeed, our competitiveness depends on it. Global leadership in S&T is as essential to U.S. interests as it has been in the past, but we need to examine whether some of our long-held assumptions remain valid in this air of increasing global competition. First, you know, training the next generation of scientists and engineers is an essential goal of R and--Federal R&D policy. In fact, I would say, arguably, no other investment has a larger effect on the ultimate size, quality, and composition of the U.S. talent in the United States. But training PhDs and post-docs is incredibly expensive, and, so far, unavoidably time intensive. In the past, we made these decisions based on our own needs, and not on the context of what others were doing around us, and we have not yet found ways to link industry's workforce needs effectively and efficiently to the rate at which Federal R&D investments can or should change. If--failing to do this, we risk severe oversupplier shortages in science and technology workforce. Second, we need to develop more effective ways to reconcile our government's appropriate goal of supporting U.S. economic competitiveness with a largely segmented R&D enterprise. A wide and growing--the--two issues jump out in this space. There is a wide and growing gap between the public sector-funded and university led world of basic research with the private sector- funded and industry-led R&D space there. Indeed, many of the largest R&D performers in industry are now multinational companies, with a footprint in multiple countries, so they benefit from the S&T investments around the world. And, finally, we can no longer assume a hegemonic American dominance of global R&D. The two most populous countries in the world, China and India, are making enormous strides in their development, and this is no accident. They maintain deliberate and sustained strategies to mimic U.S. S&T policy, and they are now reaching a scale comparable to ours. Both are becoming much more economically and technically competitive, and they will remain so. For this reason, we need to have a better collective understanding and situational awareness of the global R&D sector. Other countries are very systematic in their efforts to collect, translate, and analyze our science policy documents, in fact, much more so than we are of theirs. That is a shortcoming that should be corrected. In the future, even the United States will not be able to afford leading every science and technical field, so we will need to be more sophisticated in identifying those areas where the U.S. must have the leadership position, and where a position of parity with the research capacity of our competitors, or even a posture of careful watching, can be maintained. So, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I would once again like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon, and I look forward to you--as you tackle these important issues, and I'm looking forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Gallagher. Dr. Khan? TESTIMONY OF DR. MEHMOOD KHAN, VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER AT PEPSICO Dr. Khan. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Members of the Committee. I am the Chairman of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, and I just want to mention, as a council, we're nonpartisan members of an organization of 150 CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders, national laboratory directors, founded in 1986. We're dedicated to development of impactful policies and actions that boost U.S. productivity, drive inclusive prosperity for every American, and ensure the success of U.S. goods and services in the global marketplace. That context, and the fact--and I won't repeat what you've already heard, but I'll give an industry perspective. I've had the honor of leading R&D in three different industries, and starting my career as an academic in a lab that was funded by government research dollars, and I represent just about every scientist that you're going to find in industry in this country at some point will actually have their roots, and their training, at an academic institution or a national laboratory that was funded by the government. So this is not a discussion about just supporting research in an academic setting, or research in a national laboratory setting, but ultimately, in the absence of that, we actually do not have a pipeline of scientists, and STEM graduates, and STEM trained individuals who will actually work in global companies, like mine at PepsiCo, and as I just announced this week, I'm retiring from my job at--as Vice Chairman of PepsiCo to take over as CEO of a startup biotechnology company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And that amazing ecosystem, and several ecosystems around this country that are innovation hubs, rely on this pipeline of talent, and the thousands and tens of thousands of jobs that not only big companies create, but small startups, which are the primary engine of new job creation. So what is different about the past versus today? You've heard about competitors. I won't repeat that, the fact that we are losing the lead in investment, but what I want to add to that and build on is the fact that the pace of change in science and technology has accelerated dramatically, even in my career over the last 30 years. Not only has it accelerated, but we are now seeing large disruptors. What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look at what's happened, where we have traditionally led in--as U.S. technology with this digital revolution, which I would argue the U.S. ecosystem essentially created. As a result of that, we're seeing vast deployment of sensors, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, gene editing, nanotechnology, autonomous systems, we all hear about this, but the fact is these are converging, and no longer individual disciplines, but when it comes to application into the real world, they actually are converging in their use, and being leveraged. And if we do not continue to develop the people who will use the next generation of these, we will not only have a workforce that's not trained, but a workforce that can't leverage the successes of this. Unfortunately, as I look at it as a recent Member of the Oversight Committee at NIST, what really surprised me, in the early days of learning, is that more than half the facilities at NIST, on its two main campuses, are in poor to critical condition, and, unfortunately, that is reflected in many national laboratories around this--around the country. These were our--have been, and still in many ways are, the crown jewels of so much of the work that we've done in the past. We absolutely need to invest in them, because industry relies on those basic discoveries, for us to convert them. What I always coin is, we take the inventions from the academic and national laboratory system and make them into innovations. And that bridge, and that partnership of invention to innovation has been what's been driving not only the academic system, but our industry, and ultimately our commerce. What are the options? And let me touch very briefly on--we can get into this in the discussion. As a council, we continue to recommend a number of steps. We Americans need to take many steps, including growing the number and diversity of STEM graduates, STEM educated workforce. You've heard that. We need to create greater opportunities for experiential learning, such as apprenticeships. Not everything needs a degree, and not everything needs a graduate degree. We need a workforce that is trained in STEM across the entire spectrum, but ultimately those will be developed and trained in the academic environment that we have, starting from kindergarten up to 12th grade, then college, and on to graduate school. In conclusion, Americans are recognizing this. A number of surveys have shown that this is a high priority for our citizens. And, with this in mind, the Council has launched a National Commission on Innovation and Competitiveness Frontiers to double down on our efforts to optimize the Nation for this new unfolding innovation reality. I'm proud to serve as co- chair of this Committee, alongside Professor Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, and over the next 3 years the commission is going to assemble top minds from industry, academia, labor, and the national laboratories to sharpen national, regional, and local leaders' understanding of this dramatically changing innovation ecosystem. But I will leave you with one statistic which keeps me up at night the most, and that is, as a leader of a large industry R&D and small industry R&D, the average age of a science graduate working in industry, across all industries in the U.S. today, is already over the age of 50. While I have nothing personal against being over the age of 50, I can tell you that that means, within a decade, approximately half of our science- trained graduates in industry will be retirement eligible. We have no line of sight today on how to replace them. We need to figure out the policies, bipartisan, collectively, and ultimately, if my colleagues to my right do not have the resources to invest, I don't have the pipeline in the future to keep our companies running. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Khan follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. We'll begin our first round of questions, and I want to say to Members of the Committee that are present that if you have statements--opening statements, you can be--place them in the record, and each of us will have questions as we go around. [The prepared statement of Mr. Posey follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] It's hard to determine, actually, where I want to go, but I'd like each of you to comment. I feel, frankly, that we're at a crossroads, and the next 10 to 20 years will determine whether we're going to remain competitive. And try to see if you can give me three or four major points that we must accomplish to catch up and stay ahead of our competitors outside this country. I'll start with Dr. McNutt. Dr. McNutt. So I mentioned three of them, and the three being we have to start recruiting, in a way that we haven't been able to so far, a fully diverse workforce domestically. The second one is we have to keep our doors open to the very best and brightest internationally, and not inadvertently turn them away. Third, we have to maintain an investment in-- financial investment in the R&D enterprise, particularly in high-risk, high-reward work. Whether it's basic research or applied research, it doesn't matter, but that's the kind of work--I talk to so many people who gave me examples of breakthroughs that were turned down by our Federal agencies, and they had to cobble together other funding in order to get it to happen. So I think those are three top ones, but I also would--now that you asked me for more, I would also say that one reason why so many of these international students look so good is that they have education programs that start at 5 years old, training these students so that they are super prepared for a career in science and technology, and they do not stop anywhere through their education program. And we don't do that as well. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Gallagher? Dr. Gallagher. So, Chairwoman, I'll actually answer as if I was sitting in your chair a little bit, in terms of what the priority should be. I think--I agree with you, this is a pivotal time. I would say we need a goal. One of the interesting things I would say is that one of the reasons that these developing countries have made such progress is they lit their hair on fire, and made this a national priority, from their perspective, to copy, emulate, and to scale up a U.S.- style S&T enterprise in their countries. It--they are top priorities. They have mobilized their resources to do it, and it reminds me of times when the United States did the same thing. Our post-Sputnik response was a massive R&D investment and commitment that went beyond just the funding, but to getting the country excited and focused on STEM and production, and I think it's time for a goal, a national goal, for why this is important. The second thing I would say is that the U.S. S&T enterprise has been based on a partnership. It has always been, for the last 70 years, a partnership between industry, universities, and the Federal Government. Our national labs were set up when industry mobilized and managed them for a dollar to meet national needs. The Federal Government agreed to provide the basic support to--on science. The universities agreed to be both basic science performers, and to train the next generation, and I think we have to look to the health of that partnership. I think there are signs of it pulling apart a little bit. And the last one is that I don't think there's a silver bullet easy fix to this. Our competitors are doing this by writing 5-year plans and taking a sustained strategy over time. So I think what we need, in addition to that goal, is a sustainable commitment. Hopefully a bipartisan commitment, but certainly a national commitment about why this is in our best interest, why we make these investments in our national treasure, and why this is so important to our vitality as a country. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Khan? Dr. Khan. Let me build on my colleagues. I, again, would emphasize the investment in government-funded research, but in particular foundational research, as the pipeline of the next generation of ideas, and we need to prioritize. We can't do everything, but we have to figure out what is of strategic importance to us as a country. I would emphasize not only the increasing training required, and diverse, but we have to come up with new training models. We cannot fill this gap that is coming in our technical workforce in the next 5 to 10 years using a traditional model. And I think this is where industry, public and private partnerships, have to come together and say, are there greater efficiencies to be had in our educational model that will fulfill our workforce requirement? There are thousands of jobs available today which aren't being filled because we don't--we have a skills gap, and those jobs need to be filled today. It takes years to create, so we have to do both. And how do we do that? And the third is, do we have the policy framework for the right public-private partnerships and transfer of research and knowledge efficiently and as fast as possible so that we can benefit as a society from the investments being made by government. A lot of great ideas that sit within our national laboratories within our system that we in industry could use today, and commercialize, and bring economic value to the country. What would it take to do that? Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Now I'll call on Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, continuing on that line of discussion, Dr. Khan and Dr. Gallagher, in Oklahoma my universities tell me that they have 2,000 open engineering positions, jobs, in the State, more than the local engineering departments can currently produce. Continuing down this course about how industry and academia, from their perspective, can work together to meet that demand--and we're talking about Oklahoma. Two thousand more engineering jobs than they can create the engineers for. Would you continue to expand on where you were headed there? Dr. Khan. Well, I think there's--there are a number of approaches we can take, and each has a, you know, each situation is different. So, with that context, some cases we, as an industry, are going to have to look and say, what level of education is required to fill a certain job, or can we retrain an individual to that specific job? But then, if we're going to retrain them, through an accelerated program, to be able to do the job, who do we partner with? What will it take? How do we do that? I'll give an example. I can't--we have challenges filling jobs with food safety--just to do auditing. Can we partner with a university? We at PepsiCo recently just partnered with a university and said, can we do a 12-month training program in order to fulfill the needs? It's not a 4- year degree, but can we, in 12 months, get them ready for that? There are different models. That's one. The second is can we train people in the job to get academic credentials? So while they are fulfilling their day job, what will it take for them to get the advanced credentials, and which universities can we partner with? So I'll give you those two as examples, because many of these are working people with families. I have many employees, in particular women, who are at a career stage where, early in their career, they did not go and get an advanced degree. Now the children have grown up, but they can't leave the workforce. I can't afford for them to leave, and they can't economically do it. What will it take to get a graduate degree or a Master's in Engineering on the job? Using our own laboratories, maybe-- these are all ideas. I think we have to work together to explore those, but I'll defer to Dr. Gallagher. Mr. Lucas. Dr. Gallagher? Dr. Gallagher. Your question reminds me--I remember when I was in the Commerce Department, and I was talking with some CEOs, and they sounded just like your question. You know, there's this huge demand, we can't find this talent. And then the next day I was talking with some labor economists, and they said, no, that's not true. I said--they said, those guys aren't right, because if you look at the salaries and other things, we're seeing no signs of a workforce shortage. And, of course, there's data that suggests that as well. I think this mismatch we have about being--we all want to be market sensitive. Universities want to produce what's needed, and there seems to be a lot of evidence that those market signals are not very good right now. One of the things that may be happening is that fields like engineering, that are actually quite broad--when industry says they need engineers, they're actually talking about a specific type of engineer, and there's a gap between sort of the general degree and the actual skillset that's needed. And so this-- there's a gap between the educational space and the workplace. The one obvious place where that can be addressed is to bring those two worlds closer together. And that's why I said this partnership model was built when--I know when I went to school, the companies that were doing R&D were right in our labs, collaborating with us. There was a lot of shoulder rubbing. And I think, whether it's the undergraduate level, or up through the graduate and professional training level, we have to make sure that those two worlds sit side by side. That's probably the best way to address this gap. Mr. Lucas. In my remaining time, to anyone on the panel who would care to discuss it, in my opening statement I mentioned the need to better explain the value of the Federal investment in science and technology to all of our fellow Americans. From the role I sit in on this side, I have to justify every penny when we deal with--as authorizers with the appropriators, and we deal with the various taxpayer-sensitive groups back home, and we deal with the citizens who come to our town meetings. Just for a moment, if anyone would care to touch on this, how we do a better job of explaining the story, the connection, that science has to the real world for our folks back home, the real people? Dr. Khan. Let me give two very easy--one is look at the competition. If there wasn't value, then--just about every emerging country and developed country is aggressively competing for R&D centers. As a global company, as a global organization, wherever I go, the first question I get is, will you build an R&D facility in this country? And that takes a very high priority, because R&D investment not only creates the number of R&D jobs, but the domino effect, and knowledge transfer, and the ability, then, to leverage it into the economy comes right at the top of the list. So that's number one. The second is the fact that, as we look at all of the new jobs that are being created in this country, as we speak today, the vast majority are on the back of new technology that was actually developed in this country. The Internet, developed by the Federal Government. The digital age. Everything--the examples I gave you all came out of technology that eventually became industries. Mr. Lucas. Panel's been very insightful. I thank you, Madam Chairman, yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Now I call upon Mr. Lamb. Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to extend a special welcome to Chancellor Gallagher, the Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, and I, like you, remembered to wear my Pitt colors today, so we're very proud and happy to have you here. You have done a fantastic job, and your testimony today highlighted a couple of important things, one of which is the fact that we have a long way to go when it comes to advanced manufacturing, and preparing that pipeline of talent, the material science, but also preparing the workers themselves who will be taking those jobs in the future. Obviously, I would love to see Western Pennsylvania play a leading role in that, as I know you would. One of the things that you stressed in your testimony, and the Brookings report that you referred to talked about it as well, is the role of the manufacturing institutes in preparing us both on the scientific side, but also the pipeline of workers that we'll need. Can you talk a little bit about how the Advanced Robotics Manufacturing Institute in Pittsburgh has helped, maybe the one in Youngstown as well, our neighbor, and how we could improve those to maybe build on the partnership that you keep talking about between industry and the universities and the government? Dr. Gallagher. Great, thank you. And thank you for wearing the tie. I always appreciate that. So one of the reasons we keep focusing on manufacturing is, I think, always surprising to people. It's not just the making of things, and the workforce issues. That's often sort of that view that we get. The reason manufacturing, in my mind, is so important is that, in the United States, if you look at all of that half-trillion dollars R&D spend that we make every year, almost three quarters of that--we're approaching $3 on every dollar that the Federal Government placed. So the private sector side is now the dominant amount of R&D spend in the United States. And if you look at where that's coming from, it's predominantly from manufacturers, R&D intensive manufacturers, and that's where this R&D--this advanced manufacturing comes from. So this is as much about the knowledge economy as it is about where things are made. There is where the know-how is. But it also has an outsized effect on our traded economy, the balance of goods, on our middle class, so there's a lot of very strong economic reasons why the advanced manufacturing sector is there. Here's the problem I see. Despite the fact that the private sector's R&D has grown faster than the Federal Government's--so we went from a time, during the peak of the Apollo, when the Federal Government's expenditures were larger than the private sector to now one where they're three times larger, is that the makeup has shifted. The--where the money goes from the industry side now is largely focused on late-stage R&D and development, whereas universities now are specialized more on the basic R&D side, so the two worlds are actually quite far apart. And of the challenges--can we bring them together? So you could certainly have universities try to do industry-like things, and, of course, entrepreneurship and other things is a way of pushing them to get more commercial, but part of the strategy should be, how do you pull industry toward the universities? The idea behind those institutes was to get industry--a number of industries together, like a consortia, identify a pre-competitive agenda, one that they're willing to share, and that tends to be, you know, less sensitive, and something that the universities can work with. And so the idea behind the institutes, if you think about it, was a consortia with a lab. I think they've been remarkably successful, but they're quite young. For me, the litmus test of success is do they--are they sustainable, and does industry see a value in sort of moving decidedly in funding this pre-competitive window, and does that attract that shoulder rubbing I was talking about between the universities and the world of industry? Interestingly, this--these workforce issues we see in manufacturing are, you know, who brokers that? One of the exciting things, I think, is that these consortia have often looked--a lot of the employment comes in the supply chain, but once you have a consortia, the consortia often takes ownership over that supply chain. We saw that with Semetec and the chip manufacturing. A lot of that R&D investment that the chip manufacturers made went to the supply chain that made the tooling, and other advanced instrumentation. So I'm hopeful that they also become a powerful way of supporting workforce growth and training in the supply chain, which is where most of the employment is. Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. And, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Babin? Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here, all of you. As the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee for the previous two sessions, and the Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee now, I would ask you about public-private partnerships, and I would address this to you, Dr. Khan. When we look at what NASA has done by partnering with industry to support commercial space, allowing NASA to focus on other priorities, like deep space exploration, do you think that public-private partnerships like these may be a tool to address U.S. competitiveness in cutting-edge industries of the future, like quantum? Are other nations investing in public- private partnerships in these fields? If you would briefly give me your thoughts? Dr. Khan. Well, other countries definitely are investing in these public-private partnerships, and they're--frankly, having learned from the U.S. as a pioneer, have created, and emulated, and modeled, much--examples of this. However, we remain the leader simply because of the installed infrastructure, the network of our academic and national labs, as I mentioned, but the application of this really comes to life from a--from my perspective, because, unlike an academic discipline, where you may have 5, 6, 10 disciplines looking at individual components of the science by necessity, we, as industry, don't say to a university, give me, and I'll give a very simple example, the next generation of this polymer. We go and say, I want a sustainable package for food which will keep the food safe, and will keep it clean, and I can put it into my supply chain, and manufacture it at high speed in 10 locations. That's a real world problem. I can, however, go to a great institution, and there's a number of institutions, as well as national laboratories--not easy today to get a national lab or university, maybe more than one university to say, that's the problem I need to solve. Mr. Babin. OK. Dr. Khan. And there you can bring the consortium together. Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much. And then, second, I'd like to address this to you, Dr. Gallagher. Our intelligence community has warned Congress about the threat of foreign espionage in our science and technology arenas, particularly on university campuses. Given this challenge from our adversaries, and particularly China, how do you suggest that we better protect our American campuses, our research, and our leadership from this threat? I just read an article on Confucius Centers just yesterday, and this is a very big threat to our national security. Dr. Gallagher. So one of the flip sides, you know, of the S&T and T enterprise is that it's about science, and it's--in the context of science, knowledge is a good thing, and we want it to be shared as broadly as possible, but it's also science that's useful to us for these national purposes, and so we derive things that are quite sensitive. Things like I-- intellectual property, national security information, and other things. So managing this tension between when is the S&T producing open knowledge, and when is it producing knowledge to be protected, is really one of the great challenges. This segregation is actually one way we managed it. Universities, by and large, do very little intellectual property-intensive work, and very little classified work. We don't do any classified work at the University of Pittsburgh. And so that has led them to sort of have a--an architecture that's more open, and where information's more widely available. And, of course, if you went to a company, things would be locked down more tightly. What's happening right now is this boundary between sensitive information versus open information is becoming blurrier, and I think the highly competitive interaction between the U.S. and China is making us re-look at the risk proposition. When---- Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Dr. Gallagher [continuing]. We were dominant, we were probably more willing to share. So I think this is an area where we're looking for clearer guidance from the government. I think one of my big concerns now is we're reacting to the concern, but really without a policy strategy. And---- Mr. Babin. OK. I---- Dr. Gallagher. Important topic, yes. Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much. I've got one more question, and I want to address this with you, Dr. McNutt. I'm hearing the point repeatedly made that for America to maintain its leadership in science and technology, it necessitates an influx of funding, an increased investment, in other words. Given that the debt situation domestically, currently at $22 trillion, and Congress's obligation to be prudent stewards of the taxpayers' dime, at whose expense should we make this commitment, and what should be cut in order for us to focus more on our science and technology? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Dr. McNutt. So--thank you for that question. So I don't necessarily think that we need to ramp up greatly the investment in science and technology. That can actually be not a good thing for science, when you have, for example, huge increases in budgets, and then they level out, because then you create a new workforce, and there's no place for them to go. But steady funding for science is important. So I think what I'm more concerned about would be a rapid decrease in the science budget due to, say, sequestration caps. So steady funding of science is much more important than the vicissitudes of funding, which can happen when we don't do long-term planning. Mr. Babin. I understand. Dr. McNutt. And I also think that how we spend the money, less incremental science, much more high-risk, high-reward, the kinds of things that are much more likely to lead to breakthroughs and new industries. Mr. Babin. Certainly. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney? Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the panelists. A very interesting discussion today. And I want to sort of appreciate your comments, Dr. McNutt and Dr. Gallagher, on the continuity of funding. I spent 25 years developing wind energy technology. Some of that was funded by the U.S. Government. Funding and support fell off. The technology we developed, with U.S. funds, went overseas. I saw that happen with my own eyes, so I think that's a very important point to make, and to continue to make. Dr. McNutt, as you may know, the NAS is beginning a study on climate intervention, governance, and research, including atmospheric sunlight reflection. Can you talk about ways we should be supporting basic science research to combat climate change? Dr. McNutt. So that study is a follow-up to an earlier study, which talked about the fact that we may find ourselves in a situation where our backs are against the wall, and we simply do not know enough about these potential solutions to know whether they are worse than doing nothing. Mr. McNerney. Right. Dr. McNutt. And, in particular, the governance situation is unknown at this point because there are no international laws that would prevent someone from deploying albedo modification, for example, to control climate. And so you can imagine a situation where a single nation could alter the albedo because they're concerned about their climate. In doing so, they could make it worse for five other nations. Mr. McNerney. Right. Dr. McNutt. No one could stop them, short of, perhaps, some kind of military intervention. And that might not be a good outcome, which is why we need to study this problem. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Khan, China has made it clear that they intend to be a leader in AI (artificial intelligence), and, as the Chairman of the AI Caucus, I'm focused on the safe advance of U.S. AI technology. What, in your opinion, is needed to maintain U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence, and how would you describe the consequences of ceding leadership? Dr. Khan. Well, I think the second part of your question is easier to answer in some respect, because if we look at everything from the next generation of manufacturing, to health care, to agriculture, to any industry we can look at, AI is already playing a part in the development of that industry. And, in the absence of our leadership, then we cannot operate as a leader. So AI, to me, is a tool that allows us to operate in the next generation, and discover the solutions of the next generation, whether it's environmental, or any other aspect. In terms of the first, we have to be consistently supporting the development of those technologies, just as Dr. McNutt said. The challenge is not just the quantity, but the uncertainty with which that funding comes, and we have to prioritize it. There's no other solution, and, in fact, I don't think we have a choice. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Khan, I just want to talk about the economic deterrence of going into STEM fields. It takes years of graduate school at very--survival wages. It takes years of post-doc at meager salary. When you become a researcher, a full-fledged researcher, you have debts. Your contemporaries are way ahead of you financially. You've spent years in your basement, inverting functional matrices, or whatever it is you do in your research, while your contemporaries are out there having fun, or doing--partying, whatever they do. So what are we going to do to change that model so that students want to go into these fields, and not have to worry about ending up behind the eight ball? Dr. Khan. I thought you were describing my early life. I spent 8 years as a trainee after medical school, so I personally know that. And, by the way, my wife's sitting behind me, who can vouch for all those tough years. Look, we have to figure out a funding model that makes education--the availability and access to education has to be democratized in a way it's available to everybody. And if we're going to get to a state where we have a diverse, educated workforce, it has to be on the basis of the fact that, regardless of your means, at some point you have at least that at your availability. I will defer the solution to that to the Members of this Committee. Mr. McNerney. Just a simple yes or no, Dr. Gallagher, is our patent system part of our problem? Dr. Gallagher. It's certainly an element in it, yes. Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Waltz? Mr. Waltz. Thank you, everyone, for coming today, for testifying--this critical issue. Dr. McNutt, you mentioned in your testimony women in STEM, in science, in technology. I agree with you, we've made gains. I don't think we've made enough. I think incentivizing women to have interest, and pursue careers in STEM is critical to fully utilizing our talent base, and competing long term. And, in fact, it's not just about competitive, it's not just a domestic issue, it's an international issue. It's a national security issue, in my view. And in my background as a Green Beret, and operating all over the world--I mean, the bottom line is where women thrive in business, in civil society, in politics, extremism doesn't. Not to be sophomoric, but I think that's just my experience. So the question is, how do we make STEM education more attractive, interesting? How can this body assist? Why are more women not attracted to this field, and how can we continue to move that forward? Dr. McNutt. Well, thank you for that question. I used to think, very naively, that the reason why we had this leaky pipeline problem--we saw it in many fields, my own field in particular. Fifty percent of the students in graduate school were women---- Mr. Waltz. Um-hum. Dr. McNutt [continuing]. And it had been that way for a long time. Why weren't we seeing them come out the other end into the associate professors, and the full professors? It wasn't happening. I thought it was just a quality of life issue. Maybe they're too smart to be stupid like us, and think that a, you know, career in science was a lot of fun. And then my eyes were opened by this report that the National Academy of Sciences did, that showed that there is this undercurrent of harassment for women that is--that has gone underground. That-- it used to be out in the open. It went underground, that was just the--dear, you don't really belong in science, do you? Or wouldn't you be happier doing this instead? You know, and it was just--or the little put downs that were discouraging to many women. And we just have to stop that. And it--of course, it happens everywhere. It happens in law, it happens in business. But it's worse in science, and the reason it's worse in science is because of this indentured servant model, where students come in, and they're attached to a supervisor who is responsible for their funding, for their research project, for their recommendations after they graduate, and it makes it much more difficult for them to cut loose in a bad situation. Mr. Waltz. Dr.--didn't mean to interrupt you. Just, in the interest of time, I would be interested in follow up on how we can---- Dr. McNutt. Yes. Mr. Waltz [continuing]. How we could help. Dr. McNutt. Yes. Mr. Waltz. Dr. Gallagher, I'm interested in your comment a minute ago about guidance when it comes to the Chinese, I mean, frankly, just stealing our IP (intellectual property) and our technological edge across the board. I'm also on the Armed Services Committee, and it is just wholesale theft, in their national interest, and certainly not in ours. So what guidance do you need? Do you need a categorization of what is considered sensitive? Do you need standards on what needs to be protected? I certainly don't want to limit the growth of--and your freedom, but what do you need? Dr. Gallagher. So--yes, my take is that the exfiltration of American IP and sensitive information to China has been happening for a long time. This is not a recent phenomenon. And so, you know, lack of enforcement, lack of, you know, protections. I think some of the positions that U.S. companies have been put, where they have to operate in China, and they have to, you know, basically spill over---- Mr. Waltz. I think the Administration's getting at that pretty aggressively. Dr. Gallagher. The--but the flip side is it's also been part of U.S. science policy for a long time, in fact, since the opening of China in the 1970s, that science was a form of scientific diplomacy, that we wanted to be there openly, and collaborating, with the hope that the Chinese, at one point, would be contributors to the knowledge commons of fundamental science. So in some ways that's happening as well. They're now producing papers, and actually contributing. So we have this dilemma where the competitive nature of China with the United States, whether geopolitically or economically--the question is, does that mean we should stop collaborating on the science side as well? And that's where I think there's---- Mr. Waltz. Well, I'm asking you. Dr. Gallagher. I--my instinct is no. I think that there's a win when--because most science has been done with broad open collaboration. The rising tide rises all boats, and I would much rather see the U.S. not subsidize the technology around the world. We'd like to see more countries contribute to basic science. The problem is matching those concerns we have when it becomes specific nationally related or commercially related information with this window when it's presumably open, and all for the good. Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bera? Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You know, what's remarkably refreshing is I really can't tell who the Republican witness is and the Democratic witness--because I agree with all of you, and there's so much that we could talk about. Dr. McNutt, you talked about the best and brightest coming to the United States, and our history is that of a Nation of immigrants. If I think about my own story, my parents came from India in the 1950s to get their education at USC, and then they stayed. If, you know, Googling this, 55 percent of American billion dollar startups have an immigrant founder. Thinking about Google, Sergey Brin was an immigrant from Russia who went to Stanford on a PhD graduate fellowship that was funded by the NSF. These are smart investments that we ought to be doing more of. Dr. Khan, as a lifelong Californian, I paid $393 a quarter to go to medical school at the University of California, Irvine because we made a conscious decision in California in the past that we thought investing in education--and, if you had the talent and desire, we--you ought to invest in your best resource, your people. We stopped doing that in the mid-80s and 1990s, and, you know, it--and we're living off of the residual, in California, of those investments--we made in the 1960s and 1970s. If you think about then--the University of Pittsburgh's a wonderful institution, but I'm a University of California guy, and, you know, if you think about the remarkable economy in California, they're all built around our universities, our research universities. There's a reason why Silicon Valley exists where it does. You know, the remarkable work that's coming out of the University of California, Davis, my home institution, you know, around the Ag, water, that sector, these are smart investments, and we're just not doing it. If I think about, you know, a couple things that came up, we've got to re-think education, right? Both in the K through 12 space, but also our 4-year education graduate degrees. And, you know, if I think about it, when I was Dean of Admissions at UC Davis, we tried to revamp medical school training, because it's an outdated model. Now, you run into huge faculty issues and institutional barriers. Maybe each of you, if there's one or two things that we could do to modernize higher education, what would those tools be? I don't--we'll start with you, Dr. Gallagher, because you're in the midst of it right now. Dr. Gallagher. Well, one of the biggest things that I think many of us are navigating is there's a pendulum swinging back and forth between whether education is a private good, in other words, it's the student who benefits with the degree, and therefore they should pay for it, or whether there's a collective or public good to our society by having--and you see that being played out in the levels of State support, for example, which has been the--historically where institutional support went. So Pennsylvania's sitting number 49th in the United States in the level of public support to the universities, and as a result Pitt is, I think, one of the most expense, if not the most expensive, public university in the United States. Not something we're proud of. There's--I--the most frustrating thing, I think, before we get into reinventing higher ed, is we have to reach some consensus on whether this is merely a public good or a private---- Mr. Bera. I think, you know, we spend a lot of time thinking about the future of work, and those areas of the country that are falling behind, versus those areas that are going to be resilient and thrive, again, the coasts and the big cities--yes, MIT's doing some pretty interesting research here, those characteristics. There's always an academic research center in the--so I would argue it's a public good, if not an economic good. And one of my colleagues talked about the investments, and I'm very concerned about the debt and the deficit, but we never talk about the return on investment, had we not invested in those--and I think we've got to do a better job explaining, you know, that return on investment. Dr. McNutt? Dr. McNutt. Yes. If I could reimagine what I'd like to see as the future of higher education, we'd stop thinking about higher education as a 4-year, one-and-done kind of thing, that higher education becomes a partnership between American industry and the universities, such that people view higher education as a continuing process that they're always doing, so that people are always on the cutting edge, such that they always feel prepared for whatever comes next, and that industry is helping to inform universities what they need out of their workforce, and people feel a lifelong connection to these institutions. Mr. Bera. And, you know, if I think about the PhD students that I trained with, they were going into academia. The PhD students today are going to go into industry, and I think we've got to do a better job. Dr. Khan. Well, I hope they go into both. And, again, to Dr. Gallagher's earlier point, coming back to the fact that industry is funding more research than the government is is not a good thing. I don't celebrate it, as an industry person, because my research is applied, and I can't do applied research until I have the basic fundamentals, so--but from the educational model, I want to just build on Dr. McNutt's point, which is most of us are not doing a job that we were trained to do when we were in academia. That is just--I think, if you look across this room, I doubt anybody in this room had a degree in how to be a Congressman. I certainly didn't have a degree on how to be at a food and beverage company. And I think the key here is that we train a workforce that has the plasticity and the learning ability for lifelong learning, so that's the internal that we have to do, and then a culture that actually nurtures that. It's going to take both, which is where the policy part comes in. I think if we don't do that, especially in the rate and pace of change that we're in today, the world expects that we will re-educate ourselves, and have multiple careers. And if we couple that with the population demographics in the United States today, and in many parts of the world, our population demographics are such that we're going to have, with the Baby Boomer population, a large number of people who are able to work, but need to be re- tooled, and the economy needs them, and industry needs them. We need that partnership. So education coming--bringing it to life, exactly what Dr. McNutt says, they're our absolute necessities. We don't have the framework right now to do that. Mr. Bera. Great. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez? Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony so far. This has been a fantastic hearing, so--just really appreciate all the work that you've put into it. Couldn't agree more with the last topic you were just talking about it, which is we need to instill a culture of lifelong learning, and our education system needs to reflect the realities of the 21st century economy, where we're--forget jobs, we're popping in and out of industries multiple times over the course of our career. So I fully agree with that. If I could, to start, Dr. McNutt, I want to build on Mr. Waltz's question. I think you framed the problem incredibly well, in terms of, you know, what's pushing women out of STEM fields, and then he asked the question--well, he didn't have time, but could you expand on what you think this Committee could do to support women in STEM education, and in industry generally? Dr. McNutt. Right. So the report makes the point that changes need to happen--this is the National Academies report on sexual harassment for women in the science, engineering, and medicine fields--that the main changes need to come from changing the culture. We have to change the culture of our institutions. And changing the culture within our laboratories, our Federal laboratories, changing the culture within our funding agencies, changing the culture within our universities. All of these systems need to have a topdown culture that starts with statements like, sexual harassment, gender harassment, will not be tolerated. I remember many years ago the Federal Government, through OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), but I think well with the support of Congress, made scientific integrity a priority. I think that the government should make the banishment of sexual harassment a priority as well, and make every single agency come up with a plan for how they are going to change their culture to make sure it doesn't happen. And have your funding that you give to them contingent on having that plan. Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And then, switching back to education, specifically in communities not on the coast, right? So I come from Northeast Ohio, and we have a pretty big skills gap when it comes to STEM. According to a recent estimate provided by McKinsey and Company, Northeast Ohio has the potential to receive an economic impact of between $3.5 and $10.1 billion annually by year 2025 through the implementation of things like Internet of Things, various manufacturing application segments. What we lack is a workforce that has the tools to take full advantage of these opportunities. So what would you say, and anybody can answer this, would be the right way that we should be thinking about this in Northeast Ohio, as we train up our workforce for the 21st century? Dr. Gallagher, please. Dr. Gallagher. Yes. Let me--I think one of the ways I think about this--in fact, it goes back to the Ranking Member Lucas talking about farming. You know, when the United States started industrializing, one of the things we did as a country was rather dramatic. We made mandatory elementary school, right? And we decided that the population, to be able to adapt to this economy, needed to have basic literacy and math skills to be able to focus on that. I think a similar thing is happening. These knowledge-based economies--the good news is that the knowledge moves pretty well, and broadband, and infrastructure, and computing, the, you know, I don't think the proximity to the few top, most R&D intensive universities is the only way that our society can benefit. But I don't know if people have the skills in basic digital literacy, those core competencies that they can, you know, productively and agilely work in that economy. Mr. Gonzalez. Great. And then, final question, and I think this was Dr. Khan who mentioned that the industry-university government synergy has kind of broken down, or was that you, Dr. Gallagher? That was you? OK. So, if you could, you know, just describe some ways that we might be able to piece that back together, because it strikes me that that's a critical component here. Dr. Gallagher. Well, I think it's, you know, the government has tended to fund the universities, so a lot of the mandate has gone on the universities for how can they be more relevant to industry? I think the uncracked code is, you know, who's talking to industry about the partnership working the other way as well, and creating some of those dynamics where, you know, companies that are working very hard on competing and working on pretty sensitive technologies can find a place where they can move upstream, take some of that higher risk, but higher payoff, more fundamental work, and work alongside the universities. That could be in consortia, other types of partnerships. I think asking the funding agencies to look at how that would work, and how some of those cost sharing arrangements could be incentivized. We've stimulated the amount of R&D spent by industry with the R&D tax credit and other things, but we haven't really tried to shape where some of those investments are, and I think that's an interesting policy arena. Mr. Gonzalez. Got it. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Horn? Ms. Horn. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, all of you, for this fantastic hearing today. There are many things that I want to talk about, so I'll try to keep it focused. The questions have been fantastic. A couple of things. I've heard consistently from all three of you about three challenges, concerns, and opportunities. One is the pipeline, two is the resources, and three is the need to innovate, and continue on. So I want to start by focusing on Dr. Khan, there was something that you said, and--building into that pipeline, I think there are a few pieces to it that have been addressed, but the need not necessarily for everybody going into these fields, and to continue to grow, to have a 4 year or advanced degree. And I would love it if you, and then perhaps Dr. Gallagher and Dr. McNutt, could briefly speak to--there's a concept that I've talked to a lot of employers in my community, as well as education institutions, about stackable credentials, about helping individuals build the skills that they need to move into the workforce, to meet the workforce needs. Because many of the employers that I know, in Oklahoma and other places, are not finding people with the skills. And as we build into, not only the gap between men and women, but also there's a substantial gap in minority communities not coming into the STEM fields. If you could speak to the idea of stackable credentials using career techs, 2-year colleges, universities, things like that? Dr. Khan. I think you asked me to start. Let me--I've-- we've talked about research universities as the engine for innovation, but at the--from an education point of view, we have an install base of community colleges across the Nation, and we have institutions that can offer 2-year degrees. And the question, from an industry perspective--and these are not research institutions, but educational institutions. And this is a question of and. It's not either/or, but we need to be able to think about how to do that. There is a domino effect of not doing that, which was touched on earlier, which is these more rural communities start to lose their people into urban communities because that's where the jobs are, and that's where the facilities are. That has all sorts of other socioeconomic impacts to the communities that lose people versus the communities that are absorbing them. So I think our educational system has to be more diverse than simply deep academic institutions that are centers of excellence for research versus the large need for education and STEM talent in general. Dr. Gallagher. So on the issue of credentials--so I don't think the hard part of credentialing is the--interestingly enough the stackability, or the--combining the training with, you know, what it takes. The community colleges, the educational enterprise of the United States, is pretty good at figuring out the training part. But a credential, to be useful, has to be recognized by the employers. And one of the breakdowns is that we, you know, it's--we have particular country--companies identify a credential that they would want, but it doesn't translate, so these credentials rarely have scale. One of the real questions--I remember ANSI, which is the American National Standards Institute, which often registers many of these employer-generated credentials, the Microsoft engineering credential people are familiar with, things like that, but there are very few that you would recognize nationally, and one of the questions is who defines those from a, you know, from--that would be recognized in market. Interesting possibilities and, you know, it would have to be not companies. It could be collections of them, so these consortia, or sector-based, or trade organization-based. It could be labor, interestingly enough, that could play a role in defining some of these portable credentials that could be used. I think once those requirements are generated, it's pretty easy to map out the educational strategy so that this goal of stackability and, you know, building on it is achievable. Dr. McNutt. And I'll just briefly mention, there was a program at the National Science Foundation that was patterned after just what you are describing. It was called the Advanced Technical Education, the ATE program, where the idea was to provide a 2-year community college degree that would provide a living wage for a family of four for a single wage earner. And there were a number of ATEs that were set up, I remember, because I was involved in the MATE program that was out in California, the Marine Advanced Technical Education program, that was training people to work in the marine robotics industry. And--so it might be worth taking a look at those again, and finding out how they worked with industry on these credentials. Ms. Horn. Thank you. I know my time is about up. I just want to say that I appreciate all of your testimony. I think this is an important and complex, but also it's a national security issue, as well as an issue of our competitiveness, and that it strikes me that everything that we're looking at has components for investment on cutting-edge research by the government, but also iterative research by industry, and then the pipeline, and many of these things have to be a partnership. So, thank you. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Cloud? Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here today. I really appreciate this topic. It's so important that we remain the world's leader in innovation. It's what we've seen in the last 100 years, with the United States leading the world, bringing an end to World War II, putting man on the moon, and us remaining that leader, it's certainly important that we continue to do that, and make that a priority as a Nation. Now, the context that makes it challenging, of course, is that every year we have deficit spending. We're looking at $22 trillion of debt, which is also a national security issue, becoming such. So the question for me becomes how do we accomplish this? And there's a couple of areas of concern I want to point out. One is how do we ensure that the funding we do give toward science is going toward items of a national interest, and I'll name a couple. In the sense that there was a--$1.3 million given to the University of Washington to research whether koozies could keep drinks cold. There was another study for a half a million that had to do with shrimps walking on submerged water--underwater treadmills. And so how do we make sure that the money we do--we are allocating is going toward rightful purposes? And then the other area I think that's a major concern is with China becoming such a major power play, they're not innovating, but they are stealing our innovation, to the tune of, some would say, $2 to $600 billion, which is actually more than we're spending in science right now. And so the picture I kind of have is that we have a bucket, we're being asked to kind of fill it up even more, but there's these holes in the bucket, and China actually has a bucket underneath it, and they're kind of taking it from us. And so the questions I have would be what can we do to make sure that the funding we're getting is going toward national purposes, and then also what can we do to ensure, especially at the university level, where a lot of this theft is happening now, to ensure that we shore that up? And if I may, Madam Chair, I'd like to submit the IP Commission's 2019 Review. Chairwoman Johnson. There are no objections. Mr. Cloud. Thank you. And, with that, I would hand it over to you all. Dr. McNutt. I just want to make two quick comments. First of all, trying to decide what research is in the national interest, I think, is always going to be difficult to do. Let me just give you one quick example, the Cas9 bacteria, which everyone knows now because it's used in the CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) process to edit the genome. And whole new industries are growing up now with the potential to basically text edit genes for all sorts of purposes. That was done--discovering how that worked was research into obscure bacteria, and what they were doing, without any thought that it might someday be this incredible discovery, that it could actually edit genes in the way that it does. And, on the second one, I'll say that the best way for technology transfer is actually not patents. It is the students and the post-docs walking out of the research labs, and going into industry. That is how ideas actually are most effectively transferred. It used to be that the students, no matter where they came from, went into our own industry. Now what's happening is they aren't staying here, they're going back to where they came from. So that's the problem we have now. If we were keeping the students here, we wouldn't be so worried about it. Mr. Cloud. I agree that that is a problem, but at the same time we have China hacking into our systems. Dr. McNutt. Yes---- Mr. Cloud. I think it was 27 universities recently. I mean, they're stealing everything from shipping secrets, to missile secrets, to fertilizer recipes so that they can have better production in agriculture. So they're catching us, and if--in my analogy, if we keep pouring money into this bucket without shoring up, I mean, we're in a sense funding their innovation as much as we are ours. So that's my concern. Dr. Gallagher. I know--let me give a real quick answer. I think that your first point about the efficient allocation of Federal investments to make sure it's really on the top science comes down to a good identification of the areas of science. Remember how stimulative Federal investments are. They create new students, and new--so we have to make sure that the program calls that the agencies make are really clearly on areas of national priority need, because you're going to be creating new future capacity there. I think that the good news is that the--by and large you're always going to see some outliers, and you're always going to see these kooky titles. The scientists don't do themselves any favors sometimes, but this is such an intensely competitive environment. These scientists are fighting for a very limited amount of funding. My experience has been that, you know, any outlier or poorly allocated research quickly doesn't get renewed or funded. And, of all the things to worry about, that efficiency is not the one that would be atop of my list. I do think Dr. McNutt has pointed out something--I--look, we have to worry about our cybersecurity capabilities, and this problem with exfiltration of data and information, but the one I worry about the most is the exfiltration of talent, because, you know, the data is basically scientific or technical knowledge that we've already created. And it's true once that's gone, that's gone, but if the folks who are going to generate the next generation of talent aren't here, then we're not even--we won't have anything that's worth exfiltrating in the future. So I think that talent, making sure that these are knowledge-driven economies, we have the best talent here in this country is the competitive issue. Dr. Khan. Two quick comments to build on that. One is there's always this tension between focused, mission-driven research, whether it's, you know, sending a person to the moon, or--versus exploratory research. And I think we have to be careful the pendulum doesn't swing one way or the other, because the two are, at the end of the day, interdependent. And, as Dr. McNutt said, often research projects don't deliver in the area--well, quite often don't deliver in the areas that you think. The second is, when we think about knowledge transfer in industry, and people that I hire as scientists, I'm not hiring them for the knowledge of the project they were working on, and I have thousands of scientists, I'm actually hiring them for their problem-solving skills that they learned in the laboratories of institutions funded by Dr. McNutt, or like Dr. Gallagher's. Once they come into that environment, they're going to face new problems to solve, but their skills were transferred. You know, this transfer of knowledge, at the pace of change we're talking about, is relatively short lived. If you can't continue to iterate on it, it becomes obsolete. The estimate is about 50 percent of scientific knowledge is obsolete within about 5 years. And so it's old by the time--I mean, you finish your training, in my case, it's already old. So it is important to have that problem-solving approach. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Cloud. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson. Mr.--Ms. Wexton? Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the panel for coming and joining us today, and informing us on this important topic. As you are aware, we started 2019 in the midst of a 35-day partial government shutdown. NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) were just a few of the critical science agencies that were shuttered during this time. The National Science Foundation alone had almost 1,400 workers furloughed during the shutdown. And, because of the shutdown, hundreds of research proposals that were scheduled to be reviewed by the NSF for Federal funding had to be shelved. Others had to be pushed back. They also had to alter their merit review process in some cases, which had previously been called the gold standard, and the envy of the world. These are just a few examples of how the shutdown disrupted the work of our science agencies. Dr. McNutt, can you talk about the impact of the shutdown on science and technology innovation, and on U.S. competitiveness more broadly? Dr. McNutt. So we've actually been discussing doing a rigorous analysis of what the impact of the shutdown had on science and the scientific enterprise across the country, because we know for a fact that there were a number of important research projects, observational projects, field programs, that were interrupted, and had a very difficult time starting up again. There were many programs within the Federal agencies that suffered. Just as I said earlier today, that any kind of large swings in funding are difficult for science. The shutdown is the perfect example of a big swing that causes government labs across the country to shut down, and then have to spin up again, and that's very disruptive to the science. They try to keep the critical stuff going as much as they can, but it's still very difficult. Ms. Wexton. OK. And how has this affected our international scientific coordination and relationships with other nations? Dr. McNutt. Well, we've always had trouble, as the U.S., with our annual funding program, being a good partner and remaining committed to our programs that we are involved in, in partnerships, and a shutdown is the worst thing that we can do, in terms of showing our commitment to partnerships, because no one can travel abroad. Sometimes people cancel their flights the very day of because they're not sure when a shutdown is coming. There might be a deal at the last minute, there might not, so it's very disruptive. Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Now, as Dr. McNutt noted in her testimony, national security is one component that depends on a strong and diverse STEM-educated workforce. Now, in Northern Virginia, which I represent, we have the Pentagon, as well as some of the world's top defense firms, who are tasked with coming up with technological solutions to a number of our greatest national security threats. They are reliant on a talent pipeline that we've heard--as we've heard today can't keep up with the demand for the highly skilled workforce, and they have an added hurdle of having new hires who may have to wait sometimes years for a security clearance. To the panel, can you speak of some ways that the Federal Government can best partner with industry to ensure that we have the STEM workforce we need to meet our national security needs? Dr. Gallagher. So the one--I'm not going to give you a complete answer, the but the one aspect of this that I think a lot about is that one part of that workforce, when you get to scientists and, you know, research intensive engineers, is that it takes so long to--remember, the training model is very in- depth. We put them into an environment where they do research at the cutting edge, and that's how they learn. It's an apprenticeship-based model. It takes many, many years, it's very expensive, and what you can't do is turn that capacity on or off. So one of the things that, I think, from a national security perspective, is, and I think Dr. McNutt has talked about this, the signals that come from the government, through its funding, are one of the strongest signals in shaping demand and supply, because they go right to the universities. So our research dollars are not just doing research, they're training researchers. It doesn't handle swings up and down very well, which is one of the reasons, you know, the scientists are always claiming poverty when things--when even the growth rate isn't what they expected it to be. So stability--and that's why I said whatever strategy we have from a science policy, there has to be a sustainable commitment to send those signals, you know, over a long period of time, because it takes 5 or 6 years, in many cases, to train a PhD If our--if we're changing our mind every year or two, then we're not going to see the effect that we want to see, and I think that goes to the poor allocation of those Federal investments. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber? Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Khan, I want to come to you. We heard today about the growing gap between the public and private R&D worlds here today, and I do want you to speak on this gap from the industry's perspective, and elaborate on the policies you believe to narrow that gap. But, before you do that, I want to make a couple of comments about the discussion we've had. We've talked about a path where we get people in STEM, where the colleges, whether they're junior colleges, which I graduated from, and the U of H, which is where I met my bride 42 years ago, at junior college, so I'm a big junior college fan. And then we go to U of H, but you graduate, and then you want industry to have a set of goals, I forget exactly how you all phrase that, to where we have a dual path going on here. You've got universities, institutions of higher learning, education, call them what you will, are training up students so they can make that over into industry, and then industry has to be able to give them--you had a term for it. It wasn't certificate, it was something else, that they knew that they were on the right path to be able to work in that industry. So for R&D to work, I think we have to have an education system that has that aim in mind that's also STEM-oriented in some fashion, and is able to train up these scientists, if you want to call them that, and researchers, and you put them over into a system like you have, Dr. Khan, that you've been in. How do you get those goals into the university so that they can turn out students so that you've got good, productive scientists-- researchers working for you? Dr. Khan. So I think Dr. Gallagher started this--addressing this in the need to create the right partnerships, coalitions, consortia, whatever term you want to use. Let me specifically address--and I always look at the young scientists that I hire into the organization, and then mentor, and we distinguish between technical skills which are needed for a specific task versus problem solving skills, which are learned. Mr. Weber. If you would hold just a second, you referred to the core competency in your--Dr. Gallagher, with--in your exchange with Mr. Gonzalez. Is that what you're referring to? The technical skills, the core competency? Dr. Gallagher. That's correct. Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you. Go ahead, Doctor. Dr. Khan. So, as you can hear independently, we're aligned. When I take, and I look at a graduate coming out of a great institution, any of our institutions, I look--does that person have the technical skills to do the job today? And many times we actually have to provide them those technical skills in the early part of their career, when they come into industry. Mr. Weber. Why doesn't the college teach them those technical skills? Dr. Khan. Well, let me give you an example why that--why part of that is possible, but if you want to be--if you want to operate a manufacturing line, and you want to be the line engineer, it's unlikely that that full scale engineering line fits within an industry--within an academic environment. And, second, if we look at people management skills, how do you get your team of people to operate that line if you're that line engineer? So I can give you lots of examples where that apprenticeship part has to be picked up from--as the student arrives, or the graduate arrives, out of the academic institution into the work environment. And I think any of us who made that transition, you learn a lot on the job. When I came out of medical school, that first year of internship was a heck of a learning curve, and I think that's true for--whether it's engineers, physicians, doesn't really matter. So that's one part. The key ingredient to success for our trainees is the problem solving skills, and STEM education in general allows them to focus, frame the problem, identify the resources needed, and then work on getting that problem solved. That skill starts from the first day they're in class in an academic institution. In fact, one thing I want to make a point, we all talked about the lack of people going into STEM, that shouldn't start at high school. We have to make STEM attractive right down to elementary school. We're losing so many young students because somehow we sort of have this--we communicate that this is going to be really tough, and we lose way too many students. So part of the problem is we're not getting enough very early in the pipeline. Mr. Weber. How did that get communicated to you? Dr. Khan. Multiple ways. I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, and I'm an employer and an educator. Mr. Weber. But you weren't a father and a grandfather when you started early in your education career. How did---- Dr. Khan. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Mr. Weber. How did that get communicated to you? Dr. Khan. Because the teachers that I had--I was fortunate to have teachers that actually inspired that science and math was actually cool. Mr. Weber. How about your parents? They play a role? Dr. Khan. My dad was an engineer. It helped. Mr. Weber. All right. That is pretty informative. I appreciate that. I yield back, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici? Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. This is a great discussion. Thank you to our witnesses. Dr. McNutt, you talked a couple times about risk taking, and we know it takes vision and persistence to conduct research in areas where the benefits are unknown, but we also know that that federally supported basic research has led to some pretty revolutionary advances in energy, and technology, and medicine, and more. And I'm sorry Representative Cloud left, but I wanted to invite him, and everyone here, to the Golden Goose Awards, which are held annually, where federally funded silly sounding research is acknowledged for the impact that it's actually made on society. I'm also really glad that we're talking about higher education. I serve on the Education Committee as well, and Mr. Bera talked about the cost of higher education is--which is a real issue we hope to tackle this session, but I'm glad we're also talking about how we educate creative and critical thinkers. And, Dr. Khan, you mentioned flexible thinking and problem solving skills. We don't have enough conversations about how do we educate people to be creative problem solvers. And related is the lack of diversity in our workforce. We know that historically science and technology has not been especially inclusive of women and people of color, but we know that we'll get better decisions when we have diversity and various voices around the table. It's also important that we're talking about not just getting women--girls interested, and women into STEM fields, but also keeping them there. Thank you, Dr. McNutt, for the National Academies report. I know Chair Johnson has a bill to implement many of the recommendations from that report. I hope we can get that done. I'm also the founder and the co-chair of the congressional STEAM Caucus. We have had conversations about, and actually gotten some policy passed, in integrating arts and design into STEM learning, which we've seen as very successful in addressing the lack of diversity, because oftentimes kids, when they're going through school, they think they're good at English and art, and they're told, you have to choose, you can't do both. You can either be the English and art kid, or you can be the science and math. So in schools that are integrating arts and design into STEM learning, it's helping to diversify the students interested in STEM, but is also going to result in a more innovative and curious workforce because, when the whole brain is educated, that's what happens with the mind. Dr. McNutt, confronting climate change is one of the most significant issues of our time. I thank you for the Academies review of the draft of the--for the National Climate Assessment. It's going to require innovation, leadership, risk taking, responsible use of the vast resources in our country. You talk about how federally funded research comprises approximately a quarter of total research and development expenditures. You talk about how we'd be served better through robust Federal support. At the same time, we've seen this Administration propose drastic cuts to Federal R&D and Federal science agencies. So why are stronger Federal investments in R&D important for demonstrating our Nation's leadership in tackling important issues like global climate change? Dr. McNutt. So with specific reference to global climate change, we--the scientific community is clearly united in its understanding that climate change is happening, and that it's anthropogenic, but there are many things about climate change that still need to be understood better so that we can make wise choices about how to prioritize our response. Because we know that the clock is ticking, and it's ticking down on the time that we have to make the right investments to respond quickly enough to actually do the triage that we're going to need to do if we're going to get to the other side of this in some way that is beneficial to society and our way of life. So understanding whether the biggest threats are going to be to agriculture, are the biggest threats going to be to the wild places, are they going to be to the coastal communities, these are all things that we have to put more of a fine point on, and make better predictions that are scaled down to the actual sectors and the actual geography. Ms. Bonamici. I look forward to working with you on that. And, quickly, Representative Wexton asked about the shutdown and its effect. Dr. Gallagher, when we see the budget cuts, the shutdown that Representative Wexton mentioned, the immigration issues, how is this affecting our ability to recruit good people, and keep them here, and keep them in--as Federal employees? Dr. Gallagher. Well, I think that, anecdotally, I see evidence of people leaving Federal Government for other approaches because of the high uncertainty in those roles. That's selfishly been good for employers like the University of Pittsburgh, who are looking for talent, but I don't think that's good. Some of those Federal capabilities would be incredibly difficult to rebuild, so I hope it's not a very deep loss. And, anecdotally, we've seen the effect of uncertainty even at the university. We see it in enrollment rates, in visiting faculty coming, in collaborative research, in some of the uncertainty around grants, the willingness of some of our, let's say, international partners to begin looking at--possibly looking at, let's say, a joint grant. When the U.S. Government sort of, you know, does this, it sends a signal that maybe we're not a reliable partner. But I do think we won't know the full impact of that, both the direct effect of the shutdown, and that uncertainty effect, or opportunity cost, of the shutdown probably for several years, and that's really the tragedy of these things, is that it kind of leaves a void in the system that you don't really see it play out for some time. Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird? Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, experts, for being here, and the testimony, the discussion we're having today. You know, I'm excited about what's happening in agriculture. I mean, the STEM demand there is rapidly growing. And, as a result of that, we're able to produce--and if we're going to feed 50 billion people here in some time, that's certainly important. And--then I just wanted to share with you, because all of you had mentioned various aspects of this, but I--I'm a kind of a practical individual, and I know when I started my PhD program, it went back to when I was in high school, even prior to that. And so you mentioned earlier attraction, down to K-12. But I had teachers who recognized some skills, some aspect that I might have, and they thought-- and they encouraged me, and even had that in high school. And so my point here is--being that--then as I got to college, and managed to get into some of the courses, then I got interested, and I became increasingly interested, and that ended up resulting in the PhD. So my point is a couple of these. One, I'd like for you to comment on how we encourage the education program to stimulate these young people like I'm talking about, and then the other thing that you might also comment on, I really like the idea of the community colleges. It gives some of these individuals the opportunity to get a flavor for that kind of education without investing a lot of money, and then it also gives them the opportunity to decide, you know, what kind of engineer we want, or what kind of a degree we want. It gives them the exposure to that without having to make a lot of investment. So I guess my two questions are, how do we encourage the education system to do what I mentioned, and second the community college idea? Dr. McNutt. If I can make just two quick comments, the reason I'm a scientist today, and I know that this is a fact, is I went to a girls' school my entire life, so I didn't encounter anyone who told me that I couldn't do math and science until I got to college, and by that time I was so sure I was going to be a scientist that I said to that professor, well, what's wrong with you, if you don't think I can be a scientist? And--so--but the girls' school I went to, it's not a girls' school anymore. So this is why I think, for attracting minorities into the sciences, I'm really keen on supporting the historically black colleges and universities. I think that they will also provide that safe place for minority students to get involved in science and engineering without anyone telling them they're not supposed to do that, and their professors all look like them, and they can tell them, yes, you should be doing this, it's good for you. Dr. Gallagher. Let me add an optimistic note. So we tend to focus, when we see these gaps and these crises, that, you know, we have to reinvent our system of higher education, we have to look at how we do better. And, look, some of this is great, because we're going to innovate some new approaches. But we're stressed about this because the global competition's gotten really tight. And the reason it's tight is those countries are basically copying the U.S. system. So I just want to point out, you know, they're running up against us simply because they're doing exactly what we're doing, and they're trying to do everything the Americans do. I think that means we have to, you know, we have to get a little smarter. I--the one thing I was going to--just an observation, you know, I mentioned early on Sputnik. You know, one of the big moments in U.S. history when, as a country, we really focused on the role of science, and people getting excited, and there was remarkable investment that was made, but there was also a remarkable amount of passion and belief that came. That wasn't just because science was cool. I mean, a lot of us were excited because we either saw somebody in our lives who was a scientist, or we just thought it was really interesting, but there was a national call to serve, and it was a way where people believed they could contribute to their country. And I always go back to, you know, when I was at NIST, we had five of our scientists win Nobel Prizes, which was remarkable. It's not that big of an agency, and--but the untold story was all five of them stayed there. They could've quadrupled their salary going somewhere else. And I remember talking to them and asking, why did you stay? And they said, there's great problems, that's the scientist in them, great colleagues, and it was a chance to make a difference and serve our country. And I think that's something that our science policy can create that almost no one else can, is how is this vital to our national interests? How--because people want to make a difference. Dr. Khan. There's a common theme in what you've just heard, which is experiential learning. I think, if you actually expose a young person to the coolness of solving problems, regardless which they are, then all the other hard stuff are tools that they learn in order to do the cool stuff. But if the primary mission becomes, you're going to actually be learning all this hard stuff for the sake of learning it, I don't know anybody, really, who wants to do it. And I think, if I was to rethink the education, one of the things that I think we do much better in industry is we take these young graduates, and we put them onto real problems, and that becomes aspirational. Whether it's putting a man on the moon, or, in my current job, feeding the world's population of seven billion people, with a billion hungry, in a sustainable manner, so it doesn't take away from the next generation, or my new job, which is how do we make the billion plus people that are aging to stay healthy and functional in society, rather than being a burden on society? That problem will attract very bright minds, and I think we have to think experiential, goal- oriented learning. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stevens? Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you so much. It's a real privilege to be in the room with you, Dr. Gallagher. We share both having served in the Obama Administration. I've long admired your leadership and work, particularly your leadership of NIST during the Recovery Act period when I was working at the Treasury Department for the President's Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, when we just started to develop those manufacturing institutes that my colleague, Conor-- Representative Lamb mentioned. Dr. Gallagher, if you don't mind, could you just indulge me in listing off some of the Federal agencies that fund or support U.S. leadership in science and technology? Dr. Gallagher. That's pretty broad. It's--we're quickly getting to the point where--which ones don't? But the ones that are very university facing have the large extramural programs, so clearly our agricultural department, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense. NIST has a small program. USGS has a program. I-- there--NIH. Yes, how could somebody from Pitt forget NIH? So it's really becoming ubiquitous, and I think that's because every single mission in the government is becoming quite centered around know-how, and knowledge, and science, and technology. Ms. Stevens. So would it be fair to say that the Department of Energy (DOE) has played a pretty prominent role in propagating 3D printing? Would it be fair to say that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has played a pretty big role in putting forward the initial research that led to the development of the Internet that NASA, NSF, and DOE also played a role in proliferating the usage of the Internet? Dr. Gallagher. Without question. Ms. Stevens. And would it be fair to say that the--to the best of your knowledge that the top five performing stocks by market capitalization in this country are Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Google, and Facebook? Yes. So, Dr. McNutt, are--based on some of your global leadership, and work internationally, are you aware of any conversations or debates in Germany, South Korea, China, in which their governments debate the merit of investing in science and technology broadly? Dr. McNutt. No. Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And, Dr. Khan, if the U.S. Government were to stop investing in basic research, what organizations would fill the capacity of this role? Dr. Khan. At present time we don't have an alternative. Ms. Stevens. Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Balderson? Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, panel, for being here. Couple questions, and Dr. Khan, you're going to be my last one, so just heads up, because what you just said was probably one of the best things that's been said here today. It was about giving them the environment of what's out there, other than just sitting behind a desk the whole time and being educated. But--hands-on is, I guess, the word for it. I'm going to follow up with my colleague from Northeast Ohio. I'm from Ohio also. I represent a pretty unique district. It's urban, suburban, and it's rural. My home county is Muskingum County, and it's in Appalachia. I actually call it the Shaker Heights of Appalachia. It's the largest populated county in the State--or the region of Appalachia. But going back to, you know, the need that's there, and getting left behind, you know, those folks feel like they're being left behind. It's just there's no interaction there. Right now, in that region of the State of Ohio, right now there's some negotiation going on with the petrochemical plant that's going to provide 4 to 6,000 construction jobs. It's a company called PTT. It's part of the shale play that's happening there. Shale is right across the river, in Pennsylvania. But my concern is--and it's everybody's concern, and we have community colleges, and we have 4-year colleges working, trying to get this figured out, this workforce demand. What can we do to ensure that these rural and more lower urban communities get the same access to this? And emphasize a little bit more, I mean, what you said for Representative Gonzalez. I just--I want to push a little bit more for ideas. Dr. Gallagher. So, as I said, one of the concerns I've always had is that we get mesmerized by just one segment of the--let's call it the innovation ecosystem that needs to happen. So, take your example, where you're looking at the shale energy, and looking now at either petrochemical, or crackers, and looking at polyethylene production. So that's great. I mean, that is a natural advantage for that region in the sense of you have a low-cost energy infrastructure, and some assets that nobody else has. It's necessary, but it's not sufficient. I mean, that can be an entirely extractive economy. You can take that stuff out, and take it somewhere else, to do what industry would call the value add. And so the goal really has to be--and I think this is actually something we can do much better. We have focused on the jazzy part of this, you know, the high-tech company, and the idea--you think about the Amazon discussion in New York. You know, the reason there was this big pushback is I think people are skeptical that that one employer, that one piece of technology, will spill over and create an economic activity that benefits the region. In manufacturing, the regional and--the rural and suburban areas, including through Ohio and Western Pennsylvania, they were drivers of the middle class employment wave, and that happened largely not at the very top research intensive OEMs (original equipment manufacturers), or at the base, it happened through the supply chain. The U.S. supply chain, I believe, is really in trouble right now. It's not seeing the technology benefits that the large companies are investing, and you can't just assume it's going to come up from those base activities. So one of the reasons I'm excited about the manufacturing institutes is that you're pulling together a sector, that they worked because you've got essentially a consortia of like- minded companies that share something. That consortia can take ownership over that supply chain problem, and look at making sure that those investments, that capital, are going into those plants. That's going to--that's what drives the employment. That's what's going to shape the demand for community college and others to step up and try to, you know, retrain people to take those jobs. This is an area that, you know, has a habit of working hard, and knowing what these jobs are like. You just need to be able to match up, and make sure that these technology innovations--we don't just assume it'll happen, but we do it with some intent. Mr. Balderson. OK. All right. Thank you. Dr. Khan, as I said, I'll wrap up with a question to you. What you did is something that I've done in the past, and that's--take any business owner who is personal friend, and, you know, telling me how he can't find the workforce out there, young kids. And I, you know, I'd make the suggestion, have you ever reached out to a vocational school, have you done this, or a community school? Well, no, I haven't. I didn't know I could. I mean, people say you can't have kids come into the workforce, but, you know, to me, and my own background, I wanted to do what I was working for. I wanted to actually do a touch and feel and do that. And I had the vocational school reach out, we picked six kids, and three of kids ended up getting jobs at this facility. So I couldn't agree with you more, as far as getting them out there. Is PepsiCo.--I mean, do they take that real world experience, and take them out there, and let them see what the end result's going to be? Dr. Khan. Sorry. We expose them as early as--even before they start college. We'll take high school students, and give them--because one of the things I'm competing for this talent is with these high visibility, sexy industries, and then you say, hey, how about food and beverage production and agriculture? It's not as sexy as working for the latest AI company, but yet the impact on the world, and the impact on our country, is profound. It's--every one of us consumes foods and beverages every day, and so getting them exposed is part of that. But I want to just also emphasize one other thing. Manufacturing, as we all know, is going through a transformation, and, with that, as our efficiency and productivity is going up, it is uncoupled from job creation. Let's not confuse that. Because as automation has come in, as AI has come in, we can still have that rural plant, but it's not going to have as many employees, and in fact it's a log scale difference. Where we need to train is the human interface, where machines aren't going to do--in order for us to remain competitive we need--so most of the jobs that are coming are actually coming at either the human/machine interface, or the human/human interface. And a lot of our existing employees from the past, in our education system, was training people to do jobs that actually are becoming obsolete, but being replaced by different jobs. So I want to really still emphasize that we have to think about retraining, and retraining a whole different skillset. That was not the case when I was coming out of high school and college. It was a different generation. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Tonko? I'm sorry, Mr. Casten? Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the panel. Dr. Khan, I'm sitting here chuckling at your comment about how none of us are actually doing the job we trained for. Twenty-five years ago I was getting a master's degree in biochemical engineering, and I just want to say to the millions of people watching us on C-SPAN right now that you are, you know, sitting there doing computational thermodynamics and working on fermenters, you are transparently trying to primary me next season, I know it. On a more serious note, one of the things that has just sort of shocked me, you know, being a little bit away from that field now, I went down and toured Argon National Lab, that's just south of my district in Illinois, and their photon beam accelerator, and realizing that the way we do science has changed so much. You know, I used to take all day to do an experiment, which meant that I had to very carefully shepherd my time to design a careful experiment. And now, you know, it's orders of magnitude. You've got 96 wells at a time. It takes minutes. And I was sort of saying to the scientists there that you've changed the way that this works, because now you do experiments and work backward to find out what's the hypothesis of why that well lit up, as opposed to do I have a hypothesis in advance? And that's not unique to fields that I have any experience in, but it does strike me that the--we're not paced by our ability to create data, we're paced by our ability to process and understand that data. And so my question for any, or all, of you is what are we doing, or could we be doing more of, to maintain a lead in the kind of computational science and engineering that is driving so many of these fields, and is growing it at rates that are hard for me to fathom? Dr. Khan. Can I--I'm going to be provocative to my scientific colleagues. The education that most of us, as scientists, historically received is somewhat--how to condense a problem to the minimal number of variables, and solve for that one variable. And the ideal experiment, regardless of discipline, was you could control every variable, except for the one that you wanted to study. That's about as non-real world as it gets. And that was done because that was the only way we, as humans, could understand the results of that experiment. We now live in a world with computational capabilities, and some of the--and, in fact, into the future, when we get into quantum computing, which your former institution is driving, we're going to be--or these machines are going to be designing experiments that they can interpret for us. We can't even start to imagine the number of variables in that real world environment. So if you look at that, then are we really now training and thinking about these real-world global problems with scientific rigor and approach, which is very different than the regressional approach that we were all educated in? And I think all three of us are of that generation. Dr. McNutt. I'll just add that one of the hottest areas right now, where students are being snapped out of universities, is any student who is very well versed in dealing with big data, with statistics, with complex systems, and with complex modeling. And it almost doesn't matter what they were trained on. If they are comfortable doing that, they are in demand. And we have undertrained in the past in the statistical area and the complex systems. Mr. Casten. Yes, I can vouch. I sat for a long time on the advisory board of Dartmouth College's engineering school, where I went, and you can tell what the sexy degrees are. I want to just, with the little bit of time I have left, and--pick up on a bigger issue, and sort of to some points that Dr. Gallagher raised in your written testimony. All of you, in some capacity, have mentioned this shift, proportional shift, away from publicly funded research to privately funded research, and the difference between basic and implied science that that implies. I want to talk about how we think about that with international IP, China specifically, but we, up here on this panel, have certain jurisdictional controls to protect our private data when it's produced in public entities or on our shores. As we get to a world where research is being done by the private sector, by increasingly transnational corporations, I'm not sure we have the tools, and I just welcome your thoughts, on how we actually protect national IP in a world of global information. Dr. Gallagher. Well, I, you know, my view, and I think this was the case on the cyber commission, we were talking about this, one of the reasons that technology is so disruptive is that it was intrinsically global. So it was moving information around, you know, beyond borders, and moving into realms where there's no law enforcement reciprocity. These issues of IP spillage have to do with the fact that they're difficult to enforce, that international standards of behavior are not uniform or applicable---- Dr. McNutt. You know, our ethics. Dr. Gallagher [continuing]. Ethics. I think that the only way you have a--look, we connected every person on the planet with a--with computing capability and a light speed communication tool, and we're--now we're grappling with the implications of that. And some of that will have to be done through the hard work of global engagement, and hammering out those kind of international norms, that kind of law enforcement structure, those kind of rules of the road. The flipside is, I think, you know, the local part. What is--until that happens, when there's some of this Wild West happening there, how do we continue to protect ourselves the best we can against some of the most damaging and adverse impacts, and that's where companies and individuals, the government, are looking at trying to protect identifiable critical assets. But until we tackle the broader issue, I think this is always going to feel like we have it inside out. Mr. Casten. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Now, Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today to discuss this very important topic. As Dr. McNutt highlighted in her testimony, it has been more than 15 years since the National Academy has made clear that America's commitment to research is critical to our ability to lead and compete in science and technology. Unfortunately, over the last decade, many of America's leaders, possibly including Members here today, failed to heed that advice and keep pace with other nations. As the rest of the world continues to take extraordinary steps to drive innovation in their own economies, the previous Republican majority in Congress put America on the wrong track, in my opinion, with major areas of vital research not adequately funded. It is time to correct our course and restore our commitment to invest in innovation, in research, in development, advanced manufacturing, and certainly in our STEM workforce. In particular, we have an opportunity to address the climate crisis through the United States leadership, and a commitment to research and development of the next generation of climate mitigation and prevention tools. So, Dr. McNutt, you urged that we, and I quote, ``simply cannot afford to let the United States leadership in science slip away.'' That's your quote. What data have been looked at by the Academies to determine that we are already falling behind? Dr. McNutt. So the data that's most complete at this point is the data from the National Science Foundation, the science and technology indicators. As I said in my opening statement, we've got leading indicators and lagging indicators. The lagging indicators, we have to be careful about putting too much weight on those because, by the time that we start slipping in them, it's too late. We've already lost. What I think is the most important leading indicator is to what extent do the very top students, anywhere in the world, want to come here to get their degree, because we have the best university system, and we have the best innovation system that they want to enter because it is the very best opportunity for them to pursue their careers? And we're already seeing a falling off in applications for graduate school from the deans, and we're already seeing that their opportunities are better elsewhere. Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And then federally funded research through the SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program generated some two-thirds of the components inside the smartphones we're all carrying today. And U.S. research has launched the Internet, and transformed clean energy technologies, and catapulted numerous other thriving American industries. Why, in your opinion, is Federal funding such an important driver for research to create world changing technology? Dr. Gallagher. Well, one of the main reasons is it can take risks that the private sector simply wouldn't take yet. So by-- that's a classic market failure argument, but they can take a very high risk, but very high payoff, chance, and look at that--at a problem in a way that I think would be very difficult for a company to justify doing. Dr. Khan. Can I just compliment Dr. Gallagher's comment on that, and maybe add to it, because it isn't just the risk. Industry, and no one company, has the resources and the talent pool that the collective workforce of the academic institutions has. And so the mobility of knowledge that occurs within-- between academic institutions, the collaboration that occurs, allows a much broader and deeper workforce. That won't happen in industry. I don't care how big a company is, it doesn't have the resources of a complete research university faculty. Mr. Tonko. Um-hum. Dr. Khan. And--so funding that allows not only the risk- taking, but actually the brainpower to solve the problems in its components. What industry does very well is integrate those components. I think you gave a great example. The components of that smartphone were invented by government-funded research, but that government-funded research didn't develop the phone. That was the integration. And what industry does very well, and the best in the world in--is the U.S., is that integration. That partnership, in my mind, is component/integration. Together it's invention/innovation, as I described earlier. Mr. Tonko. If I might just get one more quick question in, Chairwoman? Can you talk, Dr. McNutt, about how the Academies view the intersection of research and climate change? Dr. McNutt. Yes. So the Academies view is that research is essential so that we can make predictions about our future. And, right now, we can do a certain amount of attribution for the current state, but let's ask a simple question about just investment. Without further investment in understanding our climate future, more modeling, more understanding of how systems work, I couldn't confidently answer the question for you whether the current limited crops we have that produce--the 75 crops that basically feed the world, whether in 50 years those crops, in their present form, will still all be viable. Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Well, as the recently appointed Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, we look forward to working with your organizations to see what we can produce, in terms of research. So, thank you. With that, I yield back, and thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Johnson. Let me thank you, Dr. McNutt, Dr. Gallagher, and Dr. Khan. I'm so grateful, we are grateful, that you've come and spent your afternoon with your phenomenal knowledge that you've shared with us. We appreciate you being here. And I want to say that the record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members, or any additional questions to the Committee that they might ask you. So we thank you very much, and the Committee hearing is concluded. [Whereupon, at 4:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] Appendix I ---------- Answers to Post-Hearing Questions [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Appendix II ---------- Additional Material for the Record [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]