[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
                   ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE
                      OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART II

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 6, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-13

                               __________

 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                    
44-718 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------        
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
PAUL TONKO, New York                 MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, 
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                    Ranking Member
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia                  PETE SESSIONS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         PETER MEIJER, Michigan
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              May 6, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    13
    Written Statement............................................    14

Statement by Representative Michael Waltz, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    15
    Written Statement............................................    17

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    19

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    19
    Written Statement............................................    21

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Roger M. Wakimoto, Vice Chancellor for Research and Creative 
  Activities, University of California, Los Angeles
    Oral Statement...............................................    23
    Written Statement............................................    25

Ms. Gabriela Cruz Thompson, Director, University Research and 
  Collaboration, Intel Labs, Intel Corporation
    Oral Statement...............................................    29
    Written Statement............................................    31

Dr. Mahmud Farooque, Associate Director, Consortium for Science, 
  Policy and Outcomes, DC and Clinical Associate Professor, 
  School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State 
  University
    Oral Statement...............................................    42
    Written Statement............................................    44

Dr. Gerald Blazey, Vice President for Research and Innovation 
  Partnerships, Northern Illinois University
    Oral Statement...............................................    55
    Written Statement............................................    57

Dr. P. Barry Butler, President, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 
  University
    Oral Statement...............................................    66
    Written Statement............................................    68

Discussion.......................................................    72

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Roger M. Wakimoto, Vice Chancellor for Research and Creative 
  Activities, University of California, Los Angeles..............    94

Dr. Gerald Blazey, Vice President for Research and Innovation 
  Partnerships, Northern Illinois University.....................    95

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Report submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives
    ``Public Impact Research: Engaged Universities Making the 
      Difference,'' Association of Public & Land-Grant 
      Universities, November 2019................................    98

 
                      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
                   ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE
                      OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART II

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o'clock 
a.m., via Zoom, Hon. Haley Stevens [Chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at 
any time.
     Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today, the Committee will 
meet virtually. I just want to announce a couple of reminders 
to the Members about the conduct of this remote hearing. First, 
Members should keep their video feed on as long as they are 
present in the hearing. Members are also responsible for their 
own microphones. That's an important one to remember. Please 
also keep your microphones muted unless you're speaking. That's 
a big part of that responsibility. Finally, if Members have 
documents they wish to submit for the record, please email them 
to the Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated 
prior to the hearing.
     So good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. Thank you 
to our distinguished panelists for joining us and bringing your 
expertise for our discussion today. We are here today to 
continue our discussion about the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) and what is needed to propel the agency and the U.S. 
research enterprise into the future. In carrying out its 
mission to support research across all science and engineering 
disciplines and advance innovation in STEM (science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. NSF has 
delivered enormous benefits to society over the past 70 years. 
Even during the long stretches of flat funding, NSF continued 
to experiment with its processes and diversify its portfolio of 
investments to maximize impact.
     Over the past decade, NSF's budget has hovered around $8 
billion. In that time, NSF launched ambitious new initiatives, 
including I-Corps, NSF INCLUDES (Inclusion across the Nation of 
Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in 
Engineering and Science), the 10 Big Ideas, and the Convergence 
Accelerators, all while remaining focused and committed to its 
core research mission in equity and inclusion for all.
     NSF has more than demonstrated its capacity to not only 
survive but to continue to strive in an austere budget 
environment. Just imagine what could be achieved if we let this 
agency and the thousands of researchers and students it 
supports out of the box that has penned them for a long time.
     As a proud cosponsor of the National Science Foundation 
for the Future Act, I am excited about the opportunity to think 
big for a change. This bill is a comprehensive authorization 
that proposes doubling the agency's budget in 5 years. The bill 
pushes NSF to address long-standing challenges in scaling up 
effective K-12 STEM education innovations, educating workforce-
ready STEM graduates, and training the next generation of 
researchers and innovators.
     This bill is also introduced alongside Chairwoman Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Ranking Member Mike 
Waltz.
     A major focus of this legislation is also accountability 
to the public. New requirements in the bill would address 
threats to research security and ensure researchers are 
thinking through the societal impacts of their work.
     Finally, there is the issue of expanding NSF's mission. 
While the NSF has supported use-inspired and translational 
research for decades, it has not been a strategic priority. The 
NSF for the Future Act establishes a Directorate for Science 
and Engineering Solutions to empower the agency to take risks, 
forge new partnerships, and pursue research-driven solutions to 
a wide range of societal problems and applications that are 
needed for our innovation engine and activities throughout the 
United States of America.
     It's also a two-way street. With researchers advancing 
solutions for the benefit of communities and those 
collaborations inspiring researchers to ask questions and try 
approaches they may have never otherwise considered, curiosity 
abounds.
     While I'm enthusiastic about the need for the NSF to take 
on these new challenges, we must take our time to get this 
right. We are certainly off to a great start with a bill that 
has been developed over a year of extensive vetting with a wide 
range of stakeholders, policy experts, and thought leaders. 
This is part of the series that we are having in this 
Committee. The Committee is telling me it's the third hearing. 
It's the second one I've chaired. I know our other 
Subcommittees are digging in as well that we've held on this 
topic. And you can also see from the Members who comprise this 
hearing the dedication and the want and desire to make sure 
that we get this right. And that is part of what we're going to 
be hearing from our phenomenal experts and witnesses here 
today.
     The last month, the Committee has also met to discuss 
opportunities for reimagining the U.S. innovation ecosystem as 
a whole. It's obviously not all done through the NSF and this 
exclusive agency. It is an interagency effort as we think 
through the bounty of our innovation ecosystem.
     Last week, the Subcommittee heard from the NSF Director 
and National Science Board Chair. Today, we are hearing from 
stakeholders, those on the frontlines who know intimately what 
the challenges are and what is needed to overcome them. We are 
experiencing a rare moment, an exciting moment of bipartisan 
enthusiasm for correcting course and significantly increasing 
Federal support for U.S. research and development, particularly 
at the National Science Foundation. Many point to the dramatic 
increase in Chinese R&D (research and development) investments 
as a strategic imperative. I for one am focused on solving 
problems here at home and investing and supporting American 
research and innovation that has continued to lead us through 
the 21st century.
     So whatever the motivation, we must seize this opportunity 
to set NSF on a sustainable path to achieving its full 
potential to advance research, drive innovation that will spawn 
new industries, secure our national defense and economic 
leadership, and improve the lives of the American people.
     I certainly look forward to today's discussion.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. Thank you to 
our distinguished panelists for joining us today.We are here 
today to continue our discussion about the National Science 
Foundation and what is needed to propel the agency, and the 
U.S. research enterprise, into the future. In carrying out its 
mission to support research across all science and engineering 
disciplines and advance innovation in STEM education, NSF has 
delivered enormous benefits to society over the past 70 years.
    Even during long stretches of flat funding, NSF continued 
to experiment with its processes and diversify its portfolio of 
investments to maximize its impact. Over the past decade, NSF's 
budget has hovered around $8 billion dollars. In that time, NSF 
launched ambitious new initiatives including I-Corps, NSF 
INCLUDES, the 10 Big Ideas, and the Convergence Accelerators. 
All the while remaining focused and committed to its core 
research mission.
    NSF has more than demonstrated its capacity to not only 
survive, but to continue to strive in an austere budget 
environment. Just imagine what could be achieved if we let this 
agency, and the thousands of researchers and students it 
supports, out of the box that has penned them in for all this 
time.
    As a proud co-sponsor of the National Science Foundation 
for the Future Act, I am excited about the opportunity to think 
big for a change. This bill is a comprehensive authorization 
that proposes a doubling of the agency's budget in five years. 
The bill pushes NSF to address longstanding challenges in 
scaling up effective K-12 STEM education innovations, educating 
workforce-ready STEM graduates, and training the next 
generation of researchers and innovators. A major focus of this 
bill is accountability to the public. New requirements in the 
bill would address threats to research security and ensure 
researchers are thinking through the societal impacts of their 
work.
    Finally, there is the issue of expanding NSF's mission. 
While NSF has supported use-inspired and translational research 
for decades, it has not been a strategic priority. The NSF for 
the Future Act establishes a Directorate for Science and 
Engineering Solutions to empower the agency to take risks, 
forge new partnerships, and pursue research-driven solutions to 
a wide range of societal problems. This is a two-way street, 
with researchers advancing solutions for the benefit of 
communities and those collaborations inspiring researchers to 
ask questions and try approaches they may never have otherwise 
considered.
    While I am enthusiastic about the need for NSF to take on 
these new challenges, we must take our time to make sure we get 
this right. We're off to a good start, with a bill that has 
been developed over a year of extensive vetting with a wide 
range of stakeholders, policy experts, and thought leaders. 
This is the third in a series of hearings this Committee has 
held on this topic. Last month, the full Committee met to 
discuss opportunities for reimagining the U.S. innovation 
ecosystem as a whole. Last week, this Subcommittee heard from 
the NSF Director and National Science Board Chair. Today we are 
going to hear from stakeholders, those on the front lines who 
know intimately what the challenges are and what is needed to 
overcome them.
    We are experiencing a rare moment of bipartisan enthusiasm 
for correcting course and significantly increasing federal 
support for U.S. research and development, particularly at NSF. 
Many point to the dramatic increase in Chinese R&D investments 
as a strategic imperative. I, for one, am focused on solving 
problems here at home. Whatever the motivation, we must seize 
this opportunity to set NSF on a sustainable path to achieving 
its full potential to advance research and drive innovation 
that will spawn new industries, secure our national defense and 
economic leadership, and improve the lives of the American 
people.
    I look forward to today's discussion.

     Chairwoman Stevens. And with that, the Chair now 
recognizes the dedicated Ranking Member from the State of 
Florida, Mr. Mike Waltz, for an opening statement.
     Mr. Waltz. Hey, thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. And thank 
you for holding today's hearing, the second legislative hearing 
this Subcommittee is having on NSF for the Future. I'm excited 
about this hearing. I think it will provide an important 
opportunity to hear from a variety of stakeholders on how 
Congress can best leverage and expand the mission of the NSF 
and ensure we maintain our edge against the rising global 
competition that we've all discussed.
     It's always worth remembering that in its 71-year history 
the NSF has played a vital role in advancing basic scientific 
knowledge across the spectrum of disciplines from engineering 
to biology, has become the gold standard for basic research 
around the world. And in that time, in that 7 decades, NSF has 
funded 236 Nobel Prize winners.
     The NSF has also played a critical role in supporting 
America's colleges and universities, accounting for 
approximately 25 percent, 1/4 of all federally funded basic 
research. America's universities have long been regarded as the 
best in the world, and I think that that designation is largely 
due to the support of the National Science Foundation.
     I'm grateful today that we will be hearing from a number 
of these institutions. I'm especially pleased to welcome Dr. 
Butler, President of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 
which calls the great 6th District of Florida home. Embry-
Riddle leads the world in training premier aviation and 
aerospace talent. Many of you that fly back and forth to D.C., 
you are probably being flown by an Embry-Riddle grad. I'm 
especially proud of their partnership with the State of 
Florida, that they engage thousands of high school students by 
providing precollege STEM education programming focused on 
aerospace applications.
     So as the Members of this Committee know, actively 
engaging students pre-K, very early on through 12 in STEM and 
connecting it to their community truly plays a critical role in 
sparking students' interest in STEM. We have to spark those 
students before they divert.
     We also have in north central Florida a Burns Science and 
Technology STEM Elementary School. Every time I visit this 
school, I feel a little dumber as we have elementary school 
students designing robots, participating in CAD (Computer Aided 
Design), additive manufacturing, 3-D manufacturing. It's really 
incredible. And I think we all know that the sooner that we 
grab these and spark these students' interest, the more likely 
they are to support STEM majors in college. So we're lucky to 
have institutions like Embry-Riddle and Burns who are working 
in their communities to train our next generation of STEM 
experts.
     Look, the bottom line is an investment in research and 
STEM education is an investment in our future and in our 
national security. That's just one of the reasons why the NSF 
for the Future Act is so important. It increases funding for 
fundamental research, improves STEM education, and it increases 
research training.
     So as we invest in STEM in education programs with proven 
track records like Embry-Riddle's, NSF must also be able to 
scale up in a sustainable way. And I emphasize the word 
sustainable. And as Chair Stevens mentioned, the NSF for the 
Future Act also creates a new directorate, accelerating 
solutions to many of our Nation's and the world's major 
challenges.
     So while making these investments, we must focus on 
protecting taxpayer-funded research and technologies from our 
adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) especially. 
I look forward to strengthening safeguards throughout this 
process to improve best practices and prevent research theft. 
And we are hearing repeatedly that there is at least a 1,000 
percent increase in referral from the FBI on this research 
theft.
     I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how 
they're addressing the challenges of research security, how we 
can build on previous successes to safeguard America's 
intellectual property, and confront our adversaries, especially 
the CCP's wholesale theft. We cannot make these major 
investments just to see it flow out the back door to our 
adversaries.
     So while the Chinese are leapfrogging the United States 
technologically, we are at an inflection point. It's critical 
for the United States to scale up our enterprise. There is 
momentum, as Chair Stevens mentioned, on both sides of the 
aisle to make these investments, but it must be done in a 
realistic and sustainable way.
     So while investing in NSF and basic research, American 
technology, American innovations, and the American workforce 
will continue to lead the world. I look forward to working with 
the Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas, both Chairwomen and 
Ranking Member Lucas to move the NSF for the Future Act through 
the Committee in a bipartisan process, and let's get it to the 
House floor for consideration. I truly thank our witnesses for 
their time to join us, share their expertise. I look forward to 
your testimony, and I yield the balance of my time.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for holding today's hearing, 
the second legislative hearing this subcommittee is having on 
the ``NSF for the Future Act.'' This hearing will provide an 
important opportunity to hear from a variety of stakeholders on 
how Congress can best leverage and expand the mission of the 
National Science Foundation to ensure we maintain our edge 
against rising global competition.
    Over its 71 year history, the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has played a vital role in advancing basic scientific 
knowledge across the spectrum of disciplines - from engineering 
to biology - and has become the gold-standard for basic 
research across the world. In that time, the NSF has funded 236 
Nobel Prize winners.
    NSF also plays a critical role in supporting America's 
colleges and universities, accounting for approximately 25 
percent of all federally-funded basic research. America's 
universities have long been regarded as the best in the world, 
largely due to the support of the NSF.
    I am grateful that today we will be hearing from a number 
of these institutions. I'm especially pleased to welcome Dr. 
Butler, President of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 
which calls Florida's 6th District home. Embry-Riddle leads the 
world in training premier aviation and aerospace talent. 
Through a partnership with the State of Florida, they are also 
engaging thousands of high school students by providing pre- 
college STEM education programming focused on aerospace 
applications.
    As the Members of this Committee know, actively engaging 
students in grades PreK through 12 in STEM and connecting it to 
their community plays a critical role in sparking students' 
interest in STEM. It greatly increases the likelihood they will 
pursue STEM majors in college. The 6th District and the state 
of Florida are lucky to have institutions like Embry-Riddle, 
who are working with their communities to train our next 
generation of STEM experts. An investment in research and STEM 
education is an investment in our future.
    That's one reason why the ``NSF For the Future Act,'' is so 
important, it increases funding for fundamental research and 
improves STEM education and research training. As we invest in 
STEM education programs with proven track records like Embry-
Riddle's, NSF must be able to scale-up in a sustainable way. 
The NSF For the Future Act also creates a new directorate, 
accelerating solutions to major challenges.
    While making these investments, we must focus on protecting 
taxpayer funded research and technologies from adversaries like 
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I look forward to 
strengthening safeguards throughout the legislative process to 
improve best practices and prevent research theft.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how they 
are addressing the challenges of research security and how we 
can build on previous successes to safeguard America's 
intellectual property and confront the CCP's wholesale theft.
    With the CCP leapfrogging the United States 
technologically, we are at an inflection point and it is 
critical for the U.S. to scale up our R&D enterprise. There is 
momentum on both sides of the aisle to make these investments, 
but it must be done in a realistic and sustainable way. By 
investing in NSF and basic research, American technology, 
American innovations, and the American workforce will continue 
to lead the world. I look forward to working with Chairwoman 
and Ranking Member Lucas, to move the NSF for the Future Act 
through the Committee in a bipartisan process and to the House 
Floor for consideration.
    I'd like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to join 
us today their share their expertise. I look forward to your 
testimonies.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
     And with that, the Chair now recognizes our fearless 
leader, a legend in her own right, the Chairwoman of the Full 
Committee, Chairwoman Johnson, for an opening statement.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning 
to all. I am so grateful to Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking 
Member Waltz for holding this second hearing on the NSF for the 
Future Act. And thank you to our esteemed witnesses for joining 
us this morning.
     Our U.S. universities continue to lead the world in 
cutting-edge fundamental research. While universities rely on 
several sources of funding for research, the largest single 
source is the Federal Government, including the National 
Science Foundation. NSF grants allow researchers to pursue 
their own best ideas across all fields of science and 
engineering without regard to anyone else's short-term 
practical goals. Such fundamental research continues to be the 
foundation of our entire innovation enterprise.
     At the same time, I recognize that such research is not 
sufficient to achieve NSF's broader mission to advance science 
toward solutions to our Nation's challenges. That long-standing 
broad mission for NSF was written into its 1950 founding 
document by this very Committee. Indeed, NSF has long supported 
both use-inspired research and efforts to translate the 
research into practice.
     NSF pioneered the Small Business Innovation Research or 
SBIR program in the 1970's. Nearly 10 years ago, NSF launched 
the Innovation Corps program to educate a new generation of 
scientists, entrepreneurs. But those efforts have largely been 
around the edges and not on a large scale. We are at an 
inflection point for U.S. research and innovation leadership. 
The international leadership that we long took for granted is 
rapidly slipping through our fingers. In this new global 
context, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee is 
looking to reauthorize the National Science Foundation for the 
future, not just relying on what we've done in the past.
     There is much to discuss in the NSF for the Future Act 
from the creation of a new directorate to STEM education and 
broadening participation at all levels to increased 
accountability and security in our research enterprise. One 
particular aspect of our legislation that I want to highlight 
is public engagement in research. The stakes are high for many 
areas of science and technology (S&T) just not in terms of 
economic competitiveness and national security but in terms of 
the benefits and the risks to individuals, to communities, and 
to workers. To maximize the benefits and minimize potential 
harm of technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and 
synthetic biology, we must engage nontraditional stakeholders 
and diverse voices in NSF research, including civic 
organizations, labor, local and tribal governments, farmers, 
and even the public at large. And public engagement should not 
just be for technology. It matters for climate change, water 
quality, social inequity, and other challenges for which 
technology is only part of the solution.
     As we identify the types of problems we're trying to 
solve, as we scope our research agendas, and as we pull 
together research partnerships, we must think more broadly 
about who needs to have a seat at the table. Engagement beyond 
the usual suspects will also spark new lines of inquiry and 
attract a more diverse group of researchers themselves. These 
are central goals of the NSF for the Future Act.
     I again want to thank our expert witnesses for taking time 
to appear before the Committee this morning and share your 
insights for recommendations. I look forward to the discussion, 
and I yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Thank you Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Waltz for 
holding this second hearing on the NSF for the Future Act. And 
thank you to our esteemed witnesses for joining us this 
morning.
    U.S. universities continue to lead the world in cutting 
edge fundamental research. While universities rely on several 
sources of funding for research, the largest single source is 
the Federal government, including the National Science 
Foundation. NSF grants allow researchers to pursue their own 
best ideas across all fields of science and engineering, 
without regard to anyone else's short-term practical goals. 
Such fundamental research continues to be the foundation of our 
entire innovation enterprise.
    At the same time, I recognize that such research is not 
sufficient to achieve NSF's broader mission to advance science 
toward solutions to our nation's challenges. That long standing 
broader mission for NSF was written into its 1950 founding 
document by this very Committee. Indeed, NSF has long supported 
both use-inspired research and efforts to translate the 
research into practice. NSF pioneered the Small Business 
Innovation Research--or SBIR--program in the 1970s. Nearly 10 
years ago, NSF launched the Innovation Corps program to educate 
a new generation of scientist-entrepreneurs. But those efforts 
have largely been around the edges, and not on a large scale.
    We are at an inflection point in U.S. research and 
innovation leadership. The international leadership that we 
long took for granted is rapidly slipping through our fingers. 
In this new global context, the Science, Space, and Technology 
committee is looking to reauthorize the National Science 
Foundation for the future, not just relying on what we've done 
in the past.
    There is much to discuss in the NSF for the Future Act, 
from the creation of a new directorate, to STEM education and 
broadening participation at all levels, to increased 
accountability and security in our research enterprise.
    One particular aspect of our legislation that I want to 
highlight is public engagement in research. The stakes are high 
for many areas of science and technology--not just in terms of 
our economic competitiveness and national security--but in 
terms of the benefits and risks to individuals, to communities, 
and to workers. To maximize the benefits and minimize the 
potential harm of technologies such as artificial intelligence 
and synthetic biology, we must engage nontraditional 
stakeholders and diverse voices in NSF research, including 
civic organizations, labor, local and tribal governments, 
farmers, and even the public at large. And public engagement 
should not just be for technology. It matters for climate 
change, water quality, social inequity, and other challenges 
for which technology is only part of the solution. As we 
identify the types of problems we are trying to solve, as we 
scope our research agendas, and as we pull together research 
partnerships, we must think more broadly about who needs to 
have a seat at the table. Engagement beyond the usual suspects 
will also spark new lines of inquiry and attract a more diverse 
group of researchers themselves. These are central goals of the 
NSF for the Future Act.
    I again want to thank the expert witnesses for taking the 
time to appear before the committee this morning and share your 
insights and recommendations. I look forward to the 
discussion.I yield back.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. And the 
Chair now recognizes our fearless Ranking Member of the 
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking 
Member Waltz, for holding today's hearing on the future of the 
National Science Foundation. And thank you to our witnesses for 
being here. The input of experts like you in this process is 
essential as we determine the future of the American research 
enterprise.
     We're at a critical point in our Nation's history. The 
world is facing a new technological revolution. Advances in 
artificial intelligence, quantum technology, biotechnology, and 
space exploration are quickly creating the industries and jobs 
of the future. The United States led the way in technological 
development for the last century, but our continued global 
leadership is not assured. I believe that the Nation that leads 
in science and technology will shape the world order for the 
next century. I'd like that nation to be ours. I'd like for 
emerging technologies to be developed with our values of 
transparency and fairness.
     The question we face is how we grow our Nation's research 
enterprise to meet those challenges. I would argue there's a 
right way and a wrong way to invest in American 
competitiveness. The Chinese Community Party has been working 
to steal, literally, figuratively, the U.S. playbook for 
innovation for years. We don't need to steal theirs. China has 
been dumping billions of dollars into applied R&D but has not 
yet achieved the breakthrough innovations and commercial 
applications you would expect from all of that investment. 
Simply put, they're demonstrating that centralized, top-down 
technology spending does not work.
     That's why last year I introduced the Securing American 
Leadership in Science and Technology Act, or SALSTA. SALSTA 
doubled down on what has proven to work over the last 40 years 
in making the United States the global leader in innovation. 
And it sets us up for success through a national S&T Strategy 
and improved technology transfer from Federal labs to the 
commercial sector.
     Each player in Federal R&D, from the basic research funded 
by NSF to DOD (Department of Defense) and NIST's (National 
Institute of Standards and Technology's) work with industry, 
has an important role in advancing innovation. SALSTA 
recognizes the strength of the U.S. innovation ecosystem and 
doesn't break it apart by creating something shiny and new like 
other proposals being considered in the Senate.
     For the last year, the Committee has worked on a 
bipartisan basis to look at how we can grow and evolve NSF and 
to meet the national and societal challenges of the 21st 
century. After many discussions with stakeholders and experts, 
I was proud to join Chairwoman Johnson, Chairwoman Stevens, and 
Ranking Member Waltz in introducing the NSF for the Future Act. 
Our bill doubles basic research funding at the NSF over the 
next 5 years and preserves what makes NSF great, while 
enhancing NSF's role in moving research from lab to market. Our 
bill takes a comprehensive approach to reauthorizing NSF, 
including building a domestic STEM workforce and investing in 
research infrastructure. The bill also creates a new 
directorate of NSF that will be focused on science and 
engineering solutions. The new directorate aims to make the 
fundamental research funded by NSF and help apply those 
discoveries to solving national challenges from cybersecurity 
to climate change. The new proposed directorate does not 
duplicate or seek to replace the missions of other research 
agencies, but instead accelerates the development of NSF-funded 
research for private sector development and commercialization.
     As I've said before, we have a unique window of 
opportunity before us. There is broad, bipartisan agreement 
that we need to prioritize research and investment in American 
research. I believe--and I say this with the most sincerity--
that if House and Senate leadership, both sides of the 
building, both sides of the chambers, gives the Committees of 
jurisdiction the opportunity, we can seize this momentum and 
pass meaningful legislation that will meet the moment.
     Some have called this a new Sputnik moment. As we consider 
legislation, we must consider the lessons of the space race. 
That period saw tremendous growth in science and technology and 
created a generation of scientists and engineers. But when the 
cold war was over, research funding stagnated. We must avoid 
creating a situation of feast and famine for our research 
enterprise. Whatever shape our final legislation takes, when 
the package comes together, it should be comprehensive, 
strategic, and sustainable.
     I look forward to working with my colleagues through this 
process to ensure that we achieve those goals. Again, I want to 
thank our witnesses for their input today, and I look forward 
to your testimony and yield back, Madam Chair.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Waltz, for 
holding today's hearing on the future of the National Science 
Foundation. And thank you to our witnesses for being here. The 
input of experts like you in this process is essential as we 
determine the future of the American research enterprise.
    We are at a critical moment in our nation's history. The 
world is facing a new technological revolution. Advances in 
artificial intelligence, quantum technology, biotechnology, and 
space exploration are quickly creating the industries and jobs 
of the future.
    The United States led the way in technological development 
last century, but our continued global leadership is not 
assured. I believe that the nation that leads in science and 
technology will shape the world order for the next century. I'd 
like that nation to be ours, and I'd like for emerging 
technologies to be developed with our values of transparency 
and fairness.
    The question we face is how we grow our nation's research 
enterprise to meet these challenges. I would argue there is a 
right way and a wrong way to invest in American 
competitiveness. The Chinese Community Party has been working 
to steal--literally and figuratively--the U.S. playbook for 
innovation for years. We don't need to steal theirs. China has 
been dumping billions of dollars into applied R&D, but has not 
yet achieved the breakthrough innovations and commercial 
applications you would expect from all of that investment. 
Simply put, they've demonstrated that centralized, top-down 
technology spending does not work.
    That's why last year I first introduced the Securing 
American Leadership in Science and Technology Act, or SALSTA. 
SALSTA doubles down on what has proven to work over the last 40 
years in making the U.S. the global leader in innovation. And 
it sets us up for success through a National S&T Strategy and 
improved technology transfer from federal labs to the 
commercial sector.
    Each player in federal R&D, from the basic research funded 
by NSF to DOE and NIST's work with industry, has an important 
role in advancing innovation. SALSTA recognizes the strength of 
the U.S. innovation ecosystem and doesn't break it apart by 
creating something shiny and new like other proposals being 
considered in the Senate.
    For the last year, our Committee has been working on a 
bipartisan basis to look at how we can grow and evolve NSF to 
meet the national and societal challenges of the 21st Century. 
After many discussions with stakeholders and experts, I was 
proud to join Chairwoman Johnson, Chairwoman Stevens, and 
Ranking Member Waltz in introducing the NSF for the Future Act.
    Our bill doubles basic research funding at NSF over the 
next 5 years and preserves what makes NSF great, while also 
enhancing NSF's role in moving research from lab to market. Our 
bill takes a comprehensive approach to reauthorizing NSF, 
including building a domestic STEM workforce and investing in 
research infrastructure. The bill also creates a new 
directorate of NSF that will be focused on science and 
engineering solutions. The new directorate aims to take the 
fundamental research funded by NSF and help apply those 
discoveries to solving national challenges from cybersecurity 
to climate change.
    The new proposed directorate does not duplicate or seek to 
replace the missions of other research agencies, but instead 
accelerates the development of NSF funded research for private 
sector development and commercialization.
    As I have said before, we have a unique window of 
opportunity before us. There is broad, bipartisan agreement 
that we need to prioritize investment in American research. I 
believe that if House and Senate leadership give the Committees 
of jurisdiction the opportunity, we can seize this momentum and 
pass meaningful legislation that will meet the moment.
    Some have called this a new Sputnik moment. As we consider 
legislation, we must consider the lessons of the space race. 
That period saw tremendous growth in science and technology and 
created a generation of scientists and engineers. But when the 
Cold War was over, research funding stagnated. We must avoid 
creating a situation of feast and famine for our research 
enterprise. Whatever shape our final legislative package takes, 
it should be comprehensive, strategic, and sustainable. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues through this process to 
ensure we achieve those goals.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their input today. 
I look forward to your testimony.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And at this time I'd like 
to introduce our witnesses.
     Our first witness is Dr. Roger Wakimoto. Dr. Wakimoto is 
currently the Vice Chancellor for Research and Creative 
Activities at the University of California Los Angeles, 
otherwise known as UCLA, a position that he has held since 
2017. Dr. Wakimoto previously served as the Director of the 
National Center for Atmosphere Research, Earth Observing 
Laboratory from 2005 to 2010 and subsequently as the Director 
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research from 2010 to 
2013. Dr. Wakimoto also served as the Assistant Director of 
NSF's Directorate for Geosciences for about 5 years where he 
led a division that supported the atmospheric, geospace, polar, 
Earth, and ocean sciences with a $1.3 billion annual budget.
     Our next witness is Ms. Gabriela Cruz Thompson. Ms. 
Thompson is currently the Director of University Research and 
Collaboration at Intel Corporation's research arm Intel Labs. 
In this role she and her team identify and fund critical large- 
and medium-scale research at leading universities worldwide. 
She also currently serves as a member of the Advisory Committee 
to the Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
Directorate at the National Science Foundation. Ms. Thompson 
previously served as the Chief of Staff at Intel Labs and as a 
Technical Assistant to Intel's Chief Technology Officer.
     Our third witness is Dr. Mahmud Farooque. Dr. Farooque is 
the Associate Director of the Consortium for Science Policy and 
Outcomes, CSPO, and a Clinical Associate Professor in the 
School for the Future of Innovation and Society at Arizona 
State University. In this role, he co-leads the consortium's 
long-term efforts to build a community of practice among 
innovative R&D program managers in the government, 
nongovernment, and private sectors. His expertise focuses on 
innovation systems, research management, knowledge 
coproduction, policy entrepreneurship, and participatory 
technology assessment.
     Our next witness, our final witness is Dr. Gerald Blazey. 
Dr.--oh, no, sorry, not our final witness but our second to 
final witness. Dr. Blazey is currently the Vice President for 
Research and Innovation Partnerships at Northern Illinois 
University (NIU), a position that he has held since 2015. Prior 
to his position at NIU, Dr. Blazey served as the Assistant 
Director for Physical Sciences in the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the 
President from 2011 to 2014. Dr. Blazey has also served as a 
Program Manager at the Department of Energy (DOE) and 
participated in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 
collider program, where he served as a co-spokesperson of the 
DZero collaboration. I'd love to hear more about that, Dr. 
Blazey.
     Our final witness is Dr. P. Barry Butler. Dr. Butler is 
currently the sixth President of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 
University, a position he has held since 2017. During his time 
as President, Dr. Butler has encouraged collaboration with 
industry and is expanding the university's interest in aviation 
cybersecurity, aviation data analytics, and autonomous 
vehicles. Prior to his position at Embry-Riddle, Dr. Butler was 
Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Iowa 
where he was also Dean of the College of Engineering for 10 
years.
     So we will now move into 5 minutes of written testimony 
from this incredible group of witnesses. We will start with Dr. 
Wakimoto, and then I will move on to the--our next witness. 
With that, Dr. Wakimoto.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. ROGER M. WAKIMOTO,

                  VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH

                    AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES,

             UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

     Dr. Wakimoto. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Waltz, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee. I'm Roger Wakimoto. I'm the Vice 
Chancellor for Research and Creative Activities at UCLA. UCLA 
has been named the No. 1 public university for several years 
running and ranks among the world's top research universities, 
successfully competing for significant Federal research 
funding, including from the National Science Foundation. The 
support helps UCLA advance knowledge, build technical 
expertise, drive innovation, create new businesses, and train 
tomorrow's workforce, thus contributing to our Nation's ability 
to solve pressing societal challenge and remaining globally 
competitive.
     It is really an honor and a pleasure to join you today to 
discuss the NSF for the Future Act and possibilities for how 
major research institutions can make headway in addressing 
challenges related to diversity and inclusion in research in 
partnership with smaller research institutions to advance 
knowledge. I thank the Committee for considering these issues 
and for inviting me here as a witness today.
     As Congress has been contemplating a new authorization for 
NSF over the past couple of years, I too have been 
contemplating what a bright future for the Foundation would 
look like. To begin with, such legislation should abide by the 
Hippocratic oath's dictum to, quote, ``First, do no harm,'' 
unquote.
     NSF support of curiosity-driven research across a wide 
variety of fields is a mainstay of U.S. scientific strength 
that must remain the primary mission of the agency and its 
guiding light. That does not mean, however, that NSF cannot 
take on new responsibilities consistent with its primary 
mission to strengthen our Nation.
     Given the long-standing importance of basic research for 
the U.S. scientific enterprise, I appreciate that the NSF for 
the Future Act aims to maintain the core mission of the 
Foundation while also creating a new directorate to support 
use-inspired research and translation and to drive and propel 
technological innovation in our country. I'm a believer that 
research in the public interest, research that can demonstrate 
a societal purpose is a worthy pursuit and is an appropriate 
use of public funds.
     The solutions directorate would take on many issues which 
NSF already addresses but within even more interdisciplinary 
and goal-oriented approach. Ideally, the new directorate would 
be a crosscutting entity in order to maximize its success. I 
appreciate that the NSF for the Future Act proposes that the 
head of the new solutions directorate be someone of the same 
stature as the leaders of NSF's other directorates. I also 
appreciate that the bill authorizes the transfer of funds from 
the new directorate, the NSF's traditional programs, and not 
the other way around. These steps help ensure an appropriate 
balance between basic and applied research.
     The NSF for the Future bill aims to poise the Foundation 
to deliberately tackle some significant societal concerns, and 
I applaud that. These challenges include climate change and 
environmental sustainability, which are topics close to my own 
scientific background and research expertise. I believe that 
climate change is one of the greatest technological challenges 
facing our world, and I strongly support a focus on this matter 
in the legislation.
     Another important and persistent challenge the bill seeks 
to address is the need to increase diversity of those involved 
in research. It is especially critical to encourage and develop 
a diverse pipeline of scientists and researchers. The bill 
provides some helpful incentives, but I believe it could do 
even more. Codification of the INCLUDES program, the pilot to 
foster partnership with emerging research institutions, and 
other provisions in the NSF for the Future Act to broaden 
participation and are welcome steps.
     Additionally, the bill could explicitly include MSIs 
(minority-serving institutions) and HBCUs (historically Black 
colleges and universities) among the emerging research 
institutions and include best practices learned from NSF-
supported centers such as STCs (Science and Technology Centers) 
and ERCs (Engineering Research Centers), which partner with 
local universities and industries. UCLA supports additional 
criteria be adopted for multi-institutional awards with annual 
reporting.
     Given large societal challenges that need to be addressed 
at a national level, it is critical that we support graduate 
students and postdoctoral researchers in our institutions and 
provide them with professional development opportunities. 
Supporting training grants is a promising mechanism for this 
purpose, as the NSF for the Future Act indicates. Developing 
innovative approaches for training and career development for 
our early career researchers, including the necessary 
administrative supplements, would also help.
     In conclusion, thank you for proposing a solid bipartisan 
NSF authorization bill and for eliciting input to help further 
strengthen the legislation. I really look forward to the Q&A 
(question and answer) and discussion.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Wakimoto follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And with that, Ms. Cruz 
Thompson.

            TESTIMONY OF MS. GABRIELA CRUZ THOMPSON,

        DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND COLLABORATION,

                 INTEL LABS, INTEL CORPORATION

     Ms. Thompson. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, 
Ranking Member Waltz, and distinguished Members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me. It is a great honor to 
testify today about Intel's partnership with NSF and to comment 
on the NSF for the Future Act.
     I am the Director of University Research Collaborations at 
Intel Labs. This is a division of Intel Corporation dedicated 
purely to research. Intel is the world's largest manufacturer 
of semiconductors, or chips, and the only American manufacturer 
of state-of-the-art semiconductors. Intel is investing $27 
billion in R&D between 2019 and 2021 with the--most of it is 
conducted here in the United States. We also recently announced 
new investments totaling $24 billion to construct chip 
manufacturing facilities or fabs in Arizona and New Mexico.
     The semiconductor products that Intel manufactures 
provides the foundation for transformational technologies and 
innovations, including artificial intelligence, Internet of 
Things (IOT), 5G, quantum computing, and many others. Intel 
researchers actively collaborate with academic teams and 
government agencies, including NSF, NIST, DOE, and DARPA 
(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to advance 
technology and design for our products and our chip 
manufacturing processes. We partner with Federal agencies and 
academia because we--they open the doors to unparalleled skill 
and diversity of curiosity-driven research. Intel's partnership 
with NSF extend the--extend back many decades as cofounder of 
the Semiconductor Research Corporation, which is the world's 
leading nonprofit microelectronics research consortia.
     In recent years, Intel's relationship with NSF has 
expanded into a bilateral collaboration and granting a number 
of programs ranging from machine learning for wireless 
networking to foundational microarchitecture. We also join new 
programs involved in multiple institutions such as the 
Convergence Accelerator and recently announced RINGs, the 
Resilient and Intelligent Next-G Communication Initiative, 
which was announced just last week.
     Intel is donating over $40 million toward these programs 
for a total value of over $150 million when combined with 
funding from NSF and other members. We also provide in-kind 
contributions to students and faculty that are awarded by those 
NSF programs. We provide access to the latest industrial 
technologies to manufacture chips, and we also provide access 
to the latest products and research prototypes available on the 
cloud. These public-private partnerships have yielded important 
commercialization of research results, and we look forward to 
strengthening them.
     I commend the Committee for its leadership in crafting 
bipartisan legislation to advocate for the future of U.S. 
innovation, and I am delighted to offer support for the efforts 
to strengthen the NSF, particularly, and first, the creation of 
a new directorate for science and engineering solutions would 
focus on societal challenges like global competitiveness of 
critical technologies. It will also provide us with the 
opportunity to interact with a broader community of scientists 
and industry representatives so that we can address wider-
ranging research questions and improve research outcomes.
     Second, the sustainable increase in overall funding for 
the Foundation in the bill would enable NSF to support the 
``highly competitive'' and ``competitive'' proposals that today 
go unfunded and would increase the impact to STEM teaching and 
student programs, as well as broadening the workforce needs 
today and for the future.
     Third, I believe the bill could further enable 
partnerships with private industry by expanding industry 
eligibility to participate in consortia alongside academic 
researchers. This collaboration would ultimately accelerate 
technology transfers and open up innovation ecosystems.
     Fourth, the bill could also prioritize long-term funding 
for major research equipment and facility construction focused 
on semiconductor manufacturing, which is in alignment with the 
recently recognized CHIPS for America Act.
     And fifth, finally, I would further suggest that the bill 
defines NSF's role in the National Semiconductor Technology 
Center (NSTC) required under the CHIPS for America Act. Intel 
greatly appreciates the bipartisan support for the law, and we 
look forward to congressional appropriations to implement it.
     I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions, and I 
thank you for holding this important stakeholder hearing to 
advance U.S. innovation.
     [The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Ms. Cruz Thompson.
     And with that, Dr. Mahmud Farooque.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. MAHMUD FAROOQUE,

               ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR

                 SCIENCE, POLICY AND OUTCOMES,

              DC AND CLINICAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,

        SCHOOL FOR THE FUTURE OF INNOVATION IN SOCIETY,

                    ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

     Dr. Farooque. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, 
Members of the Committee. It's a privilege to testify today. I 
come before you to express my personal views about the 
challenges and opportunities before our Nation and the role of 
the National Science Foundation in meeting them.
     First, I find the NSF for the Future Act a bold step in 
the right direction that meets our current technological, 
economic, social, and political moment. Across its history, NSF 
has funded research that addresses societal needs, many of 
which continue to create beneficial impacts and outcomes. The 
bill provides these portfolios the same support and 
infrastructure that it provides to research oriented toward 
scientific and market outcomes.
     The bill's provisions are additive and not substituted and 
are informed by the most pressing societal challenges from 
climate change to socioeconomic inequity that require different 
and dedicated infrastructure. The facts that we face today 
mirror ones we faced in the 1970's and 1980's after two oil 
shocks, the end of prolonged foreign conflict, distrust of 
government, and continued loss of leadership in industries 
critical to our economy and national security. Our response was 
strategic and sustained. The United States increased funding 
for basic research in NSF and DOD, set up NSF Engineering 
Research Centers, passed Bayh-Dole, created Sematech, the 
Critical Technologies Institute, Advanced Technology Program, 
and developed technology and industry roadmaps.
     Collectively, these measures marked a shift in science 
policy, one that prioritizes science for science's sake to use-
inspired science. They underwrote productivity gains and helped 
the United States to recapture leadership in key industries. 
What this response did not do was change the fundamental 
distribution of labor among our public R&D institutions, which 
continued to enjoy robust capacity for orchestrating a similar 
and effective strategic response.
     Despite these economic successes, the U.S. innovation 
systems still lacked the capacity to address societal 
challenges. With a few substitutions, the question that 
Economist Nelson asked over 50 years ago can still be posed 
today: Why was it that a country that recently landed a fifth 
rover on Mars, developed three effective vaccines for a runaway 
global pandemic in record time, and more generally has led the 
world in R&D funding for 70 years seems unable to avert the 
untimely death of a half a million of its citizens, unable to 
provide equity, justice, and basic standards of living for its 
citizens living in poverty and facing discrimination, unable to 
keep the air and water clean and our neighborhood safe, and 
struggling to protect our democracy from falling victim to 
misinformation and manipulation.
     If we are to address these kind of challenges, first, we 
need to start with the most pressing problems, not the most 
interesting research questions. Second, we need a broad-based 
capacity for considering the societal impacts of R&D across the 
system. And third, we need new evaluation criteria because 
attributes required to maximize our scientific market and 
societal values are not the same.
     This may appear daunting, but NSF can build on the 
sponsorship of socially relevant research, education, and 
outreach like research supported at my own institution. What is 
required is an infrastructure that allows for scaling and 
sharing of actionable and socially relevant research. It can 
only come from a directorate exclusively organized around 
addressing our most pressing problems.
     But on what challenges should we focus our attention? 
Science can inform solutions but it is up to society to choose 
and act. Increased funding and strategic spend will ensure 
competitive leverage over our R&D essence. A solutions 
directorate might still determine priorities.
     This brings me to my last point, the role of the public in 
our innovation system. Myself and my colleagues across 
universities, museums, civic organizations, citizens, and 
community science platforms, science advisory boards, and even 
some industries have been grappling with this question for the 
last decade. How can we make decisionmaking about science more 
democratic and reflective of the Nation's shared values? Here, 
too, NSF has supported many public engagement activities that 
are bearing fruit, and hearing that informs these--and research 
that informs these activities. The path ahead then should be to 
take a holistic approach to integrate public engagement, 
research, education, and decisionmaking.
     To close, the NSF for the Future Act has the potential to 
accelerate societal benefits through R&D as a part of a well-
coordinated national strategy. Through the solutions 
directorate, it also has the potential to help organize our R&D 
efforts in solving society's most pressing and emergent 
challenges. What remains an open question is who will help 
shape all of these pressing problems, experts acting alone or 
experts engaging with the public?
     Thank you very much.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Farooque follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we'll move 
to Dr. Blazey.

         TESTIMONY OF DR. GERALD BLAZEY, VICE PRESIDENT

           FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIPS,

                  NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

     Dr. Blazey. OK. Good morning, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Waltz, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gerry Blazey, Vice 
President for Research and Innovation Partnerships at Northern 
Illinois University. I'm honored to discuss the importance of 
the NSF and the NSF for the Future Act to institutions like 
NIU.
     NIU is located just west of Chicago. The 17,000 student 
campus serves both urban and rural students and is very 
diverse. Collectively, students from underserved populations 
are about 3/4 of the student body, including a majority 53 
percent students of color, 43 percent Pell grant recipients, 
and 52 percent first-generation college. We are very mindful of 
our mission to provide life-changing education to a diverse 
student body and do so by offering programs in more than 100 
areas while integrating research and scholarship into their 
experience.
     NIU is a Carnegie-classified doctoral university with high 
research activity, averaging about $34 million per year in 
externally funded programs, of which $13 million supports a 
robust and efficient research enterprise. In fact, a 2020 
report titled, ``The Innovation Impact of U.S. Universities'' 
ranked NIU third nationally for innovation impact productivity.
     The NIU research vision is to prepare northern Illinois 
for a century of change. Our newest initiative, the Center for 
Community Sustainability, part of the Illinois Innovation 
Network, addresses a pressing issue of our time, sustainability 
and rapidly changing physical, technological, and demographic 
environments. Institutions like NIU can do research on very 
important societal issues. And NSF is consistently one of our 
top sponsors with every directorate contributing. NSF helps 
address the resource challenges institutions with smaller 
research footprints face by providing external funding to 
initiate and maintain programs and infrastructure for those 
programs.
     Unfortunately, the impact of emerging research 
institutions like NIU is blunted by a long-standing impediment, 
which contributes to the missing millions described in the 
Vision 2030 report by the National Science Board. The figure 
you should see before you is from the American Physical 
Society's report ``Building America's STEM Workforce,'' and it 
starkly illustrates an inequity. As written at the top of the 
figure, in 2018, nearly 640 institutions received Federal 
research funding for science and engineering. The orange color 
represents the top 22 percent of research institutions as 
ranked by funding, and the long orange arc in the upper left 
image shows that the top institutions received 90 percent of 
that funding. In the lower left image, the shorter arc, orange 
arc, shows the same institutions serve only 1/3 of the 
underrepresented minority college students served by these 
institutions. So said in another way, 2/3 of our Nation's 
students of color at research institutions see only 1/10 of 
federally funded research opportunities. And geographic 
distribution is also uneven with 96 percent of the top 22 
institutions in urban or suburban areas.
     Now, the National Academies observes that participation in 
research is extremely effective for retention and graduation of 
students and diversification of the STEM fields. The long-
standing inequity in research opportunity limits the ability of 
emerging research institutes to diversify the STEM workforce. 
Programs increasing diversity at the top research institutions, 
although very worthy, are not enough to reach the missing 
millions because the majority of underrepresented students are 
at institutions like NIU.
     By promoting partnerships, the NSF for the Future Act 
offers up a remedy for what I call the missing millions in the 
middle. These partnerships direct at least 25 percent of any 
consortium award over $1 million to emerging research 
institutions, which maintains the excellence of the large 
research institutions while building research capacity and 
broadening opportunity on the campus where the students are.
     I'll conclude with a few comments on the act. I agree new 
structures are essential to prepare the United States for the 
next 70 years of the endless frontier, and the directorate for 
science and engineering solutions will support the 
translational research necessary to address societal issues and 
to compete with directed economies. Care must be taken to 
ensure both demographic and geographic opportunity are 
broadened. For example, institutions with large research 
footprints already have a deep portfolio from which to draw 
translational research. And, as stated earlier, we have to get 
it right and we can do no harm and must protect investment and 
curiosity-driven research and otherwise--otherwise, we risk the 
development of future technologies from which we innovate.
     I commend the Committee for your work on this forward-
looking legislation and look forward to your questions.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Blazey follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Dr. Blazey.
     And with that, our final witness, Dr. Butler.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. P. BARRY BUTLER,

        PRESIDENT, EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY

     Dr. Butler. Thank you very much. Good morning Chairwoman 
Stevens, Ranking Member Waltz, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking 
Member Lucas, and the rest of the Committee Members. Thank you 
for this opportunity to address how the NSF for the Future Act 
can help America be more technologically competitive and more 
specifically benefit from the talents and resources of highly 
specialized institutions such as mine.
     After almost 4 decades in higher education, I'm a firm 
believer that universities that align their mission with the 
industries they serve are valuable pipelines to a globally 
competitive, more diverse workforce, a continuing source of 
innovation and research, and partners with industries who share 
a responsibility for security. With additional support from 
NSF, universities can more effectively support our Nation's 
technological superiority and prepare a future workforce 
capable of competing for generations to come.
     I'll focus on opportunities for NSF through the lens of 
four questions. No. 1, how can we work together to, one, 
develop a workforce that maintains our Nation's competitive 
edge in key technologies; No. 2, diversify the workforce to 
attract the best and brightest from populations traditionally 
underrepresented in those areas; No. 3, optimize a return on 
research investment; and No. 4, protect intellectual property?
     Building a globally competitive workforce in 
technologically focused industries starts years before those 
individuals enroll at our universities. It starts with an early 
introduction to STEM, specifically, lessons and experiences 
that spark creativity and inspire young minds to want to learn 
more. And more importantly, lessons and experiences that are 
available to all Americans regardless of their ZIP Code.
     Our Nation's many STEM-focused universities, both public 
and private, already deliver a significant amount of these 
enrichment opportunities, often with the support from NSF and 
other government agencies, but also private industry and 
foundations. For example, with funding from the State of 
Florida Embry-Riddle supports Americans' global leadership in 
the aerospace sector by delivering precollege science, 
technology, and math education focused on aerospace 
applications. This program annually touches approximately 7,000 
Florida high school students who, upon graduation from high 
school, pursue college STEM majors at a statistically higher 
rate than their classmates. With aerospace being a key sector 
of the Florida economy, this is the type of program that fills 
that talent pipeline.
     Similar to many STEM universities, we also host summer 
programs and online programs geared specifically at K-12 
students. They master and apply STEM skills ranging from 
robotics to coding to additive manufacturing and much more. 
Additional NSF support could help schools launch or expand 
real-world or very hands-on outreach experiences to spark 
science and math-based skills early. It will also permit the 
agency to identify successful programs with proven track 
records and expand them nationally.
     We at Embry-Riddle work on a daily basis with our Nation's 
aerospace industry and can attest to the industry's 
extraordinary effort to build a more diverse workforce. They 
show it with their words, actions, and investments. Many 
collaborate with us through industry-sponsored scholarships, 
mentorships, internship programs, and career acceleration 
programs. We target recruiting to underrepresented groups and 
first-generation college students. Once these students are on 
campus, we support their success by involving them in career 
development and research programs. Data shows that students 
involved in undergraduate research opportunities have a much 
higher retention rate.
     And as part of our commitment to diversity, we use our 
resources and apply to federally available programs to 
contribute to involvement of underrepresented groups. A key 
point I want to make is that expanded undergraduate research 
through NSF is a very low-cost investment in retention and, 
hence, filling the pipeline. This experience in our classrooms 
and labs and through internships pays off by inspiring the next 
generation of graduate students and tech entrepreneurs, so 
smaller schools would welcome funding and opportunities 
relevant to their career areas of specialization.
     But how can working with a smaller specialized institution 
rival the buying power of working with a brand-name powerhouse 
comprehensive university? You can think of this as another 
dimension of diversity. Economically, there's inherent value in 
building capacity in small to medium universities throughout 
the country and capitalizing on the progress they're making in 
tackling the research priorities identified by industries. 
These initiatives tend to be highly focused, problem-solving 
for outcomes that are specific and quantifiable. Unlike 
comprehensive research universities that are active in many 
different areas of research, it is not in common for smaller 
institutions to have very qualified areas of research in 
critical areas.
     Let me give a practical example to finish. Numerous 
investigators at large, comprehensive universities focus on the 
challenges of cybersecurity as it applies to protecting the 
transmission of endless amounts of sensitive information. At 
Embry-Riddle we focus specifically on cybersecurity to 
aircraft, spacecraft, and autonomous vehicles. This is a 
challenge that you might describe as basic computational 
science. However, it applies to all of us in society as we 
travel.
     By partnering with the University of Florida, we're 
combining the talents of our respective institutions and 
creating a center of excellence in aerospace resiliency. With 
new funding sources, we have the potential to apply lessons to 
other critical areas.
     With that, I'll finish since my time is up.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Butler follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Thank you. No, we're glad 
to get you over the finish line there, Dr. Butler.
     And at this point what we're going to do is we're going to 
begin our first round of questions. The Chair is going to 
recognize herself for 5 minutes, and then we'll pass the buck 
over to the other side.
     Look, I want to start with Gerry Blazey and your 
testimony, which was--all the testimonies were really great, 
and I deeply appreciate your mentioning of the NSB report on 
the missing millions. And citing from your testimony, you had 
said 2/3 of our Nation's students of color attending STEM 
research-active institutions see only about 10 percent of 
Federal research dollars on their campus. And, you know, the 
slide that you shared as well I think was particularly 
alarming.
     I've actually--believe it or not, Gerry, I've had the 
privilege of working with NIU. I'm from Michigan. I represent, 
you know, some incredible research assets here in southeastern 
Michigan, including Oakland University. But I was involved a 
long time ago with an NSF application that we--a grant that we 
were trying to get in partnership with NIU for STEM research 
and diversity that we didn't get, and that was a long time ago, 
but it--you know, knowing your university and also talking 
about, you know, the role that the NSF plays, can we just 
talk--can you give me some more thoughts, particularly from 
your perch on exactly where the NSF dollars are useful? 
Because--and maybe if you're at all able to do, just talk to us 
a little bit about the basic research, you know, the original 
curiosity lightbulb idea, tinkering around in the lab, and then 
these phases to application if at all because a lot of times--
and for those of us who are funding, you know, we feel the 
ferocity around--and the energy around, hey, obviously we like 
basic research and, you know, you take a biology class or 
chemistry and you can see all that, but, you know, we want the 
innovations. We want the dominance in, you know, what goes to 
market. And I think we tend to rush those things. I mean, even 
with TRL, you know, technology readiness levels and things 
along those lines, but can you--if you're able to--and I know 
I'm not asking a super direct question, but I just want to get 
this defined. And I asked this of our National Science 
Foundation Director last week, Dr. Panchanathan. Define--if you 
can, define for us basic research and then, you know, what 
percentage or how that leads to the application.
     Dr. Blazey. For me--thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman Stevens, and interesting to hear that you 
collaborated with NIU. So that's a great question. To me, basic 
research is really curiosity-driven research where you're just 
trying to understand new principles or new phenomena without 
really a specific application. But they always lead to--they 
almost always lead to important innovation and applications. 
And a great example that you heard at the last testimony from 
the Chair of the Board was studying microbes in the Yellowstone 
thermal pools led to the test for coronavirus. Another great 
example is studying bees and their behavior led to the bee 
algorithm that is used in modern computing. So you have to be 
sure you have that basic curiosity-driven research because it 
inevitably leads to the innovation that we depend on decades 
later, sometimes quicker.
     What's most important for the students to feel like they 
are participating in science or discovery because that's what 
really jazzes them when they were involved in creating new 
knowledge. And the best way to do that is to ensure that there 
are cutting-edge programs in as many locations as you can. For 
instance, we're standing up AI efforts all over the country. 
It's really interesting to students. There's still a lot of a 
lot of basic research involved, and providing those 
opportunities at the locations the students live will really 
get them involved and make a difference in their lives and in 
our innovation ecosystem. I hope that----
     Chairwoman Stevens. I've only got about 30 seconds left, 
and it was--Gerry, it was Lori Clark who I worked with and Norm 
Peterson, who's over at Argonne, so----
     Dr. Blazey. OK.
     Chairwoman Stevens [continuing]. I know that you know 
those guys.
     But could I just bring in Gabriela to this because what 
side does Intel then end up grabbing on to any sort of basic 
research endeavor that's taking place at the university? 
Because you're a major--and thanks for talking about the IOT 
and Industry 4.0 because leadership has been phenomenal and 
we're really grateful for Intel.
     Ms. Thompson. Thank you very much for your question. We 
have about 1,000 people at Intel that are dedicated fundamental 
researchers, and those are the researchers that are day-to-day 
working with academics alongside those students that get the 
lightbulb ideas. And then we try to test with them and explore 
with them the possibilities of how it can be applied into our 
manufacturing process technology or our new features in our new 
products. It's an effort of thousands of students, thousands of 
researchers at Intel. And then the great ideas, the good 
results get turned into the development product teams. And it 
might take 6 months to implement it in a product or it might 
take a few years to implement it in a manufacturing process. So 
some ideas might be cutting-edge and need a lot of time. Some 
ideas are relatively easy and fast to implement and not only at 
Intel but also in the ecosystem and other companies.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you. Thank you. That 
was--and I know we got a bunch of talented Members here, and 
we're going to go to Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes of questions now. 
Thank you.
     Mr. Waltz. Hey, thank you, Chairwoman.
     Dr. Butler, can you spend a moment talking about how 
Embry-Riddle works with the industry and particularly how they 
work with industry partners to ensure students are trained in 
the skills that are actually needed? I'd really like to hear 
about your role in mentorships, internship programs, career 
acceleration programs that really keep students focused. So if 
you could talk to that.
     And then if you could also give any recommendations on how 
NSF can encourage institutions like yours to establish these 
undergraduate research opportunities with industry?
     Dr. Butler. Thank you, sir. Yes, I mean it really starts 
with listening. And given the discipline that we're in, 
principally aerospace technology, it's very fast-changing just 
like the others on the Zoom today with--whether it's computing 
or whatever. But--so you have to listen to industry. I mean, 
that's where it starts.
     So we have--like a lot of universities, we require 
effectively all departments to have an industry advisory board, 
and this means that they have members from industry who 
regularly interact with the leadership in the units, the 
departments. And that eventually gets filtered sort of 
untranslated then into how do you make changes at the academic 
level, curricular changes, maybe some experiential learning 
opportunities, things like that. And so that's kind of that 
feedback loop that you constantly have.
     And I'll give you an example. We--at the university level 
we have a meeting twice a year with leadership, academic 
leadership and leadership from Boeing, for example. They're a 
major--obviously, a major U.S. business in our area. We'll 
spend an entire day just talking about what's new on our 
horizon and what's new on their horizon and then how do you 
sort of make those things connect, how do you work on the 
curriculum, how do you do other things like that. So that's a 
big one.
     And so for us, you know, the career-oriented sort of STEM 
type, you know, majors, they have a lot of stickiness. I think 
I use that term, you know, with young people. They see it, they 
kind of connect the calculus they're learning with the outcomes 
that will eventually be perhaps aircraft design or something 
like that, and so we try to kind of keep those connections 
going as well.
     And then industries, you know, the aerospace industry, you 
know, provides incredible numbers of internships, and those 
have to start early on. But that research back on campus while 
they're there and while they're sitting in those classes and 
learning all the chemistry and physics and math, having some 
real-world research that they can be involved in is so valuable 
because they can walk out of their chemistry class and go into 
their research lab and figure out, hey, that's connecting the 
dots there. And I think that's incredibly valuable for any of 
those that are there. So, I mean, literally, those connections 
between are very valuable.
     Mr. Waltz. Dr. Butler, I only have a few minutes 
remaining, but what recommendation do you have? How can NSF be 
more helpful, and how can they encourage to establish these 
connections with industry?
     Dr. Butler. Yes, I mean, the--you know, being able to--you 
know, I see three pieces to sort of very successful sort of 
partnerships let's just say. It's industry because that's 
where--that's the end of the line. That's the real-world 
applications. That's where things have to continually evolve. 
It's academia, as we've heard. That's where ideas are coming 
out. That's where students are really thinking about their 
futures. And then it's government. And that's the--where the 
NSF and other types of agencies fit in there. And so being able 
to identify I believe--this is my personal view--areas where 
the three of those can work closely together is incredibly 
valuable to the country. It's--it sort of complements the other 
things we've heard about today.
     Mr. Waltz. Right. And we've had conversations, too, about 
the NSF CyberCorps scholarship I believe and how we can take a 
different view of that.
     Dr. Butler. Yes, I think--oh, I'm sorry, sure. I think 
programs like that, you know, it's just keeping an eye on 
what's out there in the world and sort of--you know, sometimes 
not being aware that very basic research does touch a lot of 
different industries and, as I mentioned earlier, for example, 
the aerospace industry or something like that, that's critical 
to the future of any leading industry in this country.
     Mr. Waltz. And just in a few seconds I have remaining, if 
you and Mr. Wakimoto, if you would be so kind, if you could 
just submit something very short in writing, but what would the 
value of training be for a lot of your researchers? You know, 
we have the benefit of giving a lot of briefings and even 
seeing intelligence on how the Chinese in particular but a 
number of our adversaries are taking basic research and then 
applying it to their militaries directly. I just want to--you 
know, we get that here but not everybody gets that appreciation 
out in the universities and in the academic research ecosystem. 
And if we were able to authorize and appropriate more training 
out for your folks, whether that would be helpful. Thank you, 
Madam Chairwoman. I yield.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you. It was--that was 
excellent. With that, we're going to turn over to Mr. Paul 
Tonko from the great State of New York for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you there, Madam Chair. And I appreciate 
the opportunity to continue the Subcommittee's discussion on 
the future of the National Science Foundation and how we can 
best support the Foundation's role in helping advance 
innovative solutions to some of our most pressing challenges.
     The CHIPS for America Act, which became law in last year's 
National Defense Authorization Act, increases Federal support 
for semiconductor manufacturing through new Federal incentives 
to conduct advanced research and development of semiconductor 
technology, secure supply chains, and strengthen national and 
economic security by reducing our reliance on foreign 
semiconductor manufacturing. I will point out that New York's 
20th congressional District is home to a strong research and 
innovation ecosystem ready to help propel the next wave of 
microelectronics research, development, and manufacturing. And 
I'm thrilled that many are eyeing Albany, New York, as a 
potential location for the National Semiconductor Technology 
Center that was authorized as part of the CHIPS Act.
     Ms. Thompson, in your testimony you call on us to help 
clarify the role of NSF in relation to the NSTC. Recognizing 
that the NSTC was authorized to advance R&D on industry-defined 
needs and challenges for semiconductors, how specifically would 
you want NSF to partner with NSTC? Is there a direct 
relationship that you think we can better define?
     Ms. Thompson. We hope there is a direct relationship 
because we believe the NSTC is going to serve as a testbed, as 
a place where students, faculty, and industry, we will get 
together there and we will tinker together. We will work in the 
pressing challenges and innovations needed to move forward the 
semiconductor industry. So yes, we believe that NSF and the 
grants that NSF provides to faculty, to students are going to 
be the basis and the human capital that will be part of the 
people that will be at the NSTC. And we encourage and would 
like to see rotations, rotations of professors into the NSTC, 
rotations of students, as well as rotation of industry, people 
in that NSTC as a convener of all people, all the community.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And is there any kind of authorizing 
language that you can imagine would be the most empowering that 
would assist in that effort?
     Ms. Thompson. I think calling out the role of NSF is very 
important, and we can definitely provide some language--we can 
follow up with your office and provide some language suggesting 
for the bill.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And how else can this Committee help 
bolster NSF's role in microelectronics research?
     Ms. Thompson. Well, a very interesting and good program 
that NSF has is the Convergence Accelerator. We have one team 
member, one person at Intel that is part of a Convergence 
Accelerator cohort going on right now. We believe that that 
Convergence Accelerator could be the vehicle to convene 
industry and academics together and fund them. That Convergence 
Accelerator provides about $5 million for the phase 2 projects. 
We believe in semiconductors. The funding necessary might be 
larger than $5 million to really get at very impactful projects 
between academics and industry.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, you know, I'm excited about the 
opportunity to help enable NSF to continue to evolve by 
establishing a new directorate. As is often the case in a major 
push for progress, the younger generation will play a critical 
role. So graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, 
including many in New York's capital region, are on the 
cutting-edge of cross-sector collaboration and solutions-driven 
research, and I believe the success of this new directorate 
will depend greatly on the contributions of enterprising early 
career researchers.
     Dr. Blazey, in your testimony you propose a reformulation 
or expansion of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program to 
ensure students receive cross-disciplinary training. Can you 
give us more info, background on that thinking?
     Dr. Blazey. Sure. Thank you for the question. Well, all 
the way back to my days at OSTP it was very clear that we were 
educating mostly academics for--in the universities and that 
the students--about half of them were going into industry, and 
the students were rather ill-prepared for basic things like 
project management, rigorous safety training, things like 
hazard awareness analysis, team building, and it strikes me 
that this will become even more important when we have a 
directorate for science and engineering solutions where the 
intention is for them to move into industry, help 
commercialize--build solutions to some of our societal 
problems. And so I think it's even more important that we give 
them what some call the softer skills but the ability to work 
in those--in the non-academic environments. So I think what NSF 
needs to do--and I'm sure they're considering this--is they 
have to reformulate what traineeships look like with this new 
directorate.
     Mr. Tonko. Great. Thank you so much. With that, I'll yield 
back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Stevens. All right. Great questions. And with 
that, we'll turn it over to--oh, and also, I wanted to remind 
my friend Mr. Tonko where I sit here today in Livonia, 
Michigan, is around the corner from Infineon, a great chips 
manufacturer. So Michigan also has something to do on these 
semiconductors, OK. You know, I know that, you know--
[inaudible] myself. We're doing chips here, too, so--but with 
that, we'll turn it over to Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes of 
questions. Thanks, all.
     Mr. Lucas. And as always, Chairwoman Stevens, you are 
enthusiastic, and I appreciate that.
     Dr. Wakimoto, as we know, China is making substantial 
investments in R&D, and it's expected to pass the United States 
soon in total R&D spending. As I mentioned in my opening 
statement, I believe we need to focus on what makes the U.S. 
research system work, not trying to copy another country's 
playbook. What do you think has made the U.S. ecosystem when it 
comes to scientific research successful and should be 
protected? And along with that, what areas do you think that we 
are in need of improvement on? And I know sometimes we ask what 
seem to be rhetorical questions, repetitive, but nonetheless, 
we're establishing a record in creating a discussion here. So, 
Doctor?
     Dr. Wakimoto. Well, yes, it is somewhat rhetorical because 
NSF is a shining example of investment into basic research, 
which everyone here on the Committee knows of many examples 
where that has worked so well. But, as the Committee has 
already rightfully written into the NSF for the Future Act, 
it's use-inspired research. You know, I think it really comes 
to the very heart of a public university at least--and then I 
would also say private universities. We sort of lost our way a 
little bit and need to really ratchet up our game.
     I will share with you this APLU (Association of Public and 
Land-Grant Universities)--I don't know if you can see this 
really well but there's an APLU document that's entitled 
``Public Impact Research,'' so it's been endorsed by all of 
APLU. It is essentially use-inspired research, and I really 
would like to share this with the Committee because I think it 
does a wonderful job why the universities have to rally 
together and in some sense sets the background for a solutions 
directorate for NSF.
     I think some of the cautions that I would put out there 
because I'm very excited, but you sort of danced around some of 
them. Some use-inspired research and technology-driven 
solutions are quick turnaround, and I applaud that. Sometimes 
we need solutions right away. But some use-inspired research is 
very similar in timescale with basic research. It could take 
years. Even though you know where you want to go, it could take 
years to go there, so I'm a little worried about what the NSF 
Director said, speed and scale. I love scale. Speed maybe for a 
good fraction but I'm not sure for everything. If we have 
everything at NSF just quick turnaround, I think that could 
change the DNA a little bit that I would be concerned about.
     The only other caution I would say with universities 
because I know I don't have a lot of time is that we also have 
to change. I think some of our P&T, promotion and tenure 
process, tends to bias it toward basic research, and sometimes 
even institutions like ours we don't give the recognition to 
faculty and students that are doing the use-inspired research, 
and that's on us. I think we need to fundamentally change and I 
think they are, slowly. So I hope that helps.
     Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. And my next question to you, 
Doctor, also but, Dr. Farooque, if you'd like to comment, can 
you both address this issue of long-term, sustainable funding? 
Why is stable funding important to basic research, and what 
damage can, you know, volatile funding patterns do to the 
research enterprise, again, making and reinforcing here the 
fundamental principles we need to remember as we legislate?
     Dr. Wakimoto. Yes, I'll just take a quick stab at this. I 
mean, I am such a strong proponent of knowing what the funding 
is going to be for several years. I'd rather know that rather 
than have a huge infusion in year one and then have a 
precipitous drop after that. I think there are examples that 
you can point at NIH (National Institutes of Health) where they 
tried a doubling and they ramped up quickly and then it fell 
off a cliff, and that left a lot of researchers who had ramped 
up operations sort of grasping as to what the next step was, so 
anything that's predictable, stable is guaranteed to pay off 
big time.
     Mr. Lucas. Dr. Farooque, any thoughts on that?
     Dr. Farooque. Yes. Thank you. I think that there's a lot 
of lessons to be learned by looking at what we did in dealing 
with Japan, meaning like we also actually studied their 
innovation systems, so we could be strategic in terms of, you 
know, our not brute force and ignorance. You know, we don't 
need to copy. It's not a matter of putting more money in, but 
it's trying to understand what is their advantage. It's right 
now--you know, NSF had the science--the science and innovations 
policy program, which is supposed to study this kind of thing 
that John Marburger started during his tenure at the White 
House. I think we need to actually also equally study because 
by the 1980's we actually knew what was Japan's strength. You 
know, how they were organizing and what we needed to do to make 
sure our interests were protected. So I would also encourage 
the social science research that looks into the innovation 
systems and innovation policies [inaudible].
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you both and thank you to the entire 
panel. I yield back, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Right. With that, we're going to turn 
over to Congresswoman Gwen Moore from Wisconsin, another Great 
Lakes State, for 5 minutes of questioning.
     Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And again, I am 
so excited about all of our witnesses here today. And of course 
it's just like a big, huge classroom where you learn so much.
     I have a couple of questions and I hope that 5 minutes 
will be long enough. I want to talk about where I'm from. I'm 
from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It's right on Lake Michigan. And of 
course Lake Michigan is my favorite thing that's a constituent 
of mine, not a human being is Lake Michigan. And then of course 
Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake entirely enclosed within 
the United States, so I think we have a great stewardship over 
it. But that being said, the Great Lakes of course provide 84 
percent of the fresh surface water in North America and 21 
percent of all the fresh water in the world. It is a very 
precious resource.
     And so, Dr. Farooque, I was interested, outside of the 
nexus between energy and water, what can the National Science 
Foundation do to help us? You know, there's this old African 
proverb that says water has no enemies. You know, you would 
never know that when you think of all the people who want to 
pollute it, who don't care for the conservation of it. And, you 
know, literally in this region we formed a water council. 
Students at University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee and Whitewater 
are studying how to get rid of invasive species, and I was 
wondering if--what can NSF do directly to help water-based 
technologies?
     And then I want to follow up with a question of Dr. 
Blazey, very distressing testimony about STEM--about people of 
color not having exposure to STEM education, wanting to know 
what you think legislatively we could do to turn that around. 
Thank you.
     Dr. Farooque. Thank you for that question. And actually, 
you know, it's important for us to remember that it's--we 
always talk about high end, the new, shining objects, and, you 
know--but we shouldn't actually forget about our problems at 
the community level and the need for the National Science 
Foundation to not neglect them.
     So in terms of water, you know, I--my specialty is in 
public engagement and community engagement, and we did a 
project in--under the program called Public Interest 
Technology. And we looked at trying to team up universities and 
nonprofits to look at their problems, to engage the community. 
And in Waco, Texas, the Baylor University looked at engaging 
their whole community, you know, into trying to first frame the 
problem because when we talk about use-inspired science, the 
first important step is to involve the stakeholders who are at 
the ground and community level, and we have not--as I mentioned 
in my testimony, not start with what is the most interesting 
research question because those problems helps us ground our 
science to reality. And then we can bring--and then we can step 
back and bring the best science that answers those questions.
     You know, same thing in the question about, you know, lead 
in our water or what happened in Flint, Michigan. We can--we 
actually need to work with the community in identifying these 
problems that are not addressed and then bring in our 
scientists and our expertise to help address them. Thank you.
     Dr. Blazey. OK. Thank you, Congresswoman Moore, for the 
question. Should I answer now or did you have a follow-up? OK.
     It's a great question, and we've thought about this for a 
while. And the basic strategy or principle that we--would be 
most effective is to bring the opportunity where the students 
are. For a lot of reasons, underrepresented minorities are sort 
of geographically bound. There's financial reasons, there's 
family obligations, and so they just can't up and go to a 
different university to pursue these opportunities. So we need 
to bring the opportunities to them.
     And that's where this partnership model makes the most 
sense to me because you just can't out of whole cloth start new 
opportunities at institutions that are emerging in their 
research profiles. So having--I mentioned AI earlier. Having a 
partnership with some university that has tremendous resources 
for AI or quantum information systems to partner with these 
regional or comprehensive universities to be sure that there's 
some opportunity for the students that are geographically 
bound.
     And that's why I like the partnership section in the bill. 
As Dr. Wakimoto mentioned, it could go farther, and I think 
that's sort of a debate that the Committee should have, 
Subcommittee should have on what the right level motion forward 
should be.
     Ms. Moore. Thank you so much. And maybe start a little bit 
earlier finding students rather than when they get into 
college.
     OK. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Thank you. That was 
fabulous. And speaking of geography, our Members are mostly in 
the Eastern Standard Time Zones. Ms. Moore is Central. Next 
Members are so going to be in the Central Time Zone, but we've 
got a couple of our witnesses who tuned in from Arizona and 
California. I've been meaning to recognize your earlier hour 
than the--you know, you really were a good morning. It wasn't 
brutal, but, you know, 8 a.m. for you was, you know, a nice 
time to start.
     So with that, we're going to go to Mr. Gonzalez, also in 
the Eastern Standard Time zone, Ohio just south of me here in 
Michigan, for 5 minutes of questioning.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking 
Member Waltz, for holding this timely hearing today to continue 
our discussion about the important role that NSF plays in our 
research economy. As we examine the most productive and 
effective avenues for not only reauthorizing but also 
strengthening NSF, our witnesses have provided some incredibly 
valuable perspective, and so I do want to thank you for that. 
That's what we need in these hearings. That's why they're 
productive.
     So I'll start with Director Thompson. Many of our 
witnesses discuss the importance of tying NSF research and 
science in general to addressing societal challenges and trends 
that are evident in the tech industry today. Could you speak a 
bit more about the importance of having NSF become more 
involved in this space? And how important is this focus for 
industry researchers, and how do you see it playing out?
     Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman Gonzalez, for the 
question. We see NSF's reach and scale as very important and 
significant. A company and a group like mine at Intel, we are 
only a few people. We can only reach so far. And of course most 
of us are located in the West Coast, so the first place we go 
is our community colleges, our universities near home, which 
Intel has many sites, but still, the reach of NSF across the 
country, the bringing together different tier of education 
institutions, it's something that is really needed. It's 
something that will bring many others into high-tech or into 
STEM education, and that's why we believe working and 
collaborating with NSF is very important.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Great. And then to open up the same question 
to our university witnesses, how can the new directorate for 
science and engineering solutions position that is proposed by 
the NSF for the Future Act provide a benefit to university 
researchers? Feel free to jump in, whoever wants to take it.
     Dr. Wakimoto. Well, I mean, I guess the obvious answer 
just by creating this new directorate, I mean, I know I've been 
incredibly excited. This creates an opportunity that just 
wasn't there in the past, so I think at the highest level 
that's how I would answer.
     Dr. Butler. I can jump in. I would add, sir, that, you 
know, there are industries where the line between basic 
fundamental research and end products is really short. In other 
words, you know, the fundamental mission, basic research, at 
NSF often takes decades to evolve into usable technology, but 
there's industries where it happens really fast. And so the 
ability to have, I think, a directorate that allows that--to 
recognize that to know that there is a fine--shortened time 
between basic research and applied applications is--I think is 
pretty good. I think it will help a lot--help the country a 
lot.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Great. And then, Dr. Blazey, I was curious 
if you'd weigh in on this as well as you provided a word of 
caution in your testimony on this new directorate pivoting NSF 
from its mission of basic research. Could you maybe sort of 
take the other side of the coin and just get your perspective 
out a little bit more?
     Dr. Blazey. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman 
Gonzalez. So, first of all, I think the main way--a main way it 
will help the researcher community is because it's by nature 
interdisciplinary, and many of the problems we're facing are 
called wicked problems, kind of term of art in the research 
community, and having a directorate that can cross directorates 
and pull together expertise and resources for these 
interdisciplinary problems will really make a difference.
     My concern is that if the stress--if--is on moving things 
quickly into the innovation phase, it's already sort of giving 
the very large research universities a head start because they 
have really deep and impressive and valuable intellectual 
property already at their command, and they can just get a--
start moving faster in innovation, and there's nothing wrong 
with that. I think we should all be proud that we have that 
kind of capability at the large universities. There's just--my 
caution is that it's something else that will sort of 
concentrate research opportunity at the few schools.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. I think that's a fair concern. And I 
appreciate you voicing that. And I'll yield back, and thank 
you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing and keeping us on 
time.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great yes, excellent. And I'll just 
mention briefly before I introduce our next Member for 
questions, our Ranking Member Mr. Waltz has to depart at 12:30. 
Rest assured to our witnesses and our fellow questioners he 
will be reading through the testimony, OK? So--just because we 
don't have him sitting in his beautiful palm tree box that he's 
in from Florida, you know, but thank you, Mr. Waltz, for your 
leadership.
     And with that, just allow me to take a minute to introduce 
Dr. Foster, who is also a Chair of the Subcommittee on Science 
on Oversight and is just a brilliant and wonderful mind to have 
on this Committee with us. So with that, Dr. Foster, 5 minutes 
of questions for you from Illinois.
     Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and to our 
witnesses.
     You know, the last line of questioning was talking about 
how you deal with this transition from basic to applied. You 
know, there already exists inside the different directorates of 
the NSF the complete pipeline, you know, all the way through 
SBIRs and commercialization. And so as at least some of you 
have been recipients of grants not only from the NSF but if I 
recall properly I think Gerry has probably been on the 
receiving end of everything from DOD to a long list of things, 
and so these are handled differently. But do you envisage that 
if we stand up a new a directorate that's focused on applied 
solutions, that what would happen is that if you have a grant 
under the--say, the mathematics and physical science 
directorate that you would then when you had a bright idea that 
looks like it was more applied, that then you would transition 
your grant to this other directorate and have to make friends 
with a whole new set of grant supervisors in a different 
directorate and then when you decided that, OK, there was now a 
startup business behind us, you would transfer it to a third 
organization? And is that going to cause grief if you have--you 
sort of stovepipe the different development levels instead of 
incorporating them in each intellectual area? I guess, Gerry, 
do you want to take a swing at that?
     Dr. Blazey. Yes, Congressman Foster, I think that it won't 
be as sharp as that. I think, as you know, faculty have 
multiple inquiries going sometimes, and sometimes they'll be 
taking something--they'll see an opportunity to take something 
to market and that could be an independent funding stream from 
their basic research. So I think it's less stark and less well-
defined. I think an organizational issue will be how to 
coordinate that continued support for basic research and that 
funding to move things into the innovation ecosystem. And I 
think that will require careful thought and planning on the 
part of the NSF.
     Mr. Foster. Yes. And I'd also mention it happens already 
between different agencies right now. They have to spend a lot 
of their time, you know, deconflicting, you know, efforts from 
where you have parallel efforts, some of which are very 
valuable.
     Another issue that we're going have to deal with is the 
issue of big science. There are places in science where there's 
no alternative to have big, centralized facilities to be 
competitive. You know, Gerry placed his career where it was 
because he was within--Northern Illinois University is within 
driving distance of a large DOE-sponsored national laboratory 
with unique capabilities that didn't exist anywhere else.
     Similarly, if you talk about, say, an integrated circuit 
device development, you know, you're going to have to provide 
for many purposes access to a state-of-the-art fab. It is not 
reasonable for a university with some bright idea to go build 
their own fab. And so--and one of the challenges there is that 
they're actually under the control of industry and trying to 
understand how to make it worth industry's time to open up 
their facilities.
     You know, I had a sort of not very encouraging experience 
a little while ago. Argonne Lab recently has--you know, one of 
the neat things they did was to deploy Cerebras 1 if I 
remember, which is a wafer-scale AI computer, the first truly 
transistor computer and just a phenomenal thing, and then I 
asked the CEO (chief executive officer) when they had the 
celebration, oh, who did the wafer fab for that wafer-scale 
computer, and it was an offshore company. And it sort of broke 
my heart. I said, well, what happens when you contacted the 
American companies and they didn't--they weren't interested 
because of--for whatever reason?
     I was wondering, you know, Ms. Thompson, you know, what 
are the things that we can do, you know, not only for basic 
research but also for startups to handle this conundrum of how 
we make it worth your time to do something that would not 
otherwise be worth your time and share your state-of-the-art 
resources?
     Ms. Thompson. Yes, thank you very much for your question, 
Congressman Foster, and I really appreciate the opportunity to 
talk about this. Intel has had a small program called the 
University Shuttle Program in which we get to manufacture 
foundries, silicon for universities. It's a relatively small 
program. It's something that we're looking forward to 
expanding. And, as you've heard from our CEO, the investments 
in R&D are growing, and so we expect that we will be able to 
support more of these prototypes that get designed and built by 
students and professors.
     Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, for many years NSF funded something 
that was called MOSES (Measurement Methodology of Scalable 
Enterprise Systems)----
     Ms. Thompson. Yes.
     Mr. Foster [continuing]. Which I was very happy to 
participate in. And I think a lot of people with my amount of 
baldness remembered fondly that. And it's a very effective 
thing, and it's one of--I think one of the tragedies and 
actually maybe even one of the reasons that the chip industry 
is in trouble right now is that we didn't prioritize that and 
weren't generous enough with making it worth your time.
     Ms. Thompson. And if I may add, this is why we are so 
interested in ensuring that there is a very clear link between 
the NSF and the NSTC because we see this as two pieces of a 
very important puzzle. And we would be happy to provide more 
language suggesting how to document the engagement between the 
two.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you. I'm over time and yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, well, we'll take you up on that 
documentation.
     But with that, let me turn it over to my colleague Dr. Jim 
Baird, also a research scientist in his own right representing 
Indiana and that other university, maybe called Purdue. All 
right. Dr. Baird, over to you.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and I appreciate 
your enthusiasm. And I also appreciate Ranking Member Waltz for 
conducting this hearing here today. And I always learn 
something in these Science Committees, and the talents and 
skills of our witnesses are very impressive.
     But as Representative Stevens mentioned, I am fortunate to 
have an outstanding research and STEM-focused university like 
Purdue University in my district, and they work extremely well 
with NSF. But about 29 percent of our GDP (gross domestic 
product) in Indiana comes from manufacturing, small-business 
manufacturing, and so I'm really interested--Ms. Thompson, I 
think I'll start with you--could you please discuss what kind 
of technology training can be conducted through the 2-year 
program? And please share your thoughts on how the NSF might be 
able to help support those efforts? That's my first question.
     Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for this 
question. We at Intel have been partnering with 2-year colleges 
for many, many years. We recently have announced an engagement 
with community colleges to create a degree in artificial 
intelligence, so the first associate degree for community 
colleges. We have been working with the Maricopa Community 
College system, and we are hopefully targeting about 20 
colleges to be part of this program in which students are able 
to learn the basics of artificial intelligence and get a degree 
on AI. With the possibility of working with NSF, we would be 
able to scale to much further reach and in more regions of the 
country, and that's why partnering with NSF is paramount to us.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you. Would any of the university 
witnesses care to respond to that relationship with the junior 
colleges?
     Dr. Butler. Yes, this is----
     Mr. Baird. So----
     Dr. Butler. I'm sorry.
     Mr. Baird. Go ahead.
     Dr. Butler. I'll just be brief. This is Barry Butler at 
Embry-Riddle. Yes, I agree. I think, you know, the--most all of 
us do have partnerships of some kind with community colleges. 
In our case we focus a lot with those that have a discipline-
specific, you know, that are, you know, similar to what we're 
focusing in aerospace. The programs are good, and I think it 
just addresses that issue that, you know, we do have a lot of 
people in this country that start their education that way, 
and, you know, to bring them in to other universities, whether 
it's through partnerships, whether it's through transition 
programs is really opening up the--sort of the funnel for 
talent, and I think that's so critical. How it's done with the 
different types of programs, it varies from school to school, 
but I just think there's so much talent out there that we just 
have to address it all and not assume that everybody that's 
going to be in the STEM workforce of the future starts a 4-year 
program at a name university. That's just not the way it is.
     Dr. Blazey. Yes, Congressman Baird, I'll just chime in. As 
I stated in our testimony, about 50 percent of our students are 
transfer students from the local community colleges in 
Illinois, very important for them to transfer into a university 
to finish their 4-year degree for--again, as I mentioned 
earlier, they're geographically and financially bound, and this 
is an important opportunity to start broadening the STEM 
opportunities with those students as well.
     Mr. Baird. You know, an observation that I would make in 
our district, sometimes the opportunities you have in those 
junior colleges or 2-year programs, they may not have the funds 
or the interest to go to a 4-year immediately, but the fact 
that they get into those schools and get a hands-on experience, 
all of a sudden their curiosity, it stimulates them to want to 
go further. And when you get a student like that that gets 
committed, I think it's very insightful and helpful for them to 
want to go on to advanced degrees and get involved in STEM per 
se. If you tell them it's STEM at the beginning, they might not 
be excited, but you get them in a lab and get them 
experienced--or get them hands-on experience, then suddenly the 
ballgame changes.
     So I think my time is about up, and so I appreciate 
Congresswoman Stevens. I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great. Thank you for that, Dr. Baird. 
I think that was so spot on and so important for us to think 
through. And I had to spend a summer at community college. I 
got the privilege to spend a summer at a community college, and 
it was--I connected right into those assets and it was quite 
transformative right here in southeastern Michigan.
     But we've got a really special Member of Congress who's up 
next, freshman Member, Congresswoman Deb Ross from North 
Carolina for 5 minutes.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 
you so much to everybody who's testified today on this crucial, 
crucial issue.
     I represent the 2d District in North Carolina, which is 
the Research Triangle area, and we are a very STEM-focused 
area. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I was the special guest 
for a STEM charter school that drew people from several 
municipalities, several counties, and, let me tell you, the 
diversity of the young women at that charter school was 
something to behold.
     But I have North Carolina State University in my district, 
land-grant, STEM university that gets a fair amount of money 
from the National Science Foundation and is doing really, 
really well. I was with them and the second gentleman and the 
Secretary of Transportation last week seeing all the amazing 
work that they're doing in engineering and other areas.
     I also represent two HBCUs that used to have medical 
schools. And they very much want to be able to benefit from 
research funding and offer more STEM to their students. But 
both Presidents of these HBCUs, Shaw and St. Aug's, said that 
they simply do not have some of the infrastructure and the 
equipment to do that kind of research.
     And so I'll direct this first to Dr. Blazey and then 
anybody else who wants to pipe in. How can NSF help with that--
just the capacity building? Because the talent and the students 
and the desire are all there.
     Dr. Blazey. Yes, thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman Ross. Well, it gets back to that partnership to 
build the intellectual capacity. It's not enough for students 
just to visit, and it takes time for the faculty to learn the 
technology and the intellectual aspects of a new topic. So one 
way is fellowships with the already-established universities, 
and then those individuals, those faculty members, though 
scientists can take back that expertise back to their school. 
And these days, the partnership can be virtual, so--but I think 
really a partnership to get the intellectual expertise.
     Infrastructure is a problem for emerging research 
institutions. NSF does have a program, major research 
instrumentation program and medium scale, and I think the 
answer is to increase the funding for those programs, which is 
in the bill, but to be mindful of how those resources are 
distributed to broaden research opportunity.
     Ms. Ross. OK. I also have a question for Dr. Farooque. At 
NC State, which gets a fair amount of NSF funding, 
international students make up 35 percent of their graduate 
student population. As a matter of fact, my husband got his 
graduate degree in engineering there, and he said he was one of 
the only U.S. citizens in his graduate program. And--but we 
need all of these graduate students for the research that we do 
here. And in your testimony you talked about how, in your 
words, you were an early contributor to the leaky pipeline 
problem in STEM. How can we be more inviting of those graduate 
students? I also serve on the Judiciary Committee, and we're 
dealing with some necessary changes, I hope, to our immigration 
laws. But tell me how you think we can keep this talent here in 
the United States after we've educated these wonderful people?
     Dr. Farooque. Well, thank you for that question. The STEM 
problem, that leaky pipeline problem that in my time is 
actually very different from the STEM problem that we are 
seeing now. For instance, you know, I have a student who 
graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in computer science, 
and he worked or interned with Apple, interned with DARPA, and 
he is now doing--touring with bands to do their sound system 
because he just does not find what our big tech is doing as--it 
doesn't agree with his moral or ethical positions.
     So a lot of--there's a lot of concerns that--about big 
tech that fresh graduates, they're feeling, and that's why 
there's a network of 31 universities called Public Interest 
Technology University Network that the New America Foundation 
started and my institution is a part of. They're trying to 
address this gap that, you know, our technology is obviously 
meeting our market needs but not addressing our societal values 
so that, you know, we can retain because the nonprofit sector 
is not big enough for these talents.
     Now, in terms of retaining students, the competition 
abroad is very different now because there's a lot of places, a 
lot of options to go for people. So we need to be actually 
trying to draw our home--talent here at home as much as we can.
     And to go back to the question about HBCUs and create--and 
also the previous question about community college, we need to 
give them an infrastructure to participate. You know, when I 
was at the University of New York, which also has a group of 
community colleges, we had a two-tiered granting program where 
the community colleges competed with community colleges because 
what happens and--when they come in and big grants, the large 
universities dominate and they don't have any opportunity to 
participate.
     When I was at Purdue University, I was part of a 
University Transportation Center. We had members of Martin 
University, for example, in Indianapolis. They just did not--
could not participate in any of the activities or any of the 
research projects we were doing. So it's kind of bringing also 
an equity in the system for the--for these--also part of our 
R&D system for them to participate because they're going to 
become very, very important as we make this transition, as the 
point made earlier about 2-year colleges as we transition. 
People are not going to go back and get a 4-year degree. And 
this will be their quickest way to a change in career, the 
future of work and so forth. So I think NSF can pay attention 
to that and look at examples that are around.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and I've exceeded my time, 
Madam Chair. I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you so much. All right.
     And with that, we're--we've got two more Members for 
questions. Our next Member is from Kansas, new Member of 
Congress, freshman who's also on the Homeland Security, 
Cybersecurity, and Innovation Subcommittee, great, you know, 
background I think from both Committees to have on our 
Subcommittee, also political background, so always like it when 
people who have dedicated themselves to running for office want 
to be on the Science Committee.
     So with that, Mr. LaTurner for 5 minutes of questions, and 
thank you again, Deb Ross. Mr. LaTurner, it's your turn.
     Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, 
for holding this hearing today. I appreciate the testimony of 
our witnesses on the role that National Science Foundation 
plays in furthering our research, development, and innovation 
efforts in this country, and I believe it's an important 
component in maintaining leadership in the worldwide and 
scientific community. By emphasizing the ideas of a strong STEM 
workforce and robust public-private partnership, America will 
continue to be the top scientific leader in the world.
     This question is for all of you. We've heard a lot about 
the importance of accountability to public needs as it relates 
to research and development. Can you explain how each of your 
institutions or company engage with community partners as you 
develop your R&D agendas?
     Dr. Butler. I guess I can start.
     Mr. LaTurner. You can jump in. Yes, go ahead, please.
     Dr. Butler. I'll go ahead and jump in. Yes, so I'm in 
the--primarily in the aerospace industry, so our--you know, our 
community--so our community so to speak is--it really is across 
the whole country, but when we look at sort of locally, we look 
at it from a point of view of engaging the--both the State as 
well as the local community in terms of what's--what are their 
key priorities in our case in terms of economic development, 
and so we're closely attuned with them. We know that bringing 
aerospace industry around our university, which is what we're 
doing through our research park quite successfully I think, 
helps the community in terms of its--basically its economic 
status. It elevates the level of earnings in the community and 
provides additional opportunities for people around it. So we 
kind of view ourselves in that way with our local community.
     Dr. Wakimoto. Yes, I would add that there are two 
mechanisms we use at UCLA. One is a number of our schools and 
units have advisory committees with community members on there. 
Another place where we really interact primarily with industry 
is our tech transfer and development unit where we are strongly 
engaged with industries, whether they're medical, whether 
they're engineering, et cetera because they guide us in terms 
of where we need to focus our efforts. And they help us 
actually make decisions about what research is the ones that we 
should actually transition for public use.
     Ms. Thompson. At Intel we engage with different community 
members. We definitely engage with the top-tier universities, 
the top-tier research universities, also with our local 
universities, our local community colleges, and our local 
education K through 12 systems. And, as you can imagine, as 
employees, we also volunteer a lot of hours, last year close to 
a million hours were volunteered. And since we we're mostly 
engineers, we're volunteering in programs to advance STEM at 
all levels of the educational system in the regions where we 
are located.
     Dr. Farooque. I'm a----
     Dr. Blazey. Yes----
     Dr. Farooque. Oh, go ahead.
     Dr. Blazey. Go ahead, Mahmud, please.
     Dr. Farooque. Thank you. I was going to say that social 
embeddedness is part of our university charter at Arizona State 
University, so we take--we pride it very strongly, and it is 
also part of our incentive system.
     The other thing I would mention about working with the 
communities, the National Science Foundation had created a 
network of science museums called the National STEM Education 
Networks that's over 400 museums all over the country. And 
those community--they are community organizations that can work 
to bring citizens and nontraditional participants into the STEM 
process. So I think that's a tremendous resource that National 
Science Foundation has created that can be used to engage not 
only the public but also community organizations. And we had a 
funded project from NOAA where we worked on climate change 
resilience where we worked with science museums in 20 different 
cities, and they worked with the local planners and resilience 
planners and their plans. So there is a way--there's already a 
network, and we should leverage it. Thank you.
     Dr. Blazey. So at NIU, engaging with the local community 
is very much in our DNA. As Dr. Wakimoto mentioned, we have 
advisory boards, and they're all seven colleges. We actually 
focus on it quite extensively. We have a division for outreach, 
engagement, and regional development, and we consult, work 
with, assist the communities across the State in northern 
Illinois with that division.
     Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate it very much. Madam Chair, my 
time is running out. I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you.
     And with that, we're going to turn to our last Member of 
Congress for questions, very significant to have Mr. Don Beyer 
on this Committee. His home base is the NSF. He's very 
dedicated to this agency, and we look forward to hearing his 
questions. And with that, Mr. Beyer.
     Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you very much. You know, I 
have a particular parochial interest because the National 
Science Foundation is about 5 blocks from my house, and I've 
been good friends with the last two Directors. And it's been 
great to have these 2 hours of affirmation of the National 
Science Foundation in our life.
     But anticipating a debate that's coming up, let me push 
back on a couple of witnesses, first for Dr. Cruz Ms. Thompson. 
I was on the call with our Chairlady sometime earlier with the 
President of a major university who pointed out that there was 
no equivalent to the Bell Labs in our country today, no huge 
university or business investing money in use design, 
application design stuff, and that the National Science 
Foundation was essentially failing in its lack of emphasis on 
things that were to be used. For example, he said that the 
National Science Foundation today would never have funded the 
development of chips or integrated circuits or things like that 
because there wasn't basic research, rather there was a company 
trying to find some way to replace vacuum tubes. Especially now 
with the--this National Science Foundation for the Future, how 
do you respond to that criticism? Does the National Science 
Foundation--do they or can they play a meaningful role in 
actual use-based rather than curiosity-based investments?
     Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
can tell you from my experience I have been working close in 
partnership with the NSF for the last 3 years, especially with 
the science directorate, and I can attest for a very important 
prioritization of collaborating in use-inspired science and in 
use-inspired applications of research. I think the example of 
the Convergence Accelerator is one. The example of last week's 
announcements of three U.S. agencies plus nine companies 
working together to advance resilient and intelligent next-G, 
basically the fundamentals of the 6G programs show you that the 
NSF is poised to do it. Perhaps what it needs is more funding.
     Mr. Beyer. So that's a great pivot. And so, Dr. Wakimoto, 
the fiscal year 2021 NSF budget is about $8 billion. Under this 
new NSF for the Future Act, it will double in 4 years to $16 
billion. Is that too much money to quickly? Will you have good 
money chasing bad projects?
     Dr. Wakimoto. I actually don't think it's too much too 
quickly because a large fraction of that money goes into the 
new directorate. If you actually look at the RRA (Research and 
Related Activities) budget minus the new directorate, it's 6 
percent increase over that timeframe, which is, you know, a 
healthy increase but it's not like an enormous infusion into 
the other basic science directorates.
     Mr. Beyer. So, Dr. Blazey--thank you, Dr. Wakimoto. Dr. 
Blazey, the Endless Frontier Act, which is sort of I think fair 
to say the alternative to this NSF for the Future talks about 
Congress deciding on 10 key emerging technologies for their new 
directorate for technology and innovation. Should Congress be 
deciding what the emerging technologies are or will be for a 
10-year period of time?
     Dr. Blazey. Well, first of all, I'll say that most of 
those technologies they have listed are appropriate, but I do 
think that the NSF should be allowed to decide how to--which to 
pursue and at what level.
     Mr. Beyer. So let me ask the same question about money, 
too, Dr. Blazey, because Endless Frontier Act has $100 billion 
over 5 years in this new directorate for technology and 
innovation. Is that too much money too fast?
     Dr. Blazey. I think it's difficult to spend that much 
money that fast, and I think a ramp-up would be more 
appropriate. And also I think one has to be very careful, as we 
said earlier before. We have to do no harm to the basic 
mission, and so I think that has to be balanced with the growth 
and the ramp-up of the money.
     Mr. Beyer. Very cool. Thank you very much. And, Dr. 
Farooque, one last question. The Endless Frontier Act also 
talks about testbeds, and I find that many of my peers are 
excited about getting money out of Cambridge and Berkeley and, 
you know, the handful of places where it goes. Is there 
something NSF could also be doing independently of Endless 
Frontiers?
     Dr. Farooque. Well, my personal view is that other 
agencies are better positioned to do that than the National 
Science Foundation because it will be asking for too much of a 
transition that is not in its core mission, so--and for that 
kind of money, it might not be used as well as could--it can. 
The other thing--concern about that kind of level of investment 
is the absorptive capacity. I don't think we have that kind of 
workforce to absorb that amount of money so quickly.
     Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you, and I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you.
     Before we bring this hearing to a close, we're just going 
to thank our witnesses again for participating in today's 
hearing. The record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for 
additional statements and questions that Committee Members may 
ask of our witnesses.
     And just as a reminder, today's hearing is called ''The 
National Science Foundation: Advancing Research for the Future 
of U.S. Innovation, Part II,'' part two. So we're in a series. 
You know, it's kind of like, you know, these sci-fi films where 
they're so massive and it's such a complex thing and we did one 
last week, now we had part two, and we're going to continue to 
dive in. But rest assured, as Mr. Beyer just so nicely 
positioned us, we will be coming back to the record for your--
for what you've given us today. This is going to be a part of 
how we move forward.
     And the great thing about our government and these 
branches of government is, you know, we have got a process for 
passing and shaping the Nation's laws. A lot of times that 
process frustrates people because we don't get things done. But 
right now on this Committee we have a track record of getting 
done and doing and delivering. And frankly, this is where you 
achieve unity.
     You know, I think I said bipartisan at the beginning of 
this hearing. But if you listen to what we are asking and 
talking and engaging with all of you on, you know, the U.S. 
scientific research enterprise, American innovation, 
competitiveness, engaging in our communities and leaving no one 
behind, those are the things that bring everyone together. 
That's how we say it's positioned and united and committed to 
delivering a real solution and an agenda forward.
     Now, we aren't the appropriators on this Committee, you 
know, but we are going to be making a very serious 
recommendation through our authorizing to the appropriators 
about what we want to do. And we know we have a President 
finally--you know, a President who wants to, you know, spend a 
little bit, you know, but--and that's no offense, but he's 
really committed to the investing here because the ROI (return 
on investment) is also there.
     So, you know, it's a beautiful country, and it's so many 
great comments and questions here, and so I imagine I'd be 
expecting some things for the record here. I'll just keep our 
witnesses on alert. But the 2 hours you've given us this 
morning and into the afternoon for those of us in the time 
zones that slipped into the afternoon are greatly appreciated.
     And with that, we're going to excuse the witnesses. The 
hearing will now be adjourned. Thank you.
     [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Roger M. Wakimoto
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Dr. Gerald Blazey
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

        Report submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]