[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
                       FOUNDATION BUDGET PROPOSAL
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 26, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-9

                               __________

 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                    
51-882 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                       Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           PAUL TONKO, New York
TOM KEAN, New Jersey
VACANCY
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             April 26, 2023

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    13
    Written Statement............................................    15

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    16
    Written Statement............................................    17

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science 
  Foundation
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    21

Dr. Dan Reed, Chair, National Science Board
    Oral Statement...............................................    34
    Written Statement............................................    36

Discussion.......................................................    49

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science 
  Foundation.....................................................    96

Dr. Dan Reed, Chair, National Science Board......................   116

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Statement submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking 
  Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 
  of Representatives
    ``House GOP Proposed Debt Limit Plan,'' Research!America.....   128

Study submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    ``Federal Research: Information on Funding for U.S.-China 
      Research Collaboration and Other International 
      Activities,'' United States Government Accountability 
      Office.....................................................   130

 
                  AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
                       FOUNDATION BUDGET PROPOSAL
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Lucas [Chairman 
of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Lucas. Before we begin today's hearing, I'd like 
to take a moment to acknowledge the loss of one of our own. Our 
Deputy Staff Director Jennifer Wickre passed away this weekend 
after a long battle with cancer. Jenn had been with the Science 
Committee since 2015, and I know a lot of people here worked 
with her often and knew her well. Jenn was passionate about the 
work we do here, and she represented the very best principles 
of public service. I relied on her, as I know many of you in 
this room did, for good advice, always delivered with good 
humor. She was diligent, smart, and always sought solutions, 
finding ways to come to consensus so we could work together to 
pass bipartisan bills in the best interests of our country. She 
was instrumental in helping us develop and pass the CHIPS and 
Science Act, which will be a big focus of our discussion here 
today. That's just one way in which her impact will be felt for 
years to come.
    A number of Members--and I'm very appreciative for the 
Ranking Member--joined me on the floor--House floor last week 
in a special order paying tribute to Jenn, and I'd like to 
thank all of those who were able to take part. And I encourage 
everyone here to watch that tribute to fully understand what 
Jenn has meant to this Committee. We will miss her dearly. And 
I hope we'll--I hope you'll all join me in extended condolences 
to her family.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Lucas. The Ranking Member is recognized.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I am so grateful to you for 
starting this meeting, remembering the tremendous service of 
Jenn Wickre. Just briefly, staff and Members on the Democratic 
side are in mourning, as are all of the Members and staff. She 
was admirable, smart, funny, bipartisan, and productive person. 
And I thank you for letting us pay tribute to her today.
    And with that, I would yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. I thank the Ranking Member. And with that, 
the Committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the 
Budget Proposal for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024.'' And I recognize myself for 5 minutes 
for an opening statement.
    Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on the National 
Science Foundation's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2024. And 
I want to thank Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan and note that he is 
a person of effervescent personality and a wonderful individual 
to work with. And I'm phonetically challenged, so for the rest 
of the hearing, it's Dr. Panch if that's OK, Doctor, and Dr. 
Reed for taking time to participate. I'm looking forward to 
hearing your testimony and thoughts on how the National Science 
Foundation can support America's scientific progress.
    Thanks in part to NSF's work, America has long led the 
world in science and technology innovation. To maintain that 
leadership, we have to adapt to a changing reality. And we're 
all aware the pace of innovation is accelerating. Global 
competition has increased, and the United States risks losing 
its edge. We face a particularly challenging threat from the 
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is aggressively pursuing 
technological supremacy through foreign acquisitions, forced 
technology transfers, and, frequently, cyber espionage.
    Beyond the threats from our adversaries, we're also facing 
a technological revolution. Advances in artificial intelligence 
(AI), quantum technology, and biotechnology are going to change 
the way we live and work, how we grow our food, treat diseases, 
and even how we defend ourselves against foreign threats. I 
strongly 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 CHIPS and Science Act authorized critical investments 
and modernizations at the NSF to tackle the challenges of 
reinvigorating American innovation and leadership in science 
and technology. It doubles down on NSF's world-leading basic 
research, while enhancing NSF's ability to move research from 
lab to market through the establishment of the Technology, 
Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate. The new TIP 
Directorate aims to take fundamental research funded by NSF and 
help apply those discoveries to solving national challenges 
from artificial intelligence to climate change. The TIP 
Directorate will also foster strategic partnerships with 
industry, including small businesses and startups, to cultivate 
innovative--innovation ecosystems, which will enhance America's 
long-term competitiveness.
    Another goal of CHIPS and Science was to improve the 
geographic diversity of our scientific workforce and ensure all 
Americans who--have opportunities to participate and excel in 
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) 
education and employment. CHIPS and Science authorized a number 
of activities to ensure that investments aren't just happening 
in places like San Francisco or Boston, but also in places like 
Stillwater, Oklahoma. We're ensuring that funding isn't just 
going to a handful of universities, but also the land grant 
institutions like Oklahoma State and historically Black 
colleges and universities (HBCUs) like Langston University. I 
look forward to hearing about how NSF is working to improve 
geographic diversity and STEM through various programs and 
initiatives like the Regional Innovation Engines (RIE) and the 
Missing Millions. These investments also have the potential to 
inspire the next generation of researchers and scientists, and 
those individuals will be the key to maintaining American 
leadership for decades to come.
    In addition to expanding the geography of our research 
infrastructure, we also need cutting-edge facilities for our 
Federal scientists and researchers from academia and industry 
to conduct big science research that can't be done in 
individual labs and requires massive equipment that industry 
cannot provide. So I'm looking forward to hearing more about 
those investments today.
    Any discussion of NSF's work right now must include a 
significant focus on research security. Research theft and 
malign foreign influence are explicit strategies within the 
CCP's plan to become a global leader in science and innovation. 
This Committee has carefully worked with Federal research and 
national security agencies, as well as universities and other 
stakeholders, to identify and provide the resources, authority, 
and tools needed to identify and address malign foreign 
influence and research theft. We've worked to strike the 
correct balance between keeping our research enterprise open, 
but also protecting it from adversaries who seek to take 
advantage of our open system. I look forward to hearing from 
our witnesses today about how the Foundation is utilizing these 
authorities and tools to address the challenges of research 
security and protect America's intellectual property.
    As we look at the President's budget request for the 
Foundation, we in Congress have the responsibility to ensure 
that it offers a sustainable path forward for U.S. research 
enterprises. I have concerns about the use of supplemental 
funds last Congress that may create a situation that fosters 
feast and famine for our research enterprises, so to speak. We 
must do everything we can to avoid this. Innovation thrives on 
a stable, predictable funding, and our Nation's students, 
scientists, and research institutions depend on it.
    Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I 
look forward to your testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on the National 
Science Foundation's budget proposal for fiscal year 2024. I'd 
like to thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed for taking the time 
to participate. I'm looking forward to hearing your testimony 
and thoughts on how the National Science Foundation can best 
support America's scientific progress.
    Thanks in part to NSF's work, America has long led the 
world in science and technology innovation. To maintain that 
leadership, we have to adapt to a changing reality. As we're 
all aware, the pace of innovation is accelerating, global 
competition has increased, and the United States risks losing 
its edge.
    We face a particularly challenging threat from the Chinese 
Communist Party (CCP), which is aggressively pursuing 
technological supremacy through foreign acquisitions, forced 
technology transfers, and frequently, cyber espionage.
    Beyond the threats from our adversaries, we are also facing 
a technological revolution. Advances in artificial 
intelligences, quantum technology, and biotechnology are going 
to change the way we live and work, how we grow food and treat 
diseases, and even how we defend ourselves against foreign 
threats.
    I strongly 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 CHIPS and Science Act authorized critical investments 
and modernizations at the NSF to tackle the challenges of 
reinvigorating American innovation and leadership in science 
and technology.
    It doubles down on NSF's world-leading basic research, 
while also enhancing NSF's ability to move research from lab to 
market through the establishment of the Technology, Innovation 
and Partnership Directorate (TIP).
    The new TIP Directorate aims to take fundamental research 
funded by NSF and help apply those discoveries to solving 
national challenges from artificial intelligence to climate 
change.
    The TIP Directorate will also foster strategic partnerships 
with industry, including small businesses and startups, to 
cultivate innovation ecosystems that will enhance America's 
long-term competitiveness.
    Another goal of CHIPS and Science was to improve the 
geographic diversity of our scientific workforce and ensure all 
Americans have opportunities to participate and excel in STEM 
education and employment.
    CHIPS and Science authorized a number of activities to 
ensure that investments aren't just happening in places like 
San Francisco and Boston, but also in places like Stillwater, 
Oklahoma. We're ensuring funding isn't just going to a handful 
of universities, but also to land-grant institutions like 
Oklahoma State and Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
like Langston University.
    I look forward to hearing about how NSF is working to 
improve geographic diversity in STEM through various programs 
and initiatives like the Regional Innovation Engines and the 
missing millions.
    These investments also have the potential to inspire the 
next generation of researchers and scientists. And those 
individuals will be the key to maintaining American leadership 
for decades to come.
    In addition to expanding the geography of our research 
infrastructure, we also need cutting-edge facilities for our 
federal scientists and researchers from academia and industry 
to conduct big science-research that can't be done in 
individual labs and requires massive equipment that industry 
cannot provide.
    So I'm looking forward to hearing more about those 
investments today.
    Any discussion of NSF's work right now must include a 
significant focus on research security.
    Research theft and malign foreign influence are explicit 
strategies within the CCP's plan to become the global leader in 
science and innovation.
    This Committee has carefully worked with federal research 
and national security agencies, as well as universities and 
other stakeholders, to identify and provide the resources, 
authority, and tools needed to identify and address malign 
foreign influence and research theft.
    We have worked to strike the correct balance between 
keeping our research enterprise open, but also protecting it 
from adversaries who seek to take advantage of our open system.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
how the Foundation is utilizing these authorities and tools to 
address the challenges of research security and protect 
America's intellectual property.
    As we look at the President's budget request for the 
Foundation, we in Congress have the responsibility to ensure 
that it offers a sustainable path forward for the U.S. research 
enterprise.
    I have concerns that the use of supplemental funds last 
Congress may create a situation of feast and famine for our 
research enterprise. We must do everything we can to avoid 
this.
    Innovation thrives on stable and predictable funding, and 
our nation's students, scientists, and research institutions 
depend upon it.
    Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I 
look forward to your testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

    Chairman Lucas. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentlewoman from California, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding today's 
hearing, and Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed, thank you both for 
being here.
    As the Chairman has mentioned, the Science Committee led 
the development and enactment of the CHIPS and Science Act, 
which revitalized our Nation's commitment to science. I'm 
encouraged by the President's budget request, which seeks to 
carry out these critical investments. Obviously, however, the 
request for funding has not yet been appropriated, and in the 
face of global competition and major societal challenges that 
can be addressed through our science and technology enterprise, 
we have to follow through on these investments. We can't resort 
to cutting scientific funding to meet arbitrary spending goals.
    One of the Nation's premier science agencies, of course, is 
the National Science Foundation. NSF has actually an astounding 
record of achievement for more than 70 years. As the global 
environment is evolving, the agency, under the leadership of 
our esteemed witnesses, is evolving with it.
    CHIPS and Science legislation included a comprehensive 
reauthorization of NSF, and to help the agency meet the 
opportunities and challenges of the 21st century, the law also 
created the first-of-its-kind Directorate for Technology, 
Innovation, and Partnerships, or the TIP Directorate. Now, this 
is to buildupon investments of other research directorates by 
supporting new kinds of partnerships and promoting use-inspired 
and translational research at a larger scale. This new 
directorate provides an opportunity to think differently about 
the kinds of partnerships that will further its mission, but it 
would be incorrect to ignore the anxiety that the creation of 
this directorate stimulated among some in the science 
community. So I'm looking forward to hearing more about this 
and how we can make sure that all components of NSF continue to 
flourish and that the breakthrough discoveries that are 
endorsed and supported by NSF continue on.
    I would like to note there are critical investments that 
are being made on a variety of topics, but as many know, I have 
a special interest in how we are assisting the development of 
fusion with the hope of fusion energy. Now, NSF-supported 
research is foundational to our capacity, and I'm hopeful that 
we can hear more about that.
    Again, I'm very happy with President Biden's continued to 
commitment to science, as reflected in his proposed budget. And 
again, I thank the witnesses for being here. I look forward to 
your testimony today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding today's hearing. And 
Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed, thank you both for being here.
    Last year, the Science Committee led in the development and 
enactment of the landmark CHIPS and Science Act, which 
revitalized our nation's commitment to science. I am encouraged 
by the President's budget request, which seeks to carry out 
these critical investments. But I will remind my colleagues 
that funding for the ``Science'' part of the CHIPS and Science 
Act has not yet been appropriated. In the face of global 
competition and major societal challenges that can be addressed 
through our science and technology enterprise, we must follow 
through on these investments. We cannot resort to cutting 
scientific funding to meet arbitrary spending goals.
    One of our nation's premier science agencies is the 
National Science Foundation. NSF has a truly astounding record 
of achievement for more than 70 years. But the global context 
is evolving, and the agency, under the leadership of our 
esteemed witnesses, is evolving with it.
    The CHIPS and Science legislation included a comprehensive 
reauthorization of NSF. To help the agency meet the 
opportunities and challenges of the 21st century, the law also 
created the first-of-its-kind Directorate for Technology, 
Innovation, and Partnerships, or ``TIP'' Directorate. The TIP 
Directorate builds upon the investments of the other research 
directorates by supporting new kinds of partnerships and 
promoting use-inspired and translational research at a larger 
scale.
    TIP presents an opportunity for NSF to think differently 
about what kinds of partnerships will help further its mission, 
not just to promote the progress of science, but also - as is 
written into the agency's mission statement - to promote the 
national health, welfare, prosperity, and defense. 
Strengthening and expanding industry partnerships is essential. 
So is engaging nontraditional stakeholders and diverse voices 
in NSF research.
    NSF also has some management challenges I hope to discuss 
today. NSF has a long history of sustained investment in major 
scientific research facilities that enable breakthrough 
discoveries. Today, NSF faces enormous pressure as multiple 
scientific disciplines have concurrently prioritized 
investments in major new facilities, and operations budgets for 
increasingly sophisticated facilities threaten research 
budgets.
    This issue is particularly apparent in astronomy. The most 
recent decadal survey in astronomy and astrophysics recommended 
that NSF invest in several new major research facilities, with 
the highest priority given to the US-Extremely Large Telescope 
Program. There is also a new Antarctic Research Vessel waiting 
for approval. I would like to better understand how the agency 
plans to balance these lofty priorities and strengthen 
lifecycle planning to account for ever-increasing operations 
budgets.
    Yet another management challenge that we will discuss 
further today is ensuring that the research environment is safe 
and free of harassment. While NSF has been a leader in 
promoting safe environments on university campuses, further 
steps are needed to protect women and gender minorities in 
remote research environments. This is particularly so for the 
U.S. Antarctic Program.
    Finally, I am interested to learn more about NSF's 
investments in critical industries, including artificial 
intelligence, microelectronics, synthetic biology, and fusion 
energy. NSF supported research is foundational to our capacity 
as a nation to innovate and compete. And that brings me full 
circle to my earlier comment that now, more than ever, is the 
time to invest in NSF's full potential. Let us not cut our nose 
to spite our face.
    I am very happy with President Biden's continued commitment 
to science as reflected in the fiscal year 2024 budget request. 
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward 
to your testimony today.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Lucas. I always appreciate the Ranking Member's 
thoughtful comments, and she yields back.
    Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is 
the Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Panch, as 
I like to affectionately call him. He became the 15th Director 
of the Foundation in June 2020. And prior to becoming Director, 
he was the Executive Vice President of the Arizona State 
University (ASU) Knowledge Enterprise. Under his leadership, 
ASU increased research performance fivefold, earning 
recognition as the fastest growing and most innovative research 
university in the United States. He also served as a member of 
the board of the National Science Board (NSB) before becoming 
Director.
    Our next witness is Dr. Daniel Reed. Dr. Reed is the 
current Chair of the National Science Board, elected in May of 
2022. And before becoming Chair of the National Science Board, 
Dr. Reed served as a Provost at the University of Utah, where 
he is now a Presidential Professor of Computational Science and 
a Professor of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer 
Engineering. That sounds like all hard stuff, Doc.
    I would love to now recognize our first witness, Dr. Panch, 
for 5 minutes to present his testimony.

           TESTIMONY OF DR. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN,

             DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the Members of the 
Committee. It is an honor to appear before you to discuss the 
President's FY 2024 budget request for NSF and how our agency 
is inspiring the talent and unleashing the innovations that 
will keep our Nation the global leader in science, engineering, 
and technology for decades to come.
    First, I want to start by thanking this Committee for your 
work on the CHIPS and Science Act and for your continued strong 
support of NSF. Your leadership is central to ensuring that the 
Nation can meet the challenge of what is surely a defining 
moment in global competition. For more than 70 years, NSF has 
been an important component of our Nation's success by 
investing in the amazing talent in our country and by 
attracting the brightest minds from around the world. NSF has 
been a catalyst for countless scientific breakthroughs, major 
advancements in engineering and manufacturing and so much more. 
In doing so, NSF has powered the economy, transformed lives, 
and help secure our national defense.
    Many of the key technology areas we will discuss today are 
rooted in decades of sustained NSF investment in exploratory 
research that has transformed the way we see the world and 
expanded the frontiers of knowledge. Today, we are currently 
facing intense global competition like never before. Our 
competitors are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, 
quantum information science, and other technologies. Our 
ability to achieve scientific breakthroughs and unlock the 
promise of technological developments will determine our 
continued global leadership, and our success is vital to our 
economic and national security.
    With the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, 
Congress put in place a roadmap to meet this challenge, and to 
do so while spurring innovation in communities in every region 
of our country. Mr. Chairman, the law positions the agency to 
quickly translate research into impacts that benefits the 
Nation.
    The FY 2024 budget request of $11.3 billion invests in the 
three pillars central to achieving the goals of the CHIPS and 
Science Act. First, we must strengthen our commitment to 
funding the fundamental exploratory-based research that is the 
heart of NSF's mission.
    Second, we must realize the promise of the Technology, 
Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate, or TIP as we call it, 
to accelerate the Nation's technology and innovation enterprise 
through investments in use-inspired translational 
breakthroughs.
    Finally, it is exceedingly important that we inspire talent 
by creating opportunities for every demographic and 
socioeconomic group in every geographic region in our country.
    The FY 2024 request includes 1.2 billion in funding for 
TIP. This investment will strengthen and scale investments in 
breakthrough technologies, innovation, and translation. The 
request includes $300 million for the NSF Regional Innovation 
Engines Program, and we are very excited by the strong interest 
and amazing proposals we have received. When we first announced 
this funding opportunity, we receive hundreds of concept papers 
spanning every part of our Nation, in every State, in every 
region, and even the territories. In a couple of weeks, we will 
make the first planning grants and in the fall the first award 
for full-scale engines. These investments will empower 
partnerships to catalyze innovation all across the country.
    In addition, NSF's role in workforce training has become 
increasingly important as the country makes significant 
investments in technology R&D, including semiconductor 
manufacturing. The CHIPS and Science Act recognized this, and 
in just the past few months, NSF has announced partnership with 
Micron, Intel, Ericsson, Samsung, and exactly for this purpose, 
how do we get public-private partnerships to work for our 
Nation? This budget also supports critical research 
infrastructure, including a new MREFC (Major Research Equipment 
and Facilities Construction) project, the Leadership-Class 
Computing Facility at the University of Texas at Austin.
    Finally, the request invests heavily in broadening 
participation in STEM. The request includes over $1.8 billion 
to create opportunities everywhere and to increase the 
participation of underserved groups in STEM. These activities 
include programs focused on building research capacity at 
HBCUs, minority-serving institutions (MSI), investing in EPSCoR 
(Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) 
jurisdictions, building capacity in emerging research 
institutions, and finding new approaches to ensure that 
everyone has a chance to participate in the innovations of the 
future.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren, I would like to 
end by joining the Committee in honoring the memory of Jenn 
Wickre. Jenn was truly a remarkable person, and I was so 
blessed to meet her, interact with her, work with her. And she 
will be remembered fondly at NSF for her keen intellect, her 
quick wit, and her honesty and integrity. Her contributions to 
science policy, dedication to public service, and her impact on 
so many people cannot be overstated by NSF, and the entire 
research enterprise in the Nation would not be what we are 
today without her. On behalf of the entire agency, I offer our 
deepest condolences to Jenn's family and friends and everyone 
who was fortunate enough to be touched by her and part of her 
life.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Panchanathan follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Lucas. Wise words, well-spoken, Doctor.
    And with that, I now recognize our second witness, Dr. 
Reed, for 5 minutes to present his testimony.

                   TESTIMONY OF DR. DAN REED,

                 CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

    Dr. Reed. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, Members 
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with 
you as Chair of the National Science Board. Thank you as well 
for the CHIPS and Science Act and its bold blueprint for a 
brighter future. One of my favorite science fiction authors 
Neal Stephenson once wrote, ``If we want to create a better 
future, we have to start with better dreams.'' The CHIPS and 
Science Act is the stuff of better dreams, and it arrives at a 
critical juncture for our Nation.
    To ensure future breakthroughs and innovations are made in 
America, we must continue translating the act's vision into 
action, advancing scientific frontiers, developing STEM talent, 
expanding the geography of innovation, and delivering benefits 
to society. Fully funding the Administration's FY '24 budget 
request will help make the vision a reality. But we must do 
more.
    Let me be clear, U.S. leadership in science and technology 
is imperil. China is charging ahead, and absent further action, 
it's not a question of if, but when the United States loses its 
STEM leadership with deep consequences for our country.
    Here's why we must act and act now. First, China's 
announcement that it's ramping up government investment in 
basic research as, quote, ``the only way to build a world 
scientific and technological power,'' unquote, both validates 
our strategy and highlights our challenges. It's time for us to 
double down, expand investment in basic research and cutting-
edge scientific instruments nationwide and unleash American 
innovation.
    Second, China continues to invest heavily in building its 
homegrown talent and now produces more STEM Ph.D.'s than the 
United States. Meanwhile, we face a STEM talent crisis. 
Students at all levels and all backgrounds are struggling in 
STEM. COVID simply made it much worse. And this crippling 
situation is even more challenging for students from a lower 
socioeconomic standing or underrepresented backgrounds. We're 
simply not producing enough STEM workers at all levels to meet 
the needs of a 21st century economy. And we're leaving millions 
of talented individuals behind.
    For our STEM workforce to be representative of the U.S. 
population in 2030, the number of women must nearly double, 
Hispanic and Latinos must triple, Black or African Americans 
must more than double, and the number of American Indian or 
Alaskan Natives must quadruple.
    Now, 48 years ago, I was a poor first-generation college 
student from the Arkansas Ozarks studying computer science. I 
was fortunate to graduate debt-free thanks to academic 
scholarships, a Basic Educational Opportunity Grant--now Pell--
and my paltry savings. And while I'm extraordinarily grateful 
for the opportunities this has afforded, I'm alarmed that my 
educational path is no longer widely available. To grow our 
STEM talent base, we must do more to make higher education 
affordable and graduate STEM work more financially viable. 
Hence, NSF's FY '24 budget request emphasizes broadening 
participation in STEM education and turning STEM career dreams 
into realities.
    Third, and finally, we must deliver research benefits to 
society. NSF's new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and 
Partnerships, TIP, will accelerate innovation by supporting 
use-inspired research and translation, by building 
institutional and regional innovation capacity, and enhancing 
academic, government, and industry partnerships.
    At the end of World War II, the compelling rationale for 
Federal Government research investment was to advance the 
national health, wealth, and prosperity and to secure the 
national defense. Almost 80 years later, it still is. So my 
dream is simple. I dream that historians and, more importantly, 
our children and our grandchildren will mark now as the time we 
not only embraced better dreams, but we put aside our 
differences, we committed to our common goals, and we acted 
with compelling vision and unwavering resolution to create a 
better future for our country and for the world.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Reed follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Dr. Panch, as you note, in your testimony, inspiring the 
Missing Millions and tapping into the talent pool across every 
geographic region of the country is imperative to securing our 
Nation's global leadership in science and technology 
innovation. Could you explain what a whole-of-NSF approach 
would look like and how this is different from previous efforts 
to expand geographic diversity?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for that question, 
Mr. Chairman, very appropriate for this moment of intense 
global competition. We need to bring all possible talent across 
our Nation energized, inspired, motivated, and brought to life, 
every part of our Nation, across the geography, across the 
socioeconomic demographic, and across the rich diversity of our 
Nation. What we need to do is--and you rightly said this, Mr. 
Chairman, in your remarks and, Ranking Member, in your remarks, 
it cannot be limited to only a few institutions. It's got to be 
all the educational institutions everywhere that are empowered, 
invested in so that they can bring this talent to life. We 
cannot leave any talent behind. Talent and ideas are 
democratized all across our Nation. We cannot leave any talent 
behind.
    So NSF has an approach where all of our directorates are 
working together, yes, the STEM Education Directorate is one of 
those important directorates, but all the directorates are 
working together in unison.
    If I were to describe NSF, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, by one word, it's people. It makes unbelievable people 
possible. These people are the innovators and discoverers. 
These people are the translators and leaders in industry. And 
these people are the entrepreneurs. It's about people. And 
that's what NSF makes possible. And we need this millions of 
talent energized.
    Chairman Lucas. Dr. Reed, in your testimony, you discussed 
the need for a coherent national strategic plan for science and 
engineering. What role do you see for the Foundation and NSB in 
the development of the strategy? And along with that, while 
you're thinking about that, will you commit to partnering with 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to serve as 
a resource?
    Dr. Reed. Let me address that last part directly. Yes, 
absolutely. We are already in conversations with OSTP about 
futures. I also wear other hats in the Department of Energy as 
Chair of an advisory committee there.
    To expand on what Panch said, I believe we not only need a 
whole-of-foundation, we need a whole-of-government and whole-
of-country strategy. And that means we have to work together to 
think about the differential strengths and capabilities of each 
of our Federal agencies, how they complement one another and 
how they can work together not in competition, but as a greater 
sum than their individual parts. Each has a particular role to 
play, and it's important that each of them play it well.
    Chairman Lucas. And I would put this question to both of 
you. Research infrastructure is essential to scientific 
discovery and innovation. The best tools and facilities can 
attract the best and brightest minds from around the world. We 
know this. However, infrastructure projects often require large 
investments over many years, and therefore, must be planned out 
literally years in advance with an intentional consideration 
for the needs of the future. How does NSF consider this when 
reviewing and selecting proposals for large infrastructure 
projects?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. 
Chairman. You're absolutely right. Infrastructure is one of the 
things that defines our Nation as a leader. And when you talk 
about global competition, as a leader, it makes possible 
unbelievable discoveries all across the spectrum, all across 
the disciplines.
    So for us, we look at the decadal surveys. For example, the 
most recent Astro2020 is a fantastic analysis. So we take those 
inputs, we take the inputs from our advisory committees, we 
work very closely with the National Science Board, with my 
partner. I'm sure Dr. Reed will have in his comments to say we 
work very closely with them because that's part of the process. 
We work with OMB (Office of Management and Budget), we work 
with all of you because this is a moment we need to scale 
investments and our infrastructure to make possible all those 
amazing discoveries that are going to be happening in decades 
to come, not just only tomorrow, but decades to come. NSF is 
deeply committed to doing this.
    Dr. Reed. So I think the answer is it's both a bottom-up, 
as Panch described, process, community input about where the 
scientific opportunities drives part of this. But we also need 
a collaborative strategy where we think thoughtfully about 
where there are missing points and how we couple pieces. And 
that's where the Board and the Foundation work together to do 
that.
    In a previous role on the board, I chaired the Awards and 
Facilities Committee, which is where all large infrastructure 
comes before it comes to the Board for final approval. One of 
the processes that we instituted was earlier engagement so we 
could do more in-depth planning, analysis of competing projects 
and priorities, and work with the Foundation to develop a 
collaborative strategic plan that includes not only the 
community input, but the competing priorities of different 
disciplines so we have a coherent strategy that we can bring 
forward for funding.
    And the last thing I would say, as the price of 
instruments, large-scale ones, goes north of $1 billion 
dollars, it is also important that we have, as I said before, 
collaborative cross-agency partnerships. The Foundation works 
closely with other agencies to jointly fund many of these 
scientific instruments. That's where the collaborative whole-
of-government strategy is also critically important.
    Chairman Lucas. I just know that 20-some years ago when I 
was a Subcommittee Chairman, the '02 Farm Bill focused on the 
agricultural research enterprise, that the talent pool then as 
now was sufficiently small enough. If we could not provide 
people with the resources they needed to do their research, 
they would go. Now we know they go internationally, not just 
internally in the United States.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time and turn to 
the Ranking Member to recognize her for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Speaker McCarthy has proposed very steep cuts in the 
Federal civilian budget that would amount to an anticipated 
reduction of over 22 percent to civilian scientific agencies, 
including NSF. In the meantime, one of our main economic and 
strategic competitors, China, is continuing to ramp up its 
research and development budgets.
    I want to ask both of the witnesses. If Congress was to cut 
NSF by 22 percent and lock those cuts in for a decade, as the 
Speaker has proposed, is there a chance that China could 
overtake the United States in basic research funding? And if 
you have any specific answers where we could fall behind, 
behind our international competitors like China, I would like 
to hear about that. So if each witness could address that, I 
would appreciate it.
    Dr. Reed. I won't sugarcoat it. If we saw those kinds of 
cuts, we would be ceding the future to our competitors. There's 
just no question about that. It would affect many things. I'll 
speak first of all to my own discipline. As I said, I'm a 
computer scientist. If we look at the AI revolution and how it 
is poised to reshape our planet, the National Science 
Foundation funds the overwhelming majority of basic AI research 
in this country outside what the Department of Defense funds. 
It would decimate many areas of basic research that are 
critical to our future, as the Chair mentioned in his opening 
remarks.
    Equally importantly, it would leave the TIP Directorate 
stillborn just at a time that we're thinking about ramping up 
and addressing the unequal geography of innovation. As I said, 
I grew up in one of those parts of the country. I remember it. 
We need to empower talent across the country because although 
opportunities aren't equal, talent comes from everywhere, and 
we have to continue to empower that talent.
    And then there are the equally important broad-based 
effects on all of the programs that would shrink. And I would 
just note in conclusion that returning to FY '22 budget levels 
would be an even larger cut because we're in the midst of an 
area of inflation, and so it is a larger effect than the 
absolute numbers would suggest. But the short answer is the 
effect would be devastating.
    Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Panch?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Ranking Member, for 
the question. Absolutely. I want to second what the Chair said. 
And as the Chair said, it will have disastrous effects. And I 
will tell you, I'm not trying to overstate this. I was in 
Missouri just 2 days ago. I was in Oklahoma, in Stillwater with 
the Chairman. And I've been traveling all around the country. 
And I will tell you the unbelievable talent we have everywhere 
in our Nation is ready to be inspired, ready to play for our 
Nation. This is not the time that we should slow down anything.
    Let me give you a concrete example. Let's take 
semiconductors. We put the CHIPS Act together. Why? Because we 
ceded our national leadership to other nations. Now it's a 
Band-Aid that we're putting to secure this back. We cannot let 
that happen in AI, in quantum, in advanced wireless, in 
biotech. We cannot let that happen to any of our technologies. 
Yes, our competitors are investing, hyper-investing in these 
areas, and we cannot leave any of our talent behind, because we 
have amazing talent that is not energized to contribute. I 
mean, what can I say? Shame on us.
    So I will give you a concrete example. Just in 
semiconductor alone, we need 280,000 semiconductor skilled 
technical workers over the next 5 years. If we were to have 
this cut, it will remove 10,000 people per year, just NSF 
alone, from bringing them into this very important time where 
we need to recapture, advance, and accelerate progress.
    Let me give you one other example in the interest of time 
and I will stop. We will not be able to invest in a national 
quantum virtual laboratory platform, which is a very important 
investment for translating the amazing quantum fundamental 
science discoveries, to the industries in quantum that we need 
in our country and not leave it for some other country to take 
those discoveries and build industries there. This would not be 
acceptable. It will affect our people being able to access the 
talent to get the jobs, well-paying jobs and being prosperous.
    Ms. Lofgren. I wonder, I've been thinking a lot about the 
melding of our AI research with quantum that has the 
potential--really revolutionary potential. Would we fall behind 
in that critical area?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Ranking Member, because, as 
you rightly said, AI is impacting everything. The Chairman 
talked about agriculture. We have four AI institutes focused on 
agriculture, amazing work that's going on in Illinois, in 
Kansas, in Texas, in Oklahoma, all over our Nation, California, 
right in your backyard and in Davis. So we cannot let the 
influence of AI in all areas, particularly in quantum AI and 
fusion, we cannot let that be ceded to any other nation, 
absolutely not.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 
I would ask unanimous consent to put into the record a 
statement from Research!America.
    Chairman Lucas. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Lofgren. I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. And the gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Posey, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to 
ask unanimous consent to include in the record the 2022 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled ``Federal 
Research: Information on Funding for U.S.-China Research 
Collaboration and Other International Activities.''
    Chairman Lucas. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Panchanathan, did I get that close enough?
    Dr. Panchanathan. That's good.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. How much in Federal research funds 
did China entities received through subawards from award 
recipients from 2015 through 2021?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much [inaudible] for the 
question. There are two awards, some [inaudible] during this 
time period from 2015 to 2021. Both awards are expired, and 
there are no current subawards.
    Mr. Posey. OK. Thank you. Is the National Science 
Foundation currently conducting or within the past 5 years 
collaborative research with entities that are connected to the 
Chinese talent program?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So, Mr. Chairman, Representative Posey, I 
will just tell you that NSF is committed to protecting taxpayer 
investments, and this is something that is very, very important 
to me personally and to the agency in research. So I'm so very 
happy the CHIPS and Science Act has very clearly stated that it 
prohibits researchers from participating in these talent 
programs if they are to receive any Federal research dollars, 
and NSF is implementing that very clearly.
    So in fact, we released a policy for public comment stating 
that we will return proposals without review if we determine 
that there are national security concerns according to a risk 
matrix that is in development. It's not only that. What they're 
doing is, it's not that we are relying on people to just 
disclose their conflicts, we are also having analytical tools 
to ensure that we are verifying them. So we are taking this 
very seriously, Representative Posey, because, as you rightly 
point out, it is exceedingly important that we are competing, 
particularly with some of our adversaries taking advantage of 
our investments. We want to make sure that we do everything, 
everything to protect what needs to be protected.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you. The same GAO report that I 
submitted says that the Department of Defense funded Chinese 
entities to research alternative technologies to propel drones. 
Did the NSF provide any assistance in that research?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Not to my knowledge, Representative, but 
I can always check back, and if there is anything different, we 
will most certainly communicate with your office.
    [A response from the National Science Foundation follows:]

    A review of NSF proposals confirmed that NSF did not 
provide any assistance to the DOD collaboration with Chinese 
entities related to research in alternative technologies to 
propel drones.

    Mr. Posey. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
    Mr. Posey. Has NSF had any connection to Wuhan virus or 
Wuhan Institute?
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, we did not fund directly the 
research, but our subawards, when we fund grants here in the 
United States, a few of the subawards might have, but nothing 
to do with the COVID-related research.
    Mr. Posey. Yes, what subaward recipients would that have 
been that is dealing with Wuhan?
    Dr. Panchanathan. I mean the award recipients here who 
might have subaward relationships with the Wuhan Institute. We 
can again give you the details of the awards, Representative 
Posey, but nothing--I verified that there is nothing that was 
related to COVID research.
    [A response from the National Science Foundation follows:]

    NSF has not made any subawards or direct awards to Wuhan 
Institute.

    Mr. Posey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. 
Bonamici, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Lucas and Ranking 
Member Lofgren and our witnesses.
    First, I want to express my condolences and grief about the 
passing of Jenn Wickre, a member of the staff of this 
Committee. I know she will be missed.
    So, Dr. Panchanathan, good to see you. Oregon State 
University, as you know, is leading efforts to design and 
construct the next generation of NSF Regional Class Research 
Vessels (RCRVs). These are the state-of-the-art ships that will 
give scientists and educators access to the marine environment 
that's such an important investment to advance marine 
transportation, sound fisheries management, aquaculture 
development, coastal hazard mitigation, national security 
priorities, so very important development. Construction of the 
first vessel, which is Taani--it's a Siletz word meaning 
offshore--has reached an important milestone. We're excited 
about that progress on the on-water stage.
    But at the same time, I know NSF is also moving forward 
with the development of the Antarctic Research Vessel (ARV) 
Project to replace the Nathaniel B. Palmer. Recently, the 
scientific community has raised concerns about the proposed 
design and omission of some key features that are crucial to 
the work of polar scientists. So what is the process and 
commitment to considering input from the scientific community 
on designs for research infrastructure like the ARV?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So thank you very much, Representative 
Bonamici. I also am excited by the RCRV Taani. It is scheduled 
to be delivered in January----
    Ms. Bonamici. Exciting.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. Of 2024. And Oregon State 
University has been doing a great job. I was in fact in one of 
the Academic Research Fleet ships just close by at the 
University of Washington very recently.
    Ms. Bonamici. Perfect.
    Dr. Panchanathan. So on the ARV input, in any of these 
things, we always solicit the input from the scientific 
community and public input to make sure that our investments, 
taxpayer investments are shepherded in the most responsible 
way. And of course, we always work with the Board in these 
kinds of large projects. And I'm sure the Chairman of the Board 
will also have something to add to that.
    Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And I do want to move on to another 
question. But, Dr. Reed, if you want to add briefly to that.
    Dr. Reed. No, I just quickly echo what Panch said. We 
welcome input and additional feedback on appropriate features. 
After all, the only reason we build the infrastructure is to 
support the community, so----
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
    Dr. Reed [continuing]. Input as welcome.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. So we've had a lot of 
conversations in this Committee over the years about the 
importance of diversifying the STEAM (science, technology, 
engineering, arts, and mathematics)--I use STEAM because I 
believe in integrating arts for creativity and innovation--
field, but--and you were mentioning, Dr. Reed, when I came in 
that it's so important to get more women and people of color or 
minorities involved, but it's all so important to keep them in 
the job when they get there.
    So the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has come under fire, 
including in this Committee, for inadequately protecting 
scientists and contract employees from sexual harassment and 
assault. I've worked on this issue with NOAA (National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration). I've been to McMurdo Station, 
and I am alarmed. So last year SAHPR (``Sexual Assault/
Harassment Prevention and Response'') report contains some 
disturbing accounts of harassment and assault, generally 
describing a toxic environment that permits such behavior, does 
not hold perpetrators accountable, is cleared from that report 
and from Leidos' testimony before this Committee in December, 
that the prime contractor operating the USAP has been failing 
those doing important work in Antarctica.
    So I understand that the existing Antarctic support 
contract has been amended with some new reporting requirements. 
So, Dr. Panch, what are the changes? Will these requirements 
remain when NSF recompetes the contract? And will the failure 
of Leidos to keep the participants safe, as well-documented in 
the SAHPR report, will that be considered when assessing a bid 
to maintain the contract should they decide to do so?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative 
Bonamici, for asking this question. Sexual harassment has no 
place, no place in the scientific enterprise. I want to be very 
clear about this. We will not tolerate that. And I've made sure 
that the public statements that I've made clearly reflect this 
to the community, to the agency, and all the folks that are 
involved in terms of working as subcontractors and other 
agencies that are involved. So I want to make that very clear. 
Let me tell you, in that context, we are making sure that there 
is no light lost between the subcontractors, other agencies 
that are involved and their subcontractors, that we have a very 
tight network, which is only one link apart, not many links 
down, so they are tightly connected. And we established the 
Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention office, the SAHPR office, 
at NSF soon after. We made sure that there should be no lack of 
coordination of any type that causes any challenges whatsoever. 
So we took action right away.
    I immediately made sure that we had an on-ice advocate so 
that they are right there, not just a telephone line alone, but 
on-ice advocate who's able to be a neutral person. Now, people 
can go to the person and express their concerns as things 
happen, and they're provided the full support, and our Office 
of Equity and Civil Rights is a point of contact for people to 
be able to submit any of the harassment-related complaints.
    Ms. Bonamici. And has enough time passed so that you know 
that that's making a difference?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, it's making a difference. In fact, 
it's making a difference in terms of number of reporting that 
we are seeing, which is a positive thing because----
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. When people say, oh, there 
are so many reports, I said, that's good because people are now 
feeling like they have--actually have a place to go and report 
those numbers----
    Ms. Bonamici. Right. And I want to get--I know my time has 
expired, but as I yield back, Mr. Chairman, it's my 
understanding that the OIG (Office of Inspector General), the 
NSF OIG doing important work on this project has had trouble 
getting Leidos employees to fully cooperate. The agency needed 
to step in to address the issue. So I'll submit for the record, 
but I need to know what happened and how NSF will continue to 
provide the Inspector General with unfettered access to the 
resources and people----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Happy to do that.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Panchanathan. We are in tight coordination with----
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'm sorry I went over, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. An important issue. The gentlelady's time 
has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oklahoma for 5 
minutes, Congresswoman Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
witnesses being with us this morning.
    Dr. Panch, I want to start by saying I appreciate your 
willingness to work with me last year on a situation involving 
an employee or subcontractor that was stationed in Antarctica, 
unfortunately, had a spouse pass away unexpectedly. And trying 
to get them back, I learned, is a little bit of a challenge, 
but you and your organization were incredibly helpful, and I 
want you to know how much I appreciate your commitment to that 
situation.
    I want to start by asking, you received money in the CHIPS 
Act for NSF. Can you talk a little bit about the money that you 
received and what the focus would be for that?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So basically, we received a total of a $1 
billion dollar increase in our budget overall. And from the 
CHIPS' part of that, we received $335 million. There are two 
components to that. One is our Technology, Innovation, and 
Partnerships Directorate, and the other component is what we do 
with the workforce development. So the Technology, Innovation, 
and Partnerships, if I can get the numbers here, I think 
received about $210 million, and the rest of it went primarily 
for workforce development programs authorized in the CHIPS and 
Science Act.
    Mrs. Bice. And a significant increase, correct?
    Dr. Panchanathan. A significant increase from the CHIPS 
part gave us--just to put this in perspective, we had $52 
billion as part of the CHIPS Act. NSF got a total of $200 
million----
    Mrs. Bice. Correct.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. As part of the CHIPS Act. I 
was talking about the budget increase in the component parts, 
but in the CHIPS part we got only $200 million out of the $52 
billion. And the $200 million was essentially over a 5-year 
timeframe. We got $25 million in the first 2 years each. So the 
$25 million, we are actually leveraging that by working with 
partners, industry partners like Intel and Micron, in 
developing the semiconductor skill technical workforce. So as 
you can see, it is not a very large amount as you were 
articulating but important, significant amount that we want to 
create an outsized impact for the investment that we are 
making.
    Mrs. Bice. Taxpayers may disagree that $25 million is a----
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, I----
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. A small amount, but I get your 
point.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Relative to the overall budget is what I 
was saying.
    Mrs. Bice. Absolutely. I think that the point is that there 
has been increases in investment----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. In the NSF over the last several 
years, not just with the CHIPS Act, but other increases. And 
although we certainly want to make sure that we are being able 
to compete with our adversaries and keep up with quantum and AI 
and other things, it's not as though the agency has been cut or 
held flat. I think the point needs to be made there.
    I want to follow up with the budget request for 
discretionary spending for the NSF has--is $11.3 billion. And 
it recently came to light that the NSF was given grants over 
the last couple of years for the development of, quote, 
``course correct,'' a tool that would allow the government to 
identify misinformation. Why is it funding the development of 
this tool?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So, Representative Bice, you will 
appreciate this. As you know, more recently, there has been a 
lot of deepfakes, deepfake videos and deepfake kind of 
activities. For example, the conversation that we're having 
right now, this could be completely construed as something 
different if they were to reframe this in a deepfake context. 
So what we are trying to do is we are trying to invest in 
understanding. We are not trying to do any policymaking. That's 
the domain of Congress. So we're trying to see how we can 
invest in understanding some of these things so that our young 
folks, our elderly folks, they're all protected, we all receive 
these calls. Recently, I was very disturbed to hear a mom 
receiving a call from someone pretending to be her daughter. 
And, you know, these kinds of things we don't want to happen.
    And so what we're trying to do with these investments that 
we're making is understand those situations. And that's the 
kind of investments that we make.
    Mrs. Bice. The concern that I think many have is that you 
are looking to correct misinformation. And if you think back to 
the COVID-19 sort of theory of how the pandemic began, you 
know, even the Department of Energy as recently as last month 
suggested that it could have been a lab leak, but there was a 
lot of information sort of suggesting that and a lot of false 
information on that topic. The point is, who chooses what's the 
misinformation and what doesn't? And I think that's a concern 
that I have. And I'm not sure that that NSF funding that is 
maybe the best use of taxpayer dollars. I understand that the 
premise behind it, but I do have concerns about that.
    Dr. Panchanathan. I just wanted to say this in response. I 
agree with you. The only thing that I would say is that we do 
not regulate any content. We do not engage in any censorship. I 
just want to be very clear that this is about understanding the 
process of deepfakes and other kinds of activities that we 
engage on social, behavioral, economic scientist folks. It's 
not just technologists, social, behavioral, economics, 
scientist folks, working with the technologists so that we 
build technologies that can be trusted into the future because 
we don't want our--you'll appreciate this. We don't want our 
adversaries to take advantage of anything that we have not 
fully understood. And that's what the domain of NSF's work is. 
I just want to show you that.
    Dr. Reed. And I'll just add that from a technical 
perspective, yes, it is about technical understanding. Our 
adversaries are also using this technology. And how we can 
detect deception is an important technical question. Part of 
the practical, technical challenge is that the pace of this 
technology is advancing so rapidly, and it is so realistic that 
distinguishing, as the Director said, false information or 
manufactured human interactions that are in fact not real is 
increasingly difficult. And there have been studies that say 
that humans simply can't tell the difference anymore. And so 
from a security perspective alone, having the technical ways 
and means to be able to detect this is important. And I can say 
that from having talked to Department of Defense colleagues, 
so----
    Mrs. Bice. OK.
    Dr. Reed [continuing]. It's another consideration.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you both for the answers.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair now turns to the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. 
Stevens, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 
witnesses. And it is a delight to overview the National Science 
Foundation and reflect on the historic passage of the CHIPS and 
Science Act that really bore out in this Committee over a 
multitude of years, reauthorizing the NSF but also authorizing 
the push to double your scientific research efforts. We are an 
authorizing Committee, we are not an appropriating Committee, 
but we are absolutely delighted that CHIPS and Science both 
intersected with your very agency.
    And, Panch, thank you for the reflection of what it means 
to have the catching-up investment in chips manufacturing, 
chips that were innovated here in the very United States of 
America, but yet we saw the shrinkage of production. And we 
want to be able to produce those chips here. And we don't, at 
the same time, want to lose out on investing in AI, quantum, 
and what we need to do to address deepfakes and the like. And 
so please know that your words were heard and that we--many of 
us who care about industrial policy are looking toward CHIPS 
2.0 here on this Committee and the Committee--the Select 
Committee on Competitiveness with the CCP.
    And you might recall that within the CHIPS and Science 
bill, we did the CHIPPING IN Act legislation that I was very 
proud to author that would tackle some of the workforce 
component. And what NSF does best, awarding grants, working 
with stakeholders, working at the university and postsecondary 
level, we know that there is a refined utilization of the 
dollar. And just as we are in budget season and we have that 
debate going on, $52 billion for CHIPS begetting 200 billion of 
industry investment, paying for itself.
    But, Panch, could you just shed a little bit of light and 
provide an update on NSF's CHIPS for America Workforce and 
Education Fund and how that is going?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative 
Stevens. It's been truly a pleasure to work with all of you, 
and we are very grateful to Congress. I just want to say even 
to Representative Bice's question that we are very grateful at 
NSF. Every dollar that you have invested in us is, if you want 
to make it work for the Nation, for the amazing talent that is 
in our country, amazing ideas in our country, and I want to be 
very clear that nothing is small or big. I just didn't want to 
give the wrong impression. I just want to correct that, that 
what I was saying was that----
    Ms. Stevens. [inaudible] my question----
    Dr. Panchanathan. I know, I know. I just want to----
    Ms. Stevens. [inaudible].
    Dr. Panchanathan. I know, but I just want to make sure that 
there is never a misunderstanding of whatever I've said.
    So the education----
    Ms. Stevens. [inaudible].
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes. So here are the facts to your 
question. As I said, we received $335 million specifically for 
CHIPS and Science implementation. In terms of our investments, 
the Education Directorate received $125 million of that. And 
that was spent essentially on support for STEM education at all 
levels, pre-K to graduate, $38 million; workforce development 
across the STEM spectrum, $69 million; cross-cutting efforts to 
advance diversity, $18 million. And then the TIP Directorate 
received $210 million out of the $335 million, and that was 
essentially for the Regional Innovation Engines, which I'm 
truly excited by because we have innovation all across our 
Nation being spurred through that process.
    Ms. Stevens. [inaudible].
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, correct. That's right. So in the 
$200 million that was appropriated in CHIPS and Science as part 
of the $52 billion, $25 million in FY '23 and $25 million in FY 
'24 is primarily targeted toward building the skilled technical 
workforce for semiconductor training so that our industries 
like Intel, Micron, and all of them are able to benefit with 
the kind of talent that they need in order for them to be 
successful. I was very proud to be with Intel co-announcing the 
$10 million partnership. Part of the investment came from this. 
And likewise a $10 million Micron partnership, again, part of 
the investments. In other words, we are not just only using the 
$25 million that the Federal investments are making, but 
actually leveraging the Federal investments by working with 
industry so that we can deliver what they need.
    Ms. Stevens. Phenomenal model. And could you also just shed 
some light on privacy-enhancing technologies through the 
investments in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget? This is around 
digital footprints that obviously grow every day and by the 
minute and nanosecond. And often on this Committee we're 
discussing how to strike a healthy balance between privacy 
without hindering innovation.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, so the privacy-enhancing 
technologies, while they're also focused investments, but we're 
making this part of many of the major investments that we make. 
Let me give you an example. On the AI Institutes that they are 
investing in, each of them $20 million scale, and I'm very 
proud to say that these AI Institutes are not only in a few 
places, they are all across our Nation, touching every part of 
our Nation. And so when you look at the AI Institutes we have 
privacy, security, safety, ethics. All of that has components 
of even technologies like AI so that we make sure that we are 
not building anything in technological terms that is not 
sensitized to these kinds of things, particularly when it 
relates to applications where they are very important.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, allow me to say to you and Dr. Reed that 
we are so enthusiastic for your leadership and what you are 
doing at the NSF. We salute you, sir. And we recognize Jenn 
Wickre today and her heroic efforts every day on this 
Committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you. And the gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now turns to the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 
Tenney, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for holding this hearing. And thank you to the 
witnesses for appearing today and for your time, your insight 
on these issues.
    The National Science Foundation has a long history of 
funding nonpartisan basic research that has led to numerous 
scientific and technological breakthroughs. I'm honored to 
represent New York's 24th Congressional District, which also 
has a great history, and home to the Erie Canal, which was once 
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and much of our 
science that has come across our world.
    Historically, the National Science Foundation has been a 
key player in investing in advanced manufacturing jobs that can 
help revitalize New York's 24th District and others across New 
York. This work is vital to my region, which has suffered 
tremendously from the offshoring of well-paying jobs, 
especially manufacturing jobs, for the past several decades, 
many decades actually, over 50 years.
    However, I would be remiss to not also share my concerns as 
the National Science Foundation has strayed from its important 
work, wasting millions of dollars on the implementation of this 
radical notion of woke, diversity, equity, and inclusion, or 
the DEI agenda. The Foundation, it seems, has maybe wasted many 
of its efforts funding projects that are duplicative of 
private-sector successes. With our Nation with over $31 
trillion in debt, I think we need to make an effort in 
safeguarding some of the taxpayer funds as we have a looming 
debt crisis facing us this week especially.
    I just wanted to just get some--look into this--the latest 
legislation and look at the history of the National Science 
Foundation and the non-partisanship and the merit-based system 
that we once had in dealing with groundbreaking scientific 
information. I wanted to first ask Dr. Panchanathan. Did I get 
that right?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Panchanathan.
    Ms. Tenney. Yes, thank you so much. Panchanathan, did I get 
that right? Panchanathan. Perfect. OK. I wanted to ask you 
about some of the focuses of the National Science Foundation in 
its FY '24 budget. Can you tell me how many times the word 
biology appears in the FY '24 budget?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Tenney, I would not have, 
but I will get back to you.
    Ms. Tenney. I'm glad you don't know because you're a 
scientist. It is 82 times. Can you tell me how many times the 
word chemistry appears in the National Science Foundation 
budget?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Again, Representative, I would not know 
that offhand, yes.
    Ms. Tenney. Thirty-eight.
    Dr. Panchanathan. OK.
    Ms. Tenney. Can you tell me how many times the word physics 
appears in the National Science Foundation budget?
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, Madam, I cannot.
    Ms. Tenney. Good news, it's 103.
    Dr. Panchanathan. OK.
    Ms. Tenney. Finally, can you tell me how many times the 
word equity appears in the National Science Foundation's 2024 
budget?
    Dr. Panchanathan. No idea, again, sorry.
    Ms. Tenney. One hundred and thirty-one times, more than--
more times than biology, chemistry, and physics, which is the 
focus of what we're trying to do in this legislation. Why does 
the word equity appear more often than any of our core sciences 
such as biology, chemistry, and physics? Can you give us an 
explanation of that?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Representative----
    Ms. Tenney. And please feel free to give us your opinion.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative. Thank you for 
the opportunity. It's a very good question. First of all, let 
me tell you, NSF has not strayed away, we'll never stray away--
I can assure you this, you have my commitment--from merit-based 
consideration of all the proposals, period.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. There is no swerving away from that 
because that's the gold standard merit-review process.
    Ms. Tenney. Let me ask you, so while you are saying that, 
do you think that we should continue to maintain a merit-based 
system?
    Dr. Panchanathan. We are a merit-based system. We will 
always be a merit-based system.
    Ms. Tenney. Can----
    Dr. Panchanathan. When we talk about equity, let me let me 
clarify that. For me, the equity term is very straightforward. 
Let me explain that because I came from a small State, 
Representative Tenney. I have seen firsthand how rural students 
were left behind, how people with different socioeconomic 
demographic----
    Ms. Tenney. Well, let me reclaim my time for a minute 
because I come from a very rural, small community----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And my ancestry are people that 
were immigrants to this country as well. My concern is that 
equality is what our Constitution talks about----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Not equity----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And equity means equality of 
outcome----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Not the equality of pursuit and 
being able to----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Perform and demand excellence in 
our--of all the places, it seems to me that the National 
Science Foundation should be where excellence----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And equality are--exist, not 
equity, which does not reward people based on merit. Would you 
agree with that statement?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Tenney, I cannot agree 
with you more. What we are trying to do is basically this. How 
do we get all of the talent that is in our country which has 
not had the same opportunity everywhere? How do you compare? 
And I am an academic. How do you compare a B plus of a student 
coming from rural area, having a lot of challenges, working two 
jobs in order to, you know, take care of the family----
    Ms. Tenney. Well, if I may reclaim my time----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. For a moment----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. I would rather have a brain 
surgeon, a brilliant----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Brain surgeon from rural upstate 
New York----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. As opposed to someone who was 
given an advantage just because of equity----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Not because of their excellence.
    Dr. Panchanathan. I agree with you on that, too. I'm just 
trying to----
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you. I think I have to--my time has 
expired, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Bowman, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to say for the record, equity just means 
providing access and opportunity to historically marginalized 
groups in the STEM fields, so those historically marginalized 
groups include women and people of color. So equity is about 
making sure that women and people of color are included in the 
conversations that we're having around STEM education.
    Dr. Panch, would you agree with that statement?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Opportunity for all.
    Mr. Bowman. That's right.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Everyone.
    Mr. Bowman. Absolutely.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Rural, urban, across the broad 
socioeconomic spectrum, across the rich diversity. Everyone 
should have the opportunity to be able to exercise their----
    Mr. Bowman. That's right.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. God-given talent.
    Mr. Bowman. Opportunity for everyone. And, Dr. Reed, would 
you also agree with that statement?
    Dr. Reed. I absolutely would. Talent is in short supply. We 
have to cultivate it wherever it comes. In a previous life, I 
was a corporate officer at Microsoft. I traveled the world 
telling governments, the societies that cultivate talent 
wherever it arises--and it's no respecter of socioeconomic or 
cultural status--are the ones that thrive and win.
    Mr. Bowman. Absolutely.
    Dr. Reed. We have a huge shortfall with STEM workers in 
this country. We can't afford to marginalize anyone. We need to 
empower everyone to be full participants in the----
    Mr. Bowman. That's right.
    Dr. Reed. --21st century economy.
    Mr. Bowman. And talent is everywhere. You know, prior to 
coming to Congress, I worked in education for 20 years. I 
started my career in the South Bronx in one of the poorest ZIP 
codes in the country. I taught kindergarten mathematics, and 
the children there were economically poor, but intellectually 
brilliant and rich. What they lacked was access and opportunity 
because people had forgotten about them because they were in 
the South Bronx.
    Dr. Reed. Exactly.
    Mr. Bowman. To my first question, Dr. Panch, with the rise 
of artificial intelligence, researchers are increasingly in 
need of computing and data resources at scale. Democratizing 
access to these resources is crucial and can help us address 
barriers and growing research capacity for emerging 
institutions, a problem highlighted by your OIG. I am pleased 
to see the Administration include portions of the National AI 
Research Resource known as NAIRR, as well as the National 
Discovery Cloud for Climate in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
proposal. It's critically important that we make this 
cyberinfrastructure available to make progress on some of the 
major challenges of our time.
    Can you speak to how these initiatives can empower and 
expand the technical research capacity of our Nation?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, Representative Bowman, 
for asking the question. By the way, we had a very good 
conversation. I really enjoyed that.
    Mr. Bowman. Yes.
    Dr. Panchanathan. I will tell you that when we talk about 
opportunity should be made possible for everyone, along with 
opportunity comes the access to the inspiration that people 
need to have. And that comes because you have infrastructure 
that is available in every part of our country so that they are 
able to access that infrastructure and get inspired for the 
STEM work. And at the same time, the same infrastructure that 
is available also makes possible great ideas, which is also 
democratized, and we want all those ideas to be lifted up.
    So the NAIRR that you referenced is, which came out of the 
National AI Act, the NAIRR is an excellent example of how 
investment in computing resources, cloud and other kinds of 
computing resources, is going to make possible the access to 
the resource that is needed for them to be able to bring out 
the AI talent all across the Nation and energize that.
    And so that's not just limited to that. I was referencing 
the AI Institutes. You know, when we look at all of the work 
that we're doing in AI, we are keenly aware--as I said earlier, 
NSF is about people--that all of that investment is about how 
do we get people the necessary access to the tools, the 
training, the learning, and the environment that can make them 
excel?
    Mr. Bowman. Got it? Let me jump to my second question 
before time runs out. Also to Dr. Panchanathan, I'm going to 
ask Dr. Reed to also respond, the new TIP Directorate is unique 
in its goal to advance emergent technologies to address 
societal and economic challenges. In the Fiscal Year '24 budget 
request, there are six key areas highlighted for funding under 
this directorate, including quantum and semiconductors. Seek, a 
company in my district, is operating at the intersection of 
both quantum information and semiconductors by fabricating new 
chips that more efficiently interface with quantum computers. 
Can you speak to how the TIP Directorate will support 
organizations like Seek that are operating under multiple 
priority areas?
    Dr. Panchanathan. In the interest of equal opportunity, I'm 
going to let this be answered----
    Mr. Bowman. Yes, thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. By our Chair first.
    Dr. Reed. So we--the Board has worked closely with NSF to 
collaboratively develop a portfolio strategy. We recognize that 
TIP is a continuation of the research enterprise, but we want a 
portfolio of technical areas. We want to ensure that it touches 
the geography of innovation, as we've discussed, and that it 
supports partnerships with both large companies as well as 
small ones, public, private, and government in some innovative 
ways.
    So the--what we have seen, as Panch said earlier, in terms 
of responses across the country has been phenomenal. And 
there's broad-based coverage across areas.
    On your previous question, I just want to note quickly that 
one of the things that's important about talent empowerment 
with respect to NAIRR is that great sucking sound we hear is 
talent leaving academia going to the private sector because of 
the huge AI boom. We need to make sure that we have talent in 
academia to teach the next generation of students. And one of 
the things that the NAIRR plan would do was empower education 
because that, after all, was the seed corn for continuing to 
drive the revolution forward.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Sorry for 
going over.
    Mrs. Bice [presiding]. No problem. Thank you, 
Representative Bowman.
    And at this time, I want to represent--I'm sorry, I want to 
introduce--recognize Representative Kean for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the 
witnesses participating in today's hearing. Your valuable 
insights and perspectives on this matter will certainly help us 
shape public policies that have significant impact on the 
future of science and technology in our country.
    Now, as you know, New Jersey is a State that thrives on 
innovation and scientific progress. My district, the 7th 
Congressional District in New Jersey, is a key location of that 
research. And funding decisions made by NSF will undoubtedly 
play a critical role in our State's, my district's ability to 
maintain and grow its leadership in this field.
    Director Panchanathan, the basic type of research that NSF 
has long funded is unpredictable. It's impossible in many cases 
to know at the start of the research what will happen down the 
line. At Princeton, for example, Professor Ted Taylor initially 
asked what chemicals produced the colors in butterfly wings. 
Fifty years of additional work led to one of the most 
extraordinary drugs available for the treatment of a certain 
kind of lung cancer.
    There are countless examples of such discoveries. What is 
NSF doing to ensure that researchers are encouraged to keep 
conducting this type of basic research?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, Representative Kean, 
for asking that question. You're absolutely correct. The 
fundamental core of what NSF is has always been and will always 
be is this place for investment in discovery and basic 
research. As you rightly said--and if you look at the 
investments that we made, for example, in a bacteria in 
Yellowstone in the 1960's made possible the PCR test for COVID. 
So there are many, many examples like what you cited. So NSF 
will always maintain the focus of investing in exploratory 
discovery research.
    What we're also trying to do at the same time is we're 
synergizing that with all the great discoveries that come. How 
do we rapidly scale those discoveries in partnership with 
industry so that our Nation can benefit by those translations? 
But not just that alone, that those translations then infuse 
more basic research, not less, but more basic research. And 
that's why the TIP Directorate is intentionally a cross-cutting 
directorate, not a separate directorate.
    Mr. Kean. And, Dr. Reed, and also in the interest of equal 
time----
    Dr. Reed. Yes.
    Mr. Kean [continuing]. When you think about the new 
endeavors that NSF is undertaking through the Technology, 
Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate, how do you define 
both success and failure?
    Dr. Reed. So, as I was saying, in response to a previous 
question, a lot of the focus in the conversation both with the 
Foundation and the Board has been about outcomes. And outcomes 
in the context of TIP I think mean several things. One, it 
means clearly the creation of new jobs, it means empowering 
areas that have historically not had access to technology and 
to allow talent to grow and flourish in those areas, so it's 
about economic impact writ large. That's one.
    The other, to connect to what the Director just said, is to 
close the loop because one of the things that I've learned over 
the years in my research career is that collaborations with 
industry and academia expose new questions, questions that 
academia in isolation might not have thought of. And that 
feedback loop from the insights from public-private 
partnerships and TIP will drive those new basic research 
curiosity questions, and so we want that loop to be closed. And 
so I don't view TIP as different than the rest of NSF. It is a 
mechanism, as the Director said, to translate, but it's also to 
feed new insights back into the basic research enterprise, 
though it empowers that enterprise to ask new and better 
questions.
    Mr. Kean. And how long do you take to get those answers in 
your determination if you're going down a pathway by either 
success or failure in years, conversations? What is it that 
defines success or failure over time?
    Dr. Reed. Well, I mean, I described the metrics. But if 
you're asking about timescale, I think, you know, we will know 
in a handful of years. We're looking to accelerate translation. 
We won't be asking in 20 years did this work. If we're asking 
that question in 20 years, we have failed. It will be a much 
shorter timescale, 5 to 7 years, I would hazard.
    Mr. Kean. That's fair. Thank you both, and I yield back my 
time.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Bice. Representative Kean yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Salinas for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you again to 
the--Chair Lucas and the Ranking Member for this hearing.
    Dr. Panchanathan, in your testimony you highlight NSF's 
role in supporting workforce training to meet the aspirations 
of the CHIPS legislation. And institutions in Oregon have taken 
advantage of some of the NSF programs that promote STEAM 
pipelines and diversity in my district. Chemeketa Community 
College (CCC) is a Hispanic-serving institution that has 
received funding from NSF to improve student success in STEAM. 
And by implementing new student support strategies and faculty 
training, CCC is really helping underrepresented students, 
including our rural communities, gain the skills that they need 
to join the workforce or continue their education.
    And building on these efforts, the University of Oregon is 
an emerging Hispanic-serving institution that has also won 
several awards to promote the transition of STEAM talent from 
community colleges, including those in rural areas like mine, 
to completing a 4-year degree.
    It's also my understanding that OSU, the Oregon State 
University, is leading a proposal to the new Regional 
Innovation Engines Program with U of O and other Pacific 
Northwest partners like Lam Research, also in my district, 
which manufactures the fabrication equipment essential to 
advanced semiconductor manufacturing. So ultimately, I would 
expect that successful proposals will create new efficiencies 
in the talent pipeline by bringing educators, students, and 
industry closer together.
    So my question, how does NSF plan to take advantage of the 
on-the-ground student-centered expertise of diverse local 
institutions like our community colleges and technical 
institutions to build those partnerships through innovation 
engines and other NSF programs and ultimately, that will 
leverage your resources to ensure that we train enough skilled 
and technical workers to meet our economy's needs? Because 
truly, right now, that is all my employers are asking for is 
workforce, workforce, workforce.
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, Representative Salinas, this is an 
excellent question. And knowing something about Oregon and 
Intel having a huge presence there, as you know, I can answer 
it very directly. With Intel, we have strong partnerships in 
terms of delivering not only the technical workforce that is at 
the Ph.D., doctoral level, graduate students, master's, and 
undergraduate students, but also skilled technical workforce, 
working with specifically community colleges and minority-
serving institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, HBCUs, and 
others.
    So NSF invests in multiple ways in all of these activities. 
One, digital innovation engines that you referenced is 
essentially a sort of convergence of how do you get the 
innovation platforms that are in place, in Oregon specifically 
in the area of microelectronics and semiconductor 
manufacturing? How do you take that innovation in place ideas, 
bring the community together--by partnering with not only 
academic institutions, industry, but also the economic 
development ecosystems in those places--so that we can bring 
all of them together so that we can deliver all of the talent 
that is necessary and create an environment that the new ideas 
can emerge. Therefore, the industries of not only today are 
empowered, but the industries of tomorrow are readied, and the 
industries of tomorrow are created and birthed in those 
locations. That's the singular purpose of how you take the RIEs 
as incubation of those. And then with the next scale, scale 
them.
    But I will tell you, we are also closely partnering with 
the Department of Commerce. We are great partners because the 
Regional Technology Hubs of the Department of Commerce and the 
Regional Innovation Engines of the NSF are working hand-in-hand 
so that we can scale them because, at the end of the day, you 
want these innovation engines to scale and deliver for those 
regions. And all of the workforce development programs at NSF, 
I won't have time to answer all of that--include all of that, 
but we are happy to answer your question in written form. All 
of that contributes to this, so it's a complete ecosystem of 
programs.
    [A response from the National Science Foundation follows:]

    NSF strongly supports STEM workforce development. It does 
so, in part, through its research grants, on which graduate 
student research assistantships may be included. These research 
grants have a small workforce development component, thus 
providing valuable education and training to the future 
professional science and engineering workforce. NSF also 
supports STEM workforce development through its programs. 
Development of a diverse professional science and engineering 
workforce is supported through programs such as the Alliances 
for Graduate Education and the Professoriate program, the 
Graduate Research Fellowship program, and the NSF Research 
Traineeship program.
    More than 50 programs across NSF support the STEM 
workforce, as indicated by the inclusion of the term ``STEM 
workforce'' in their solicitations. For example. The Advanced 
Technological Education program supports development of the 
STEM skilled technical workforce. CyberCorps: Scholarship for 
Service supports the development of the federal cyber 
workforce. Programs aimed at minority-serving institutions, 
such as the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, help to 
diversify the STEM workforce. The Robert Noyce Teacher 
Scholarship program supports development of the K-12 STEM 
teacher workforce, as do the Research Experiences for Teachers 
in Engineering and Computer Science program and the Computer 
Science for All program. The NSF Innovation Corps aims to 
develop the nation's entrepreneurs. In addition to programs 
such as these, many others support STEM learning at various 
levels of education, which contribute to a well-educated and 
well-prepared diverse STEM workforce.

    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
    Dr. Reed. I'll just add one quick thing. You put your 
finger on a critical issue that I think we don't talk about 
enough in this country and that's the skilled technical 
workforce. There are actually more STEM jobs available in the 
skilled technical workforce area than there are for bachelor's 
and above. And there's a critical shortage of those workers. 
It's a rapid entry point, lower-cost entry point for many 
people. And to echo what the Director said, this is an example 
of where the Regional Innovation Engines, by creating 
experiential education opportunities for students, can 
transform the workforce opportunities and grow that base.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Representative Salinas.
    And at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, and I appreciate my colleague's 
comments on the other side about STEM workforce and technical 
education.
    I just want to say thank you to the Chairman, and thank 
you, Stephanie, and thank you to the--Ranking Member Lofgren 
for hosting today's hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for 
joining us to discuss the National Science Foundation's budget 
proposal for Fiscal Year '24.
    Director Panchanathan and Dr. Reed, as you know, the NSF 
plays an important role in workforce development and STEM 
education. A couple of important programs in these spaces are 
the Advanced Technical Education, ATE program, and the 
Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies, 
known as the ExLENT program.
    Let's start with the Advanced Technological Education 
program. Director, what role will this program play in meeting 
the Nation's need for skilled technical workforce? Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for asking this, 
Representative Miller. As you know, in Ohio--I talked about 
Intel in Oregon. I was there celebrating the groundbreaking of 
the Intel, working closely with Ohio State University and all 
of the community colleges and other institutes--institutions in 
the State of Ohio. We're all working together on this with 
Intel. And that's specifically focused on the skilled technical 
workforce that the Chairman talked about rightly that is very, 
very important to bring all of the skilled technical workforce 
that we need for our industries to be successful.
    So the ATE program does this, and it has been doing this 
for a while, but we are now in fact doubling down, tripling 
down if you may to make sure that you're developing the 
curriculum in these emerging areas, like whether it is quantum, 
whether it is AI, whether it is semiconductor workforce. How do 
you invest in the curriculum development? How do you also then 
make sure the curriculum then is then deployed and, you know, 
trains generations of skilled technical workers? So ATE does 
both of that at the same time.
    Mr. Miller. Yes, I think it's absolutely phenomenal. And 
there's not enough emphasis on technical education throughout 
our entire country amongst all fields, and we've seen a lot of 
the--that field, unfortunately, have a lot of unemployment as 
of recently, and we'd love to see that back on its way. And 
thank you for all your hard work.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Recently, we've seen that rapid advances in 
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence that you 
just acknowledged and the Experiential Learning Center for 
Emerging and Novel Technologies program is key to supporting 
experiential learning opportunities within these new 
technologies. Director, how will the Experiential Learning for 
Emerging and Novel Technologies, known as ExLENT, program help 
to develop and maintain a diverse workforce as the required 
skills and training evolve?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Again, an excellent question. This was 
part of the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships 
Directorate that we launched. We felt that we need the 
inspiration of experiential learning so that people can get 
their STEM spark excited even more and committed to wanting to 
learn the skills and therefore contribute to the--become the 
workforce of the future.
    So we have multiple pathways in the ExLENT program. One of 
that is how do we get people who are not in STEM at all to be 
excited by STEM and therefore wanting to train themselves? How 
do we get people who are in STEM but now want that experience 
so they can then further enhance their skill sets in STEM? So 
there is a combination of subcomponents of the ExLENT program 
that's precisely delivering for the emerging and, you know, the 
future technologies. The workforce, the skilled technical 
workforce, and the workforce are at all levels, by partnering 
with our industry partners.
    Mr. Miller. Yes. And what I would love to see in the near 
future is, you know, bringing this education into our schools--
--
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. At a middle school level and even 
that young and really showing other individuals a different 
career pathway, that yes, you can achieve an advanced degree 
within our country, and that's phenomenal.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. We have many individuals who need those and how 
important that that truly is to the functioning of the United 
States of America. But more emphasis when it comes to the 
middle school level and maybe a little bit underneath, that 
educational aspect of you can do this. And how--and the best 
part is----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. How exciting it actually is.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. When you bring children into these rooms and 
you give them the opportunity to see what lies in front of 
them, they are excited because the technology is amazing. And 
they get a skill and a trade that they can take with them to 
set up in a beautiful life. And to me----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. That's the American dream----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. Right there----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. Which I believe has been a little 
bit distorted. But thank you.
    Lastly, I just would appreciate the opportunity to hear 
about the NSF's work to prepare the workforce of tomorrow for 
upcoming challenges. Dr. Reed, what activities does the Board 
believe the NSF should engage in to inspire and recruit future 
generations to the skilled technical workforce?
    Dr. Reed. Well, we've--you just asked rightly, and the 
Director answered a couple of those things. I do believe, as I 
said in response to an earlier question, this is a place where 
the geography of innovation activities that the regional 
innovations will do will put those experiential education 
opportunities. I completely agree with what you just said about 
it is important to expose students early to these 
opportunities, that they can see the excitement that is there. 
And we have to deal with the reality that talent, as I said 
before, is everywhere. And unfortunately, too often, what we 
have is people leaving regions to seek opportunities elsewhere 
because there simply aren't opportunities where they grew up. 
I'm a living example of this. I left rural Arkansas because 
there were no opportunities there to pursue my dreams.
    We have to engage students, so the Board has been looking 
aggressively at the skilled technical workforce. The skilled 
technical workforce report we put out a couple of years ago 
highlighted both the need and the opportunities, the shortfall 
of skilled workers, and the need to change our educational 
mission. I think we have to look at the whole ecosystem. Some 
of this speaks to how we change K-12 education. Science is 
exciting. We all too often have made it boring. It's not 
boring. It is incredibly exciting. And every child is born a 
scientist. We tend to stamp curiosity out of them, I fear, 
often in our educational system. We've got to show them those 
opportunities.
    And the Board has been really working with--directly with 
K-12 teachers. We have a working group that has been engaging 
with K-12 teachers to ask on-the-ground questions, not the sort 
of abstracted report version of this is what we should do, but 
what do you see on the ground that are limitations to us being 
able to address these challenge in workforce. And then the plan 
is then to take those ideas, partner with the Education 
Directorate, Edu Directorate at NSF, work with our college in 
other--colleagues in other agencies and push those ideas out 
into tangible practice.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. That's absolutely phenomenal. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. 
Sykes, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to you and 
the Ranking Member for bringing forward this really incredible 
and exciting conversation about the possibilities for 
innovation in science in this country.
    And we've talked about Intel in Ohio, Intel in Oregon, and 
all of the jobs and innovations that your agency and your 
organization can bring forth. But I do want to bring us back to 
reality because you did mention, Dr. Panch, about the 280,000 
technical semiconductor jobs that could be lost with the new 
H.R. 2811, Defaulting on America Act, that we are perhaps going 
to see on the floor today. And we can talk about all the 
exciting opportunities and technologies, but with the 
significant cuts coming to your budget, we won't see any of 
those technologies. Is that correct? Is that what I heard you 
say earlier?
    Dr. Panchanathan. I had indicated the impact that it will 
have in terms of moving the ideas that are important for our 
national security, economic security, and workforce 
development, absolutely.
    Mrs. Sykes. So--thank you for that. So I do want to again 
not be the Debbie Downer in the room but just be seated in 
reality because, before us today, we have a bill that will 
significantly impact our ability to protect our national 
security, to be competitive with China, to allow for our 
workforce to truly develop so we can find the Missing Million 
and create economic engines through Intel in the CHIPS Act in 
Ohio and in northeast Ohio where I represent the 13th 
Congressional District.
    Dr. Reed, you didn't talk much about the impact of what 
this significant cut would do and how defaulting on America 
would impact the economy, our national security, our 
competitiveness with the Communist Party of China and so on.
    Dr. Reed. Well, I will echo what the Director said, that 
the effect of large cuts would be devastating for some very 
pragmatic reasons. We're behind at the current level. If you 
look at the level of investment that China is making and what 
China leadership has announced in terms of its doubling down on 
the future, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we're losing 
now. If we step back even further, then the rate of loss will 
simply increase.
    There are deep issues here. As I said at the outset, 
national security in the end flows from economic security. 
Economic security flows from innovation. Innovation cycle is 
relentless and ever-accelerating. That's why we have to double 
down on the future because that's what will secure the future 
of our country and of our citizens.
    And so, yes, I'm very worried that we're not willing to 
step up to the plate and do what I believe needs to be done to 
invest in the future, to cultivate talent, expand that base of 
innovation across the country, and empower the workforce that 
we need to compete because I do believe that our innovation 
system is the best in the world, but we can't starve it.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you so much for your response. And I know 
that's just one Of the many pieces in which this Defaulting on 
America Act is going to impact our national security, our 
competitiveness, our economy, our future altogether.
    But I do want to stick with you, Dr. Reed, because you did 
mention--and I wrote this down--opportunities are--aren't 
equal, but talent comes from everywhere, and I thought that was 
such a great line. And thinking in Ohio's 13th Congressional 
District, you know, we don't have the big flagship university 
in Ohio's 13th, but we have plenty of talent. And when I think 
about the people who have left our communities, I was one of 
them for a part of time, and then I moved back home to take--as 
another famous Akron said--bring my talents back home at one 
point. What are some of the things that you can do to invest in 
these smaller hubs of the country where there is a lot of 
rural, a lot of suburban areas and not the large flagship 
universities to create pipelines that are easily accessible, 
that are less intimidating, and ensure that we're getting 
talent from all over, rather than just our large flagship 
universities and larger cities across the country?
    Dr. Reed. Well, you put your finger on one of the key 
issues that I think drove our thinking broadly about the 
Regional Innovation Engines. And we've said multiple times and 
I'll say again here in front of the Committee, it's not about 
empowering the already empowered, although we need to do that, 
too, because those are historically the powerhouses that have 
driven innovation. We have to empower the unempowered as well. 
And there is talent everywhere. That means, as we look at the 
portfolio of opportunities, every area of the country has some 
unique or unusual intellectual strengths. The opportunity is 
how we bring those assets together, whether it be small- or 
medium-sized businesses, how we engage our other educational 
institutions, whether it be our MSIs or our HBCUs or our 
traditional teaching universities. Those are actually the 
backbone of our educational system. That's where most of our 
students get trained.
    There are real opportunities to build ecosystems there. 
They don't necessarily end at State boundaries. They span 
natural economic regions that do cross State boundaries, but 
they are tight-knit, and they can drive real economic effects 
that will create the opportunities for people to stay where 
they were born and grew up. And that's what we really have 
looked at and worked with NSF to shape the criteria for 
evaluation for these proposals.
    And I'll just quickly end by saying, as the Director noted, 
we have been thrilled with the number, the richness, and the 
diversity of those proposals. They have come not just from the 
places you would think of, but they have come from all over the 
country, and that's really the exciting opportunity.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. 
Baird, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I 
really appreciate you holding this hearing. I also appreciate 
our witnesses for being here and expert technology that you 
present to us.
    Before I start, though, I really want to recognize Dr. Reed 
and his exceptional decision to attend Purdue University for 
both his master's and his Ph.D. Purdue is in my--is my alma 
mater, and it's in my district, so I think you made a wise 
choice. But, you know----
    Dr. Reed. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Baird. You bet. But my first question really goes to 
Dr. Panchanathan dealing with why do you think it's important 
to codify interagency partnerships like the MOUs (memorandums 
of understanding) between NSF and DOE? And so, in your opinion, 
how does this benefit the continuity of research from one 
Administration to the next?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So, excellent question. Again, 
Representative Baird, really glad to be here talking to you.
    When I came into the agency, I felt that--the Chair talked 
about this. That's all-of-government approach to advancing 
science, technology, innovation in our Nation. And the 
workforce is something that NSF has a unique role to play in 
terms of the STEM talent for our Nation.
    So when you're talking about any topical area, the mission 
agencies like Department of Energy, NASA (National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration), and others, NOAA and others, working 
seamlessly with NSF is going to make possible that investments 
the taxpayers are making are utilized fully without any 
duplication or minimal, if at all, any duplication, but highly 
synergistic, and leveraging each other so that we can deliver 
for our Nation in a way that not only is basic research 
conducted to the highest quality and outcomes, but also 
translated rapidly the economic, national security benefit, and 
societal benefits. So we are deeply committed at NSF to partner 
with Department of Energy and all the Federal agencies to see 
how we can deliver for our citizens.
    Dr. Reed. I just add that truth is on the ground, and one 
of the things that is the real collaborative element are 
people, right? Paper is one thing, but it's people that 
actually drive real action. And many members of the Science 
Board and NSF have deep personal connections to members of 
other agencies. I actually Chair a Department of Energy 
Advisory Board, in addition to being Chair of the Science 
Board, so I work personally to facilitate those collaborations. 
And many members of senior NSF staff and the Science Board do 
as well.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. I--you know, I really appreciate not 
creating silos and ending up working together through 
government-as-a-whole kind of approach, so I thank you for 
that.
    My other question deals with in the past few years, NSF and 
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), the NIFA 
(National Institute of Food and Agriculture)----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Baird [continuing]. Have partnered to establish two AI 
Institutes focused on advancing AI-driven innovation in 
agriculture and in the food systems. So why is this 
collaboration important, and what opportunity does the 
partnership create that neither agency would have on its own?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Congressman Baird, I think--I would like 
to double the number. We have four AI Institutes in partnership 
with USDA. This is an extremely important partnership because 
you will all agree that, you know, the future of agriculture is 
how do you ensure the technology empowered agriculture, that 
farmers are empowered with technology so that we can have 
better yields, much more precise agriculture, and a whole host 
of things that you can do to ensure that we are, you know, in 
the vanguard of innovation in the agricultural space.
    And therefore, our partnership with USDA is centered on 
that because USDA is interested to make sure that they are 
delivering to our farmers all of the things that they need in 
their hands. And I was very happy to be in Illinois, for 
example, working--looking at John Deere and talking to them and 
seeing how the partnership is so seamless. And that's the kind 
of thing that we need to do more of. So NSF is deeply committed 
to that in terms of working with agencies like USDA. In fact, 
that has motivated us also to think about our own centers.
    In addition to AI Institutes in partnership with USDA, 
right at Purdue University we have an engineering research 
center called the Internet of Things for Precision Agriculture. 
So we're very excited about that. The lead institution is 
Purdue University. It's a $14 million engineering research 
center focused on increasing crop production, while minimizing 
the use of energy and water resources. We all want that. And so 
we can be leaders in this area. And Purdue is a leading 
institution in this arena, working with NSF investments, so 
thank you so much.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you for your response.
    Dr. Reed, we have got 14 seconds if you can--if you want to 
make a comment.
    Dr. Reed. No, just echo what he said. Agriculture is much 
more scientific-intensive than most people who haven't spent 
times on farms realize. Technology is driving the future for 
efficiency and conservation. We have to double down on that.
    Mr. Baird. Thank both of you. And I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 
Caraveo, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to you and 
Ranking Member Lofgren for putting together this very 
interesting hearing today, and to our witnesses for taking the 
time today to speak to us, and for everything that you do to 
advance science and innovation in our country.
    The National Science Foundation is the backbone of 
America's fundamental research enterprise and the only Federal 
agency that supports all sciences. NSF-funded advancements 
touch every corner of our lives and economy, which is exactly 
why we need to ensure that the agency is adequately funded. In 
Colorado, $372 million in NSF awards statewide supported 
fundamental science, Advanced Technical Education, 
entrepreneurial training, STEM teacher training, small business 
development, and more last year.
    My home is--my district is home to a K through 8 school 
called STEM Launch, so I really appreciate Mr. Miller's 
comments earlier on the importance of K through 8 education. 
This school is in Thornton, and it uses inquiry and problem-
based learning to inspire students to solve real-world problems 
with science and engineering. It's important not only that we 
inspire our younger students to pursue STEM fields, but we also 
ensure that every child, regardless of their demographics or 
background, has the chance to pursue these opportunities, so I 
really appreciate your comments earlier in the hearing.
    Now in Fiscal Year 2022 NSF supported over 40,000 K through 
12 teachers and nearly 140,000 K through 12 students. So, Dr. 
Reed, what is the importance more specifically of experiential 
and problem-based learning in inspiring students to pursue a 
career in STEM?
    Dr. Reed. Well, it exposes them to how science is actually 
done. And so much of the dry recitation we often talk about in 
the scientific method misses the excitement, the passion, the 
joy that comes from understanding something. That's what 
experiential education gives. And anyone who's ever taught 
students realizes that the joy that when you see enlightenment 
on a child's face when they truly understand something, this is 
why we do this stuff. It's about empowering lives and 
understanding the fact that you can do this thing because most 
of what we need to do to empower people is creating in them not 
only the opportunity for them to do things, but the belief that 
they can. And that comes from that hands-on experience to see 
that, yes, it's not just these people in white coats that don't 
look like me some other place, but they're people just like me 
doing this, and they're having the times of their lives and 
they're having rewarding careers. I can do this thing. That's 
what experiential education--it creates the fire early on in a 
child. And as one Greek philosopher said, ``A mind is not a 
vessel to be filled, it's a fire to be lit.'' That's what 
experiential education does.
    Ms. Caraveo. Absolutely. I cannot agree with your comments 
more. And I had so many teachers along the way who inspired 
that love of science for me and led me to going into medicine.
    So, Dr. Panchanathan, can you describe some of the NSF 
activities that support our teachers in K through 12, 
especially those that are trying to close the achievement gap 
and create a diverse and inclusive workforce?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much for asking this 
question, Representative Caraveo. I tell you that all of us can 
go back and identify ourselves being excited by STEM with the 
STEM spark. For me, the STEM spark for an 8-year-old kid was 
seeing the Moon rocks which were sent all across the globe by 
the United States. They did an amazing thing, and I was a small 
kid in India who went and saw this, and I was--it just blew me 
away. So we need to make sure--your point and the Chair's 
point, everybody has that opportunity to get excited by that.
    To the teachers question that you asked, our Robert Noyce 
program is about teacher training and investment in teacher 
scholarships. We need a lot of STEM teachers, not only what we 
do in terms of the teachers of the future that are getting 
trained today in the Departments of Education, in various 
colleges, but the teachers who are already in the workforce. 
How do we get them to work such that they can get excited by 
STEM, who in turn can then excite the students in STEM? So 
we're working on a number of programs within the agency to see 
how we can get that excitement even more ignited, as you said, 
not just filled, but ignite that spark. And so we're working on 
a number of programs.
    In Digital Innovation Engines itself, we are making sure 
that also K-12 components can be connected. That's another 
mechanism. We have a number of programs in our STEM Education 
Directorate which is focused on ensuring that we are able to 
build the K-12 capacity for teachers, STEM teachers, and so we 
are working on all those fronts. And Robert Noyce is an example 
in that regard.
    Ms. Caraveo. Sounds like an incredible program. I thank you 
for the focus on children as a pediatrician, and seeing that 
ignition of joy and excitement when you talk to them about 
science, and especially when they put their hands into 
something is something that I very much appreciate as a 
scientist and somebody who focuses on children, and so thank 
you for your work there.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Fleischmann, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, good to see you again today. I apologize. We've 
had hearings going on. As you know, I chair the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, and I'm also on two 
others, but so good to see you again, and I appreciate all that 
both of you all do.
    I know both of you share Congress' interest in ensuring 
that innovation and discovery happens across a wide range of 
institutions and researchers from all parts of the country. To 
that end, the CHIPS and Science Act made some changes to the 
EPSCoR programs at different agencies, including the NSF. 
Tennessee graduated out of the NSF EPSCoR program in 2014. I'm 
concerned that the increased focus on supporting institutions 
in EPSCoR States will result in less support for smaller or 
minority-serving institutions in States that are not in EPSCoR 
programs such as those in Tennessee.
    According to NSF data from fiscal 2021, most institutions 
in Tennessee that conduct federally funded research would be 
classified as emerging research institutions. I'm very proud of 
the few Tennessee institutions that have large portfolios of 
federally funded research, including UT (University of 
Tennessee) Knoxville, my alma mater, and Vanderbilt. But I'm 
also concerned about these smaller research institutions such 
as my constituent, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 
that could be left behind. I understand that there is always a 
potential for partnerships, but I'm concerned that could 
relegate smaller research institutions to always being the 
partner and never the lead.
    My question is, is what is NSF doing to ensure that smaller 
research institutions in non-EPSCoR States are held harmless as 
a result of this policy change?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much for the question, 
Representative Fleischmann. First of all, it was truly a 
pleasure talking to you----
    Mr. Fleischmann. Yes.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. So thank you so much for 
that opportunity.
    So let me address this. When we talk about ideas and talent 
being democratized and everywhere, what we're trying to do at 
NSF is how do you invest in a way that institutions of all 
types have the potential to be able to transcend the gold 
standard merit-review process of NSF and get invested in their 
ideas that they have in all institutions. You rightly point out 
the emerging research institutions in both EPSCoR and non-
EPSCoR States, all of them deserve their ideas to be lifted up 
so they can transcend the gold standard merit-review process of 
NSF and get invested in because the talent also goes to those 
institutions. In fact, I would say a diverse talent base goes 
to those institutions that needs to be energized and empowered.
    So what are we doing in this regard? We are launching a new 
program called GRANTED. GRANTED is an acronym, Growing Research 
Access through Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity. 
This GRANTED program is simply a virtual research office that 
is available to any institution that does not have such an 
office. If you look at most of the established research 
institutions that you referenced, great institutions like 
University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt, they have excellent 
research offices that essentially serve the faculty and the 
researchers to be able to ensure that their ideas are connected 
and provided support so that they can be lifted up in terms of 
proposals that succeed in the gold standard merit-review 
process. So this GRANTED virtual research office is going to be 
available for every institution virtually, and NSF is investing 
heavily in this as part of the CHIPS and Science Act. So that 
emerging research institution in States like Tennessee have the 
chance to be able to get a larger share of the representation 
of their ideas being funded by NSF. So I want to make sure that 
I talk about this very clearly so it is not just limited only 
to EPSCoR States, it's also about non-EPSCoR States.
    Having said that, we know that a number of those ideas in 
the EPSCoR [inaudible] before and they have been lifted up, so 
we want all EPSCoR States to be lifted up. And so we are making 
sure that this GRANTED program is giving the opportunity for 
all those research 1, research 2, community colleges, and other 
institutions to have the chance to excel and do well in the 
gold standard merit-review process.
    The only request I have is please invest in NSF in large 
measure so that everybody wins and that all talent gets 
energized.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Very well stated, Doctor, and I thank you. 
My time is waning, so again, I'm going to thank you, gentlemen. 
And I also especially want to thank our distinguished Chairman. 
I began my congressional career 13 years ago on the Science 
Committee, and he's been gracious enough to invite me back. And 
it's a privilege, Mr. Chairman, to be with you again.
    Chairman Lucas. You look good sitting at this dais. With 
that, the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, 
Congresswoman Lee, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    NSF funding in my district supports research, training, and 
STEM education that improve our quality of life. For example, 
in western Pennsylvania, NSF funding has supported University 
of Pittsburgh in neuro-engineering, nanotechnology, and 
renewable energy, while CMU (Carnegie Mellon University) has 
received funding for projects in areas such as artificial 
intelligence, robotics, and cybersecurity. The NSF funds 
researchers and institutions that make the U.S. an innovation 
leader.
    Historic investments in NSF like those in the CHIPS and 
Science Act of 2022 are under threat if funding is reduced to 
the Fiscal Year 2022 levels that Speaker McCarthy is pushing 
for. For my colleagues who demand for American independence and 
leadership, let's fund it then.
    Dr. Reed, the NSF declines over 80 percent of proposals for 
AI research due to limited funding. Why is AI research and 
development important to fields like healthcare and 
environmental sustainability?
    Dr. Reed. Well, first of all, my wife is a proud Pitt 
graduate, so I have deep connections to Pennsylvania.
    Look, AI is transforming almost everything we do. In 
healthcare, it begins with predictive and analytics, whether it 
be looking at healthcare records and understanding issues that 
might not be observable by individuals, but one could identify 
themes. It goes to issues around drug design. One of the great 
breakthroughs in AI recently was the ability to predict how 
proteins fold. That was something that had been an unsolved 
problem the community had been working on for over 20 years. AI 
made that possible.
    So across a range of things, it's changing how we think 
about problems. In my domain of computing and computer-based 
modeling, whether it be about modeling the spread of disease or 
spreading air pollution or other dynamics, AI is making those 
computations more compact. It means we can do broader parameter 
studies, better predictive analytics. All of those things are a 
consequence of new technology.
    And you put your finger on it when you said that NSF funds 
most of basic AI research in this country, and the overwhelming 
majority of proposals are funded.
    I'll just add when I had hair, which I did at one point, 
believe it or not, and was a young researcher, the success rate 
at NSF for research proposals was much higher. We're leaving 
lots of great ideas on the table because the number of great 
proposals we receive that we can't fund, it does mean the ones 
it funded are phenomenal. But there are a large number of 
phenomenal ones we simply don't have the resources to fund. 
That speaks to how we empower that broad geography of 
innovation because we're leaving people unable to capitalize on 
great ideas because they lack the research infrastructure, as 
the Chair mentioned at the outset, or the support for the 
students that will be that next generation of talent. But AI 
cuts across all of those things. It is one of those 
transformational technologies that may be a once-in-a-
generation opportunity that will reshape our world and reshape 
our economy and reshape our national security.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. You just answered my second, so I'll go 
straight to another. The United States lags behind other 
nations in producing STEM degree graduates. How crucial is 
improving diversity in the scientific community to economic and 
national security?
    Dr. Reed. Well, I'll let the Director answer----
    Ms. Lee. Please, either.
    Dr. Reed [continuing]. This one, but I'll jump in as well. 
It's critical. Look, we need a workforce that's representative 
of the population. And I'll tell you a story from when I used 
to work at Microsoft. I was a corporate VP (Vice President). I 
told my teams, we need a diverse and inclusive team because we 
will build better products. We'll build products that are more 
representative of what the population needs because we have 
perspective that reflects the real population. It's critical.
    Dr. Panchanathan. So I will simply put it this way. Without 
diversity, we will not be innovative. Diversity of ideas, 
diversity of context, diversity of experiences, diversity of 
backgrounds, all of this is what makes innovation so rich. So 
therefore, it's exceedingly important that we embrace diversity 
of all types so that we can make sure that we are in the 
vanguard of innovation because of the diversity. It's not just 
it's a good thing to do but it's the right and smart thing to 
do.
    Ms. Lee. I couldn't have said it better myself. Staying 
with you, Dr. Panchanathan, how much will--how will 
underinvestment in the NSF hinder the development of reliable 
U.S.-made supply chain of microelectronics and semiconductors?
    Dr. Panchanathan. A lot. So in the interest of time, I will 
tell you that we have really faced--I addressed this earlier. 
We have really faced the challenges of what happened because of 
supply chain disruptions with all of the offshoring of some of 
the activities that we should have had, rightly here in the 
United States with the jobs right here. So what's happened is 
we are facing the consequences of that. Particularly in the 
COVID moment, we faced it even more. So we are bringing them 
and onshoring them back, and it is exceedingly important that 
we continue to invest in all areas, including supply chain, 
understanding the importance of the critical supply chain, and 
therefore, the emerging technologies of national importance is 
something that we don't cede leadership or make sure that they 
are not where we are reliant on nations, particularly 
adversarial nations who are not going to necessarily partner 
with us. So it's very important that NSF is invested in turn, 
which invests in these important areas.
    Ms. Lee. I thank you both for the most enthusiastic 
exchange that I've had yet in my short time here.
    That is my time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
McCormick, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to start by echoing the sentiments and then sharing 
with the sympathies for Jenn Wickre. Her family, friends, 
entire Science and Technology Committee staff in her recent 
passing, just really, our heart goes out to her, and I just 
want to recognize her. I'll keep them in my prayers for sure.
    Mr. Director, the CHIPS and Science Act rightfully 
recognizes a key strength for the United States' innovation in 
the range of institutions and research from all parts of the 
country. The law contains numerous provisions that seek to 
broaden participation in research enterprise and bolster 
research capacity in institutions that haven't previously 
received significant research funding. I think we--ad nauseam, 
we've discussed EPSCoR today and how we want to diversify how 
we do research. What are we missing though as far as 
recommendations for the next thing that we aren't investing in? 
We know where we've invested already, but there's always blind 
spots out there. What do you think--we're thinking outside the 
box. We're trying to be visionary rather than reactionary 
because a lot of times we in Congress, just like everybody 
else, tend to be reacting to a market pressure at this time and 
we're not thinking about the next big thing. What's on the 
horizon that we're not investing in right now?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So it's an excellent question, 
Representative McCormick. Let me tell you that we are already 
investing in the technologies, I will say, of tomorrow, right? 
But these technologies of tomorrow have been made possible 
because of not just investments of today, but investments for 
several decades, of NSF investing in those ideas that have 
emerged as technologies of tomorrow, quantum being an example, 
AI being an example. AI today is more than five to six decades 
of sustained investments by NSF and other agencies that we are 
with AI today.
    So to your point, therefore, there are two things. Already, 
the investments of NSF and basic discovery is setting the stage 
for the discoveries, then translating it into technologies of 
not tomorrow, but the future. That's the first point I want to 
make.
    The second point--as a physician, you will appreciate this. 
The second point that I want to make is the fusion of 
disciplines is where the future innovations lie. Having built 
the Biomedical Informatics Department in my previous role where 
the fusion of medicine, biology, informatics, and computing and 
engineering is how the physicians of the future are going to 
deliver the quality care at the lowest possible price, right? 
And so these are the kinds of fused sort of disciplines where 
this innovation lies.
    So what NSF is doing right now is preparing for that 
already. All our directorates are now working together and not 
only advancing innovations in individual disciplines, but also 
at the intersection of disciplines. If NSF configures it that 
way, then the domains that we invest in, namely, universities, 
are also going to configure themselves that way.
    So a person who is trained to become a physician is not 
only going to be a physician, they are going to be an expert in 
computing, they're going to be an expert in engineering 
principles, they're going to be an expert, or at least 
knowledge of in social behavioral principles because all of 
that is required to deliver the best possible and effective 
care. And you will appreciate that. So those are the kinds of 
emerging areas that we are investing in also.
    Mr. McCormick. You know, I really appreciate that because I 
do see a lot of crossover between different--as a guy who 
started off as a pilot and then went into----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. McCormick [continuing]. Medicine and----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. McCormick [continuing]. Just transitioning your brain 
in different--and you can see the crossover in technologies. 
And I appreciate your comprehensive approach to that. I also 
appreciate your definition of diversity. I think it's really 
important to think about it's not--we're just--we're not just 
defined by what we look like, but our experiences where we grow 
up, our regional experiences, and that we respect that in all 
matters.
    One of the things I'm going to kind of--I'll skip over my 
EPSCoR because that's been just talked about a lot. One of the 
things I have concerns about when we're sharing information, 
just like with anything in government or in schools, there is a 
danger to that also. We know we're in direct competition to 
China. When I was at Georgia Tech doing my pre-med and 
instructing Associate Professor, we had a case there where we 
actually had some espionage and we had some people arrested for 
sharing information that was critical to the future technology. 
And we know we have a big problem in protecting our 
technologies into the future. And with all the corporate and 
government investments in technologies, especially in our 
universities, what are we doing to protect that, especially 
since there's been some recent investigations that have 
actually resulted in convictions of both professors and 
students? How do we avoid that into the future? Because this is 
going to continue to be a problem where we make these heavy 
investments, and then somebody just takes it from us.
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, thank you so much. I'm going to let 
the Chair answer this, and then I will follow up with some data 
that would make you----
    Mr. McCormick. Sure.
    Dr. Reed. So this is a real issue because our educational 
and research system depends on openness and broad-based 
collaborations. And so we have to always be mindful that there 
is creative tension between the desire to welcome ideas and 
perspectives, and we depend on continuing to attract global 
talent. That has been one of the geniuses, superpowers of this 
country in its history is that we've been a magnet for global 
talent. We don't want a level playing field. We want 
disproportionate tilted in our favor, and that means we want to 
continue to welcome people.
    But we have to be realistic that, as you rightly said, 
there are real issues. A lot of this goes to better education 
in our research institutions, better information-sharing about 
what the risks are because I will tell you, as a former VP for 
research in a university, there's a lot of naivete still out 
there about what's going on. And so it's education, it's 
diligence, it's communication.
    The Foundation has worked hard to ensure that its research 
integrity and research security office can be mindful of those 
issues and they can put in place policies and mechanisms with 
the universities collaboratively to be able to manage those 
things.
    And I'll let the Director expand a little bit more on that. 
But it is a creative tension that necessarily is, given the 
nature of our society.
    Dr. Panchanathan. We have a Chief Officer for Security 
Strategy and Policy, and we have a team, which works very 
closely with the intelligence agencies, Defense Department, 
other agencies, Administration and Congress, and more 
importantly, as the Chair said, with the universities to make 
sure whatever needs to be protected, is protected and safe, 
that people disclose their conflicts of interest and conflicts 
of commitment. And we make sure that we not only are relying on 
their disclosures, but we're using analytical tools to ensure 
that they're verifying. So we're doing everything, 
Representative McCormick. I mean, the world has changed and so 
has NSF and other agencies. We are taking this head on and 
making sure that the taxpayers' investments are benefiting our 
Nation.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you. I yield.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 
McClellan, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, and I want to thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed for 
being two of the most enthusiastic witnesses I've seen since 
I've been in Congress.
    Dr. Panchanathan, I was glad you had the opportunity to 
visit the 4th District of Virginia and see some of the 
groundbreaking work that we are doing and was very pleased that 
Virginia State University in my district has received funding 
through the Historically Black Colleges and Universities--
Excellence in Research program. They're doing great things with 
that.
    I want to ask--I also represent Virginia Commonwealth 
University where the Medicines for All Institute has received 
NSF funding to integrate multiple disciplines, including 
chemistry, engineering, and pharmaceutical sciences, to address 
the drug product development and manufacturing needs. And I 
wonder, you know, Dr. Panchanathan, could you speak to how the 
NSF budget supports onshoring the full pharmaceutical supply 
chain for the benefit of our national security, public health 
preparedness, and environment?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, Representative 
McClellan. It is truly a delight to be here with my friend, 
partner, and a colleague working together. That's why you see 
the excitement. We work together very well.
    So to your questions--before we go to your question, it was 
truly a delight visiting Virginia Commonwealth University. You 
know what the highlight of my trip was? Franklin Military 
Academy.
    Mrs. McClellan. Oh, great.
    Dr. Panchanathan. And I saw these unbelievable students in 
high school doing these amazing projects. And I talked about 
STEM inspiration earlier. They are all inspired, and that's the 
kind of inspiration we want spread everywhere across our 
Nation. We are thrilled to invest in Virginia State University, 
as well as VCU.
    And to your personal onshoring, biotechnology is a 
significant focus area for us because we believe that emerging 
technology, we need to make sure that we are seizing the 
opportunity to be in the vanguard of innovation. So in fact, 
they're investing in biofoundries through the TIP Directorate 
so that it is all across our Nation. Biomanufacturing is 
something that we need to make sure that it is in place and in 
places where, you know, we have the convergence of the ideas, 
the buildup of the technology, and how we can scale the 
technology, all of them coexisting together in these regions. 
And RIEs is focused--our Regional Innovation Engines are 
focused on that kind of an approach.
    Mrs. McClellan. Great. We know graduate students are often 
full-time researchers with additional responsibilities but are 
paid very little. And many are--many of those graduate students 
are from lower-income families. Can you talk about what NSF is 
doing to address the financial instability faced by so many of 
our graduate students?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes. It's a very, very good question. So, 
as you know, NSF does two kinds of investments, many kinds of 
investments, and these two on the graduate front broadly 
categorized. One is what NSF invests directly called the 
Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), which is a very 
prestigious fellowship program. Now, we invest about 2,000 to 
2,500. In the 2024 budget, we have asked for an increase in the 
number because there are so many applicants well-deserved in 
terms of getting those investments.
    What we have--since I became Director, we have increased 
the stipend investments from what used to be $34,000 to $37,000 
now. And the tuition remission that we provide, which was 
$12,000, is now $16,000. So they're keeping pace with what is 
happening in terms of inflation, as well as other kinds of 
things that we need to make sure that they are paying at least 
living wages to be able to want to pursue this because they do 
pursue this out of the real interest in wanting to contribute 
to science and technology and engineering and others, and so we 
are mindful of that.
    The second path, which is we fund our grants and the grants 
then go to the institutions which then fund the graduate 
students. So which means that we're encouraging institutions to 
submit whatever is the true cost for a graduate student, and if 
that that means that the grant size has to increase, we should 
make that happen. Whatever is the size of the grant, we should 
be paying the graduate students because we cannot risk losing 
good graduate students because they found that the paid--
they're already take a huge pay cut to do the graduate program. 
We don't want them to sacrifice where they can't even have a 
living wage. And so we are taking that very seriously and 
working on both fronts. And the Board is extremely supportive 
of this, and in fact, has brought this to our attention how 
important this is, and that is because of Chair Reed. And I 
will let him speak to that.
    Dr. Reed. Yes, I mean, this has been an all-hands-on-deck 
conversation among the Board. Workforce writ large is our No. 1 
issue. But you put your finger on the issue. We're asking the 
best and brightest in our country to take a vow of poverty to 
pursue STEM careers. This is not a sustainable operation. We've 
got to be honest about those true costs. It's a reckoning that 
has to take place across the country if we want talent to 
continue.
    And you also rightly said those costs fall 
disproportionately on first-generation and underrepresented 
students because they typically start graduate school with 
higher amounts of debt. They've taken on deferred income, in 
addition to low wages. We have to continue to raise those 
stipends.
    It's got to be a national conversation. I have begun some 
of those conversations with my colleagues across the country 
wearing my hat as Chair of the Board, and I know OSTP and PCAST 
(President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) 
have also talked about these issues. It's got to be addressed.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Miller [presiding]. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes Hon. Dr. Babin from Texas.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate it.
    Director Panchanathan, Director Panch I guess, I am 
concerned by the recent NSF announcement that the agency 
intends to wind down operations to the JOIDES (Joint 
Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling) Resolution 
or JR as part of the International Ocean Discovery Program 
(IODP) in FY '24, thereby leaving the researchers with no U.S.-
led scientific ocean drilling capabilities. How does this plan 
address the ocean science community stakeholder priorities 
carefully laid out in the 2050 science framework document?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much for asking----
    Mr. Babin. Briefly.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. The question----
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. Representative Babin.
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Dr. Panchanathan. I just want to underscore this right up 
front. This does not signify the end of the U.S. program. I 
just want to be very clear.
    Mr. Babin. Good.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Why do I say that? The vessel is nearing 
its retirement. The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) 
expires in 2028. It is 45 years old. And the current 
operational model requires significant contributions from our 
international partners to also move this forward, and that is 
becoming increasingly not viable because the changing 
priorities of our international partners.
    Having said that, NSF is committed and will do everything 
to support the operation of the core repositories, as well as 
the research on the archive cores, and we have a lot of them 
already that are there. And we are going to make sure that the 
research continues on those and the use of alternate or 
mission-specific drilling platforms and other efforts. So 
that's to make sure that we are not ceding any leadership 
position here.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Panchanathan. At the same time, we are also going to 
engage with the young researchers in the scientific ocean 
drilling community, early career researchers to sit with them 
to see how we can plan for future scientific ocean drilling and 
promote those opportunities. So we're working on both fronts is 
what we might do today----
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. To continue this and what we 
might do preparing for the future.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And then my next question for 
you, in Fiscal Year '24, NSF budget justification document, NSF 
proposes an annual budget of $52.77 million for the IODP for 
the next 6 years. After detailing the great successes of the 
JOIDES Resolution, the budget proposal states that NSF has 
decided not to renew the IODP operation and maintenance or JR 
operations in Fiscal Year '24. And given that the operations of 
the JR constituted the bulk of the IODP funding, what does NSF 
plan to do with the $52.77 million?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So, as you can appreciate, 
Representative, when we take the taxpayers' investments, we 
want to make sure that we are investing in places where the 
maximum impact is realized. So it is not that we are walking 
away from anything. You know, we are good at starting things. I 
know all of us can attest to this. We are good at starting 
things. We are also good at sometimes sustaining things. But 
it's very hard to say that something is done and we need to 
move on to the next thing where we need to close. And in the 
interest of making sure that we are delivering for our taxpayer 
investments, we have to take a critical look at every project 
and see what are the things that have been achieved, what needs 
to continue to be achieved and be invested in IODP, JOIDES, and 
so on for many, many years. And now we're saying what can we 
continue to do in terms of the research rigor, but not 
necessarily using those as only continuing investments but 
investing in things like, for example, how do we get the talent 
trained for the future? How do we get our industries having the 
workforce that they need today so that we can be competitive 
globally, that we take care of our economic and national 
security concerns very seriously?
    Mr. Babin. OK. OK. Thank you. And then third, NSF's 
announcement that it is ending operations of the U.S. 
scientific drillship 4 years before its expected operational 
life leaves the United States without a U.S. vessel precisely 
at the same time that China is putting their drillship into 
operation. I am concerned by the loss of scientific leadership 
for the United States as a result of this announcement. What 
resources do you need to establish long-term U.S. leadership in 
ocean sciences while extending JR operations
    Dr. Panchanathan. So, Representative Babin, I will tell 
you, as I said earlier, because again, the first is JOIDES 
Resolution. We want to make sure that we are investing in those 
things that continues the research progress, but we're also at 
the same time preparing for the future. And we want to make 
sure that we prioritize--and the Chairman spoke about this. We 
have a number of infrastructure projects that we have in line, 
and we're trying to prioritize those infrastructure projects 
related to the strategic vision of where we want our science, 
technology, and engineering to go into the future, what gives 
us the maximum advantage, and investing in those. And 
therefore, in this case, we are going to assemble the group of 
scientists who are involved in ocean drilling to make sure that 
we are planning for the future.
    Having said that, we do a lot of other investments to 
continue ocean scientists' ocean research, and I won't have the 
time to dig into all of them, happy to send you the 
information.
    [A response from the National Science Foundation follows:]

    The NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) supports cutting-
edge research, education, and infrastructure that advances the 
Nation's scientific knowledge of the oceans to support the U.S. 
economy over the long term, provides vital information 
regarding national security matters such as sea-level rise, and 
advances U.S. leadership in ocean science and technological 
innovation. In Fiscal Year 2023 OCE will provide over $400 
million in support for ocean research and associated 
infrastructure. OCE research programs delve into the physical, 
chemical, biological, and geological aspects of the oceans. 
This research provides essential information regarding ocean 
circulation and the heat, nutrients, and contaminants 
transported throughout the global ocean. Each year around 400 
awards support a vibrant U.S. ocean research enterprise. Key 
infrastructure investments include:
      U.S. Academic Research Fleet, which consists of 
17 oceanographic research vessels operating in the World's 
oceans and the U.S. Great Lakes
      National Deep Submergence Facility, which 
provides submersible assets that enable targeted sampling of 
the deep ocean and other extreme underwater environments
      Ocean Observatories Initiative hosts 
technologically advanced sensors that measure the properties of 
the ocean, revealing details of the ocean's chemistry, physics, 
biology, and geology
    While NSF is not renewing operation of the Joides 
Resolution after FY 2024, NSF recognizes the valuable knowledge 
provided by scientific ocean drilling. NSF will continue to 
support meritorious research proposals from the U.S. scientific 
ocean drilling community and is committed to supporting 
cutting-edge science along with the tools and workforce that 
make it possible.

    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Dr. Panchanathan. We are not backing off, we are not 
slowing down, but we are being very precise and strategic about 
our investments.
    Mr. Babin. I want to ask one real quick question if you'll 
indulge me, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Reed, what is NSF's plan for filling the gap in ocean 
science drilling beyond accessing current core samples stored 
at the repositories or relying on foreign entities?
    Dr. Reed. Well, as the Director said, this draws on 
community perspective. One of the things that I've always been 
impressed about from NSF in my 40 years of engagement with it 
is that it is community-driven. It takes ideas and priorities 
from the community and it convolves those with budget realities 
to make appropriate choices. All of these things across all of 
the STEM disciplines draw on community input. They surface 
ideas, they make cases via national initiatives, via National 
Academy studies, and the Foundation takes those as really the 
driving impetus for its priorities. So it will come from the 
community.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. I'm out of time. I yield 
back. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Next up, we have Hon. Mr. Mullin from California, please.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Doctors, for your testimony.
    My question is around artificial intelligence and the 
implications for our democracy. DARPA (Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency), I believe, just last week 
demonstrated its impressive work on creating tools for 
detecting deepfakes, so-called deepfakes, and the use of 
artificial intelligence in political communications. I'm 
concerned that much of the research around this area of AI has 
been in the defense and intelligence realms, important to be 
sure, but not enough is being done specifically as it relates 
to protecting our democracy going forward, including at the 
State and local level, so the use of AI in political content.
    So my question is around the role of NSF, what might be 
done by NSF to take a more active role in researching and 
planning for how we better protect our democracy against 
nefarious uses of AI? And beyond basic research, how might NSF 
play a role in better preparing the American people for the 
misuse of AI in elections and political communications?
    Dr. Reed. Well, I will say this is an issue that's top of 
mind. In fact, I'll illustrate it with a concrete example. At 
the upcoming National Science Board meeting, we will have 
members of the Defense Department coming to talk to the 
collective leadership about exactly this issue, the challenges 
around deepfakes and the way that AI is being used by global 
actors to influence our political process and why it's critical 
that we have an understanding of how that technology works, how 
we can detect those actions and respond appropriately.
    As the Director said a few moments ago, AI--basic research 
in AI goes back for decades. The expansion of that investment 
via the AI Institutes is about collaborative partnerships 
across different domains and that notion of how basic research 
intersects with national security. If you had told me 20 years 
ago that I would be inviting the National Security Advisor to 
come speak to the National Science Board about joint issues, it 
speaks to how much the world has changed and how much the basic 
research ideas drive this future. So it is a critical issue. We 
are very much committed to basic research explorations of the 
technology and the interactions between the government, the 
academic community, and where so much of this technology is 
taking place, in the private sector.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, Representative Mullin, 
for asking the question. NSF has made investments in research 
to ensure that we understand how technologies that allow for 
things like deepfakes that you talked about work and how people 
interact with them. So we are finding solutions, developing 
toolkits to be able to assist people.
    Having said that, you talked about AI in general. We are 
very committed to ensuring that, as we are building the AI 
research portfolios into the future and investing in them, we 
are making sure that safety, security, privacy, 
trustworthiness, reliability, accuracy, all of that is being 
invested in at the same time because it takes all of the above 
in order for people to be able to trust the technology, deploy 
the technology, use the technology to its fullest ability and 
capacity.
    The way we are doing that is we are also bringing a 
multidisciplinary perspective. The Chair talked about working 
with the Department of Defense and other agencies. But also 
within our own agency, we have got a crown jewel called the 
Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences Research Directorate. We 
need to bring these things a priori, these ideas of what does 
it mean when you develop a technology and deploy them? And not 
after the fact trying to put fixes and Band-Aids, but before 
the fact so that we develop these technologies with 
responsibility, ethical use. All of this is part of our 
thinking.
    So in our AI investments therefore, we are ensuring that 
explainability, understandability, ethics are all part of the 
threads of how we are making sure that our investments address 
those concerns and emerging concerns to ensure that we're 
providing safety, security, privacy, and trustworthiness as how 
we move forward into the future.
    Mr. Mullin. I appreciate the answers very much, look 
forward to further discussion on the matter, and I yield back.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Mullin.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman yields.
    With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Reed, you included a proverb in your written testimony, 
``Where there's no vision, the people perish.'' And for my home 
State of Florida, that's a reality and very real. You know, my 
constituents, my family, my friends now face deadly storms year 
after year, and their lives could depend on Congress having the 
vision to fund the National Science Foundation's wide-ranging, 
comprehensive climate and resilience research.
    Dr. Panchanathan, did I say that right?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. There we go, Panchanathan. In your March letter 
to the Appropriations Committee, you said that a 22 percent cut 
in funding would lead to the loss of 4,600 grant awards and the 
lost knowledge of 66,000 people pursuing STEM.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. In the area of resiliency research, what could 
come--or what could that loss of funding mean?
    Dr. Panchanathan. So in all areas of research, the loss of 
funding will have a detrimental impact in terms of being able 
to fund those great ideas that our researchers are proposing, 
our students are proposing, and losing them. We are essentially 
ceding our leadership by de facto. That means our international 
competitors can leap forward and take advantage of this moment 
that when we are underinvesting or not investing to the extent 
that our ideas and talent need to be energized.
    So this is a very--I said this in the very beginning of 
this testimony. It's an important moment for our Nation, we 
really have to double down, triple down our investments to 
ensure that all talent and ideas are energized right here and 
that they contribute to solutions and they contribute to 
industries of the future and they contribute to the jobs of 
today and tomorrow right here in our country. That's a national 
security issue. And therefore, resiliency is part of that 
portfolio. You know, we have a resilient plan as one of the 
focus teams that we have at NSF, and that cannot be invested in 
at the level that we need it. We see the effects of what's 
happening. And in Florida, in your home State of Florida, you 
see that in action. And so we need to make sure that we're 
building resilient futures in every possible way, whether it's 
natural hazards, weather-related, or whether it is pandemic-
related.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Dr. Panchanathan. We need to be more resilient.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you. You know, in 2017, a category 5 
hurricane and a cat 4 hurricane both hit Puerto Rico and 
Florida just 10 days apart, devastating the island and forcing 
many to leave their homes for good. Florida now sees multiple 
hurricanes hit our coastal cities each year. I actually just 
went to Orlovista, a community in my district where people are 
living in the sheds behind their homes because of the storm 
surge that completely took over their house, and they're still 
not able to move into their home.
    In response, researchers at the University of Central 
Florida--go Knights--are using an NSF grant to study the 
effects of multiple landfalls on our buildings and our natural 
environments. We don't know where that research will lead 
exactly, but the results will almost certainly save lives.
    Dr. Reed, would it be fair to say that a loss of funding 
now means that--it could mean a domino effect with the loss of 
lifesaving knowledge in the future?
    Dr. Reed. It would, and I--this is a topic near and dear to 
my heart. Because I lived in North Carolina, I experienced the 
coastal effects. I actually worked on storm surge modeling as a 
research topic. Our ability to understand the interactions of 
air and water flow together with the geography and the unique 
characteristics of microclimates are really critical for both 
urban planning and for being able to manage disaster response. 
That's an area that, given what we're seeing in terms of 
frequency of severe storms and hurricanes, is increasingly 
clearly critical. As you know, we run the increased risk of 
flooding in those areas, and rising water levels will have 
profound effects.
    As the Director said, this is one point, example. We 
sometimes tend to generalize science as we invest in the 
exploration of the great unknown, and that's true. But the 
practical translation of those ideas comes down to how does it 
affect people's lives? How does it affect jobs? How does it 
affect how they live? And how do we ensure the quality of life? 
That's why we do science. That's why the investment is so 
important.
    Mr. Frost. No, 100 percent. And you know, at the end of the 
day, when we talk about this type of work, the people who--we 
benefit from it as a country and as a humanity, but the people 
who really need this information are folks who don't have the 
means to leave quickly, especially during these storms.
    Back to that proverb, ``Where there's no vision, the people 
perish,'' you know, I think part of my job when I think about 
is how do we see the world through the eyes of the most 
vulnerable? And I truly believe that science and the work that 
y'all are doing and--we should continue to adequately fund and 
fund it even more, so that way, the most vulnerable actually 
have a fighting chance, especially as it relates to resiliency 
and the storms in the State of Florida.
    And here's the thing, these storms don't care if you're 
Democrat or Republican, and so for me, this should not be a 
political issue but one about saving lives and thinking about 
our most vulnerable populations no matter where they're at.
    So thank you for your work, and I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman yields.
    With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Tonko for New York.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our Chair 
Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for this important hearing 
today. And a special thanks to Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed 
for the work that both of you are doing to ensure the success 
of the U.S. scientific enterprise.
    It's an incredible accomplishment that the NSF has been 
around for over 70 years, leading our Nation as the primary 
source of Federal funding for fundamental research and, of 
course, STEM education programs. I'm deeply proud of what we 
accomplished in the House last year to support this work and 
sharpen our competitive edge on the global stage through the 
CHIPS and Science Act. To see this through, we need to ensure 
that America has a rich demographic, socioeconomic and 
geographic diversity, is well represented across our STEM 
workforce.
    So I want to focus on the provisions in CHIPS and Science 
intended to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in our 
growing STEM workforce, including new requirements, the 
collection of demographic data about all grant applicants. Can 
either of you speak, please, to the implementation of these 
data collection requirements and any progress that has been 
struck to date?
    Dr. Reed. Well, you've put your finger on a core issue. We 
can't fix something we don't know--have the data on, and so it 
is important that we do that. The Foundation, under the 
Director's leadership, has invested in upgrading IT 
(information technology) systems to be able to improve the 
capture and analysis of data. And as I said a moment ago, 
broadly, workforce issues are top of mind for the Science Board 
and its partnership with the Foundation and its oversight role, 
how we look at these issues that span the entire spectrum of K-
12 and the leaky pipeline there, to community college and those 
skilled technical workforce we discussed a moment earlier, 
through university and postgraduate education and how we look 
at those demographics and ensure that we have a broad and 
inclusive workforce.
    There are actions going on at every one of those levels, 
both operational, for example, in terms of data analysis, but 
also programmatic as we look at what's working and what's not 
working because I think the core for data is to identify what 
is working and then you double down on that. There are other 
programs that may be less scalable or less effective. You scale 
those back. You shift the resources to the places you see it's 
making a difference. That's why the data matters.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Tonko, an excellent 
question. You're addressing two computer scientists, it turns 
out, who believe in this concept of data-driven everything, 
particularly decisionmaking. So when I came to the agency, what 
I did was I said let's take all of the information 
infrastructure of the agency and make sure we empower them. And 
this COVID moment has taught us a lot of good lessons in terms 
of what it takes to build an infrastructure that makes possible 
harvesting data, utilizing data, and therefore allowing data 
base decisionmaking even more at a higher level of intensity.
    Second, it's important as we are all investing and talking 
about investment, that those investments are clearly reaping 
the benefits and the rewards. We clearly know it is. It is 
qualitatively in many cases--we know there are many stories to 
be told, but we also want to establish even stronger the 
quantitative evidence. And the Board has been a tremendous 
partner in this in terms of motivating us to do that even more, 
as the Chair just talked about.
    So let me give you a concrete example. It is not just about 
the talk, it's about action. So at the agency now we have 
launched a new Office of Business Information Technology to 
elevate the whole information technology infrastructure and the 
importance of data, the importance of analytics to the level of 
the Office of the Director, not just only in our sort of in-
the-weeds, as important as it is, but it's got to all be 
managed strategically, both bottom up and top down working 
together so that we gather appropriate data, we have the 
infrastructure to process and gather the data, and we are able 
to visualize the data, we are able to transact with the data, 
we are able to make decisions based on the data, and that 
everything is captured and that we are working with our 
partner. This cannot be done by NSF alone. We have to work with 
our university partners that we invest in to make sure they're 
presenting the data. All the places where we invested, we are 
gathering the data so that we can measure progress and keep 
ourselves accountable.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I appreciate the enthusiasm from each of 
you.
    Dr. Panchanathan, in your written testimony, you note that 
in Fiscal Year '24, NSF intends to prioritize both advancing 
research equity and supporting the next generation of 
researchers. One of the principal programs in the budget under 
the Create Opportunities Everywhere theme is the NSF Graduate 
Research Fellowship Program. Many graduate students are paid at 
or only slightly above poverty levels. So how does the NSF work 
to ensure that programs aimed at creating opportunity, 
including the GRFP, don't further perpetuate systemic inequity 
in research and science?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Tonko, an excellent 
question. I answered this a little while earlier. I'll expand 
this. When I came to the agency, I said we cannot have our 
Graduate Research Fellowship investments at a level where it is 
a disincentive. Forget about incentive, disincentive for a 
student to want to pursue a graduate program. So we came in, we 
immediately lifted our graduate stipends. We also increased the 
tuition remission rates. We increased the number of graduate 
GRFPs also. It's a very strategic, important investment, and I 
plead for the support of the Committee and Congress in more 
resources to be able to get all our ideas and talent that are--
2 days ago, I was in Missouri. I had a student poster 
competition I was looking at--he is going to strike the gavel--
looking at the students, and I'm saying if we have these kinds 
of students everywhere, we are done because we will outcompete 
any Nation, but we need the investment.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. I have other questions that 
I'll get to the Committee, but thank you very much. And again, 
I appreciate the enthusiasm. I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    With that, the Chair recognizes Hon. Mr. Issa from 
California.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but we had 
a markup in Foreign Affairs, so I'm getting a two-for, three-
for type of a day.
    Dr. Panchanathan. No problem. We understand that.
    Mr. Issa. But I was briefed on some of the questions that 
were asked earlier. And, Dr. Panchanathan----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. You previously said you don't 
suppress information or provide disinformation or support it in 
any way. Is that true?
    Dr. Panchanathan. What I said was that we are engaging in 
projects that essentially bring out an understanding of what is 
happening with our technological investments that we are making 
and the technology infrastructure that is being deployed----
    Mr. Issa. OK.
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. That we are not engaged in 
any censorship.
    Mr. Issa. Well, I appreciate your saying that and believing 
it. And by the way, I love how we say data, data, data.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. Now I go--and you're both computer scientists. I 
studied with--when NC--National Cash Register 500's----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. Were in vogue and I ran a deck 
facility for the military----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. Back when Digital Corporation was a 
corporation.
    Dr. Panchanathan. A corporation, yes.
    Mr. Issa. So, as I've seen the advancement in computer 
science, one thing I've noted is that the old expression 
``garbage in, garbage out'' hasn't changed. And so you're only 
as good as the data you have. And contrary opinions are only as 
good as the ability to present them with some level of 
equality. A data search that suppresses anyone or steers anyone 
in a direction, by definition, denies equal relevance to data 
that you agree with and disagree with. I see your heads 
shaking.
    And for that reason, I do have to ask, for example--and I 
don't want to harp on it, but I brought it up in a previous 
hearing, the $130,000 that went to a university in China, one 
that the Chinese Ministry of Defense uses. It is clearly a CCP 
operation. Why should we believe that any money given to the 
Chinese Communist regime, directly or through the university 
structure, doesn't--and particularly when it is in support of 
what one might call disinformation, why should we believe that 
that isn't a misuse of funds, albeit a relatively small amount, 
but it still is one that I question? Should we go through the 
data and pull that kind of funding away since you have such 
limited funding?
    Dr. Panchanathan. No, Representative Issa, it is a very, 
very important question. As you know, in the geopolitical 
context that we are in today and our adversarial competitors 
are using asymmetric means. We have to do everything that does 
not allow them to take advantage of any of that.
    Before we go, Representative Issa, I mentioned that the two 
subawards that was referenced, they don't exist anymore. We are 
very clear about investments, particularly in terms of our 
adversarial competitors and taking advantage of the investments 
that we make here because it has to work for the objectives of 
what we want in the Nation.
    Mr. Issa. Yes, and I only ask retrospectively----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. To ask have you gone through the 
system to make sure that, prospectively, we're not going to be 
back here again?
    Dr. Panchanathan. That's exactly what we are talking about, 
is to make sure that our investments are carefully reviewed, to 
make sure that we're putting research security strategy, policy 
protocols in place, and we have a number of them, 
Representative. We can outline that for you and return a 
response if that's helpful. We are making sure that we are 
taking every precaution. We are working very closely with the 
intelligence agencies, with the Defense Department, other 
agencies to make sure that we are not investing in those things 
that give advantages to our competitors or adversaries.
    [A response from the National Science Foundation follows:]

    NSF funds foreign entities only in exceptional 
circumstances and there are no current awards or subawards to 
Chinese entities. The NSF Office of the Chief of Research 
Security Strategy and Policy (OCRSSP) focuses on a data-driven 
approach to detect potential research and national-security 
related risks. OCRSSP has developed a sophisticated analytics 
program, using big data to identify research security issues. 
NSF has formed close partnerships with the intelligence and law 
enforcement community through the National Counter-Intelligence 
Task Force and direct bilateral relationships to share 
information and to consult with the intelligence community and 
law enforcement on potential security risks.
    Furthermore, NSF has just made policy in the 2024 Proposals 
and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide in which an NSF 
proposal can fail to be accepted or returned without review by 
NSF if it "has the potential to negatively impact research 
security and integrity due to credible information of a 
national security concern." Note, this decision-making process 
will be informed by OCRSSP's aforementioned data analytics 
process, as well as a forthcoming risk rubric.

    Mr. Issa. OK. And maybe one additional example that I'd 
like to have you come in on, it's an NSF video with Professor 
Michael Wagner, Wagner or Wagner, of the University of 
Wisconsin, Madison. They've received millions of dollars. This 
is not a small grant. And one of the quotes was that--they say 
it's not censorship, but he says in the in the video, ``Course 
Correct is trying to nudge us in a direction of understanding 
and agreeing upon verifiable truth.'' Now that sounds pretty 
benign, but realistically, he wants to course correct to his 
truth. Is that good implementation of science, or is that 
exactly what you must guard against? We fund programs to people 
who have opinions, but a course correct that essentially denies 
or moves people toward just one, is that inconsistent with the 
NSF role?
    Dr. Panchanathan. NSF invests in those things that--you use 
the word understanding. Understanding is what we invest in and 
not a specific philosophy or a specific kind of--what you're 
offering to us, any biases that might be there. That's not what 
NSF invests in. NSF invests in--to the point that you make--to 
understand and, therefore, the real issues can be therefore 
brought up, and policymakers will make the determination in 
terms of what guardrails we may have to put in place, et 
cetera. But our objective in terms of investments is to get the 
understanding.
    Mr. Issa. And last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman, very 
briefly, your graduate program that you just increased the 
funding for and would like more for, does it include Chinese 
nationals here in any way? Is it exclusively to those who 
would, by definition, be able to remain here in the United 
States afterwards to the benefit of our country?
    Dr. Panchanathan. The Graduate Research Fellowship Program 
invests in U.S. citizens----
    Mr. Issa. I wanted to make that clear----
    Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. People who are here.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. And I want to thank you----
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. Because I think it's so important 
that we look at the retention of our investments.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, exactly.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, and 
I yield back.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 
Members for their questions. The record will remain open for 10 
days for additional comments and written questions from the 
Members.
    This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]