[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL AT
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-051PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
MARCH 11, 2011
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Panel I:
Dr. Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 24
Dr. Ray Bowen, Chairman, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 32
Panel II:
Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards
and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards
and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Biography.................................................... 63
Discussion....................................................... 12
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation.......... 76
Dr. Ray Bowen, Chairman, National Science Board.................. 95
Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards
and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards
and Technology................................................. 99
Appendix II: Additional Member Statements
Submitted Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello,
Congressman from Illinois...................................... 106
AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET PROPOSALS AT THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND
TECHNOLOGY
FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
An Overview Of The Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposals At
The National Science Foundation And
The National Institute Of Standards And Technology
friday, march 11, 2011
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Friday, March 11, 2011, the House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology will hold a hearing to examine the Administration's
proposed fiscal year 2012 (FY12) budget request for the National
Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. There will be two panels, one focused on NSF, and the other
on NIST. An Administration witness will provide testimony for each
agency, and the National Science Board Chair will discuss the National
Science Foundation request.
Witnesses
Panel I
Dr. Subra Suresh, Director, National Science
Foundation
Dr. Ray Bowen, Chairman, National Science Board
Panel II
Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Standards and Technology and Director, National Institute
of Standards and Technology
Hearing Overview
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency created by Congress in 1950 ``to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the national defense . . . `` With an annual budget of about
$6.9 billion (FY 2010), it is the funding source for approximately 20
percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
America's colleges and universities.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-
regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce. Originally founded
in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, NIST's mission is to
promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance
economic security and improve our quality of life. By working closely
alongside industry, NIST has become recognized as a provider of high-
quality information utilized by the private sector.
While NSF and NIST have very different organizational structures
and functions, these two agencies, along with the Department of
Energy's Office of Science, have been consistently recognized for their
ties to the economic competitiveness and national security of the
United States.
NSF Overview
NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic
research, providing approximately 40 percent of all federal support,
and serves as a catalyst for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education improvement at all levels of education. It
supports the fundamental investigations that ultimately serve as the
foundation for progress in nationally significant areas such as
national security, technology-driven economic growth, energy
independence, health care, nanotechnology, and networking and
information technology.
Through roughly 10,000 new awards per year, NSF supports an average
of 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at
universities, laboratories and field sites all over the U.S. and
throughout the world. These grants fund specific research proposals
that have been judged the most promising by a rigorous and objective
merit-review system. In the past few decades, NSF-funded researchers
have won more than 180 Nobel Prizes.
NSF Budget Summary
The FY 12 budget request for NSF is $7.7 billion, an
increase of 13 percent, or $894.5 million over the FY 10
enacted level (not including any carryover from the $3 billion
NSF received from ARRA funding). The request continues to keep
NSF on a doubling path for funding as set out in the America
COMPETES Act and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The
budget for NSF is divided into three main accounts: Research
and Related Activities, Education and Human Resources, and
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction.
Research and Related Activities (RRA)
The FY 12 budget request includes $6.3 billion for Research
and Related Activities (RRA), an increase of $690 million or
12.4 percent over FY 10 enacted. RRA is made up primarily of
six disciplinary directorates: non-biomedical life sciences
(BIO); computer sciences (CISE); engineering (ENG); geosciences
(GEO); math and physical sciences (MPS); and social,
behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE). Each of these
directorates get significant increases in the FY 12 budget
request ranging from six percent for MPS to 22.1 percent for
ENG. New programs established as part of the increased research
funding request for FY 12 include $35 million for a
nanotechnology manufacturing initiative, $40 million in next-
generation robotics technologies, and $96 million for an
interdisciplinary program to eventually replace computer chip
technologies. In addition, $87 million is requested for
advanced manufacturing activities including expanded
university-industry research partnerships and regional
innovation ecosystems and clean energy manufacturing research.
Another $117 million is requested for ``cyber-infrastructure''
activities to accelerate the pace of discovery and $12 million
for a ``new program that will fund a suite of activities that
promote greater interdisciplinary research.''
As part of the Science, Engineering and Education for
Sustainability (SEES) program that crosses all NSF directorates
and has a goal of advancing ``climate and energy science,
engineering, and education to inform the societal actions
needed for environment and economic sustainability and
sustainable human well-being,'' the FY 12 budget request is
$998.1 million, an increase of$337.5 million or 51 percent.
In addition, the FY 12 budget request also includes a plan
to invest broadband spectrum receipts in a variety of areas,
including $150 million to NSF in FY 12 and $1 billion total
over a five-year period for targeted research on experimental
wireless technology testbeds, more flexible and efficient use
of the radio spectrum, and cyber-physical systems such as
wireless sensor networks for smart buildings, roads, and
bridges. NSF's participation is a piece of the $3 billion WIN
fund.
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
EHR funds most of NSF's activities that support K-12 STEM
education and the majority of activities that support
undergraduate STEM education. EHR also funds most of NSF's
graduate fellowship and traineeship programs.
The FY 12 budget request for EHR is $911 million, a $38.4
million or 4.4 percent increase over FY l0. The Administration
continues to offer a mixed message regarding the treatment of
EHR relative to the healthy increase for RRA. While calling for
an investment of $3.4 billion in STEM education activities
across the federal government, a number of proven NSF
initiatives are being eliminated, reduced, or reprogrammed to
make way for new or expanded programs. Like last year's
request, the FY 12 budget request continues to shift a greater
responsibility for STEM education to the Department of
Education while maintaining NSF primarily as a research agency.
New funding in the FY 12 budget request includes an
additional $20 million for a Transforming Broadening
Participation through STEM (TBPS) pilot program to seek
innovative solutions for broadening participation in STEM at
the undergraduate level. This is part of an overarching
realigned program called Broadening Participation at the Core
(BPAC), which also houses several underrepresented population
programs. The BPAC program total request is $156 million, a $21
million or 23.3 percent increase over FY l0. Research programs
focused on gender and persons with disabilities have been moved
from this Division to the Division of Research on Learning in
Formal and Informal Settings and funding under the request is
cut by 8.7 percent to $17 million. It is unclear why this shift
in funding emphasis and program location is warranted.
Additionally, the FY 12 budget request includes $40 million
in funding for a new teacher-training research and development
program, split evenly between K-12 teachers and undergraduate
teachers. At the same time, the budget request for Noyce
Scholarships is $45 million, a decrease of $10 million or 18.2
percent and the Math and Science Partnership is $48.2 million,
also a decrease of $10 million or 17.2 percent.
Likewise, the Administration's budget request places a high
priority on Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) by increasing
the funding to $134.6 million, a 31.2 percent increase over FY
I0, while essentially flatlining the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT) at $30.2
million and moving to eliminate the Graduate STEM Fellows in K-
12 Education (GK-12). While recognizing the flexibility that
GRFs provide graduate students, IGERT is also an extremely well
regarded and effective program that by design supports cutting-
edge interdisciplinary science. The reason for this continued
unbalanced treatment of two equally important and effective
graduate student programs is unclear.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
The MREFC account funds the construction of large research
facilities, such as telescopes and research ships. Funding for
the design, operation and management of these major user
facilities is included in the R&RA budget.
The FY 12 budget request includes $224.7 million for the
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
account. This is a 91.6 percent increase from FY 10, but the FY
10 amount does not include $146 million provided in ARRA
funding for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST). A
bulk of MREFC funding in FY 12 includes $87.9 million for the
second year construction of the National Ecological Observatory
Network (NEON), which will collect data across the U.S. on the
impacts of climate change, land use change, and invasive
species. Another $102.8 million is requested for the fourth
year of construction of the Ocean Observatories Initiative
(00I), an integrated network of instrumentation that will
provide continuous and interactive access to the ocean. 001
also received $157 million in ARRA funding in FY 09.
Agency Operations and Award Management (.4. OAM)
The AOAM account funds the internal operations of NSF. The
FY 12 budget request includes $357.7 million for AOAM. This is
a 19.2 percent increase of$57.7 million. $44.7 million of this
increase is related to the expiration of the NSF building
leases in 2013. A new lease will need to be signed in FY I2.
NIST Overview
NIST operates two main research laboratories in
Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, as well as radio stations in
Hawaii and Colorado. NIST also maintains partnerships with the
Hollings Marine Labs in Charleston, SC, the JILA joint
institute operated with the University of Colorado, and the
Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology (CARB) and the
Joint Quantum Institute, both operated in conjunction with the
University of Maryland.
NIST employs about 3,100 scientists, engineers,
technicians, and support and administrative personnel. Also,
NIST annually hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users
from academia, industry, and other government agencies. In
addition, NIST partners with 1,600 manufacturing specialists
and staff at about 400 Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) service locations around the country. Of note, NIST
scientists have earned three Nobel Prizes over the last 15
years, and NIST led a building and fire safety investigation to
study the structural failure and subsequent progressive
collapse of the World Trade Center buildings following the
terrorist attacks of 2001.
NIST Reorganization
In October 2010, NIST reorganized its structure, with the
goal of aligning its research units according to a structure
defined around mission instead of scientific disciplines. The
realignment is expected to allow increased decision-making
flexibility, greater accountability for customer product and
services delivery, and for more interdisciplinary research to
be conducted at NIST. Finally, the number of operational units
dropped from ten to six, creating a more streamlined management
structure.
NIST Budget Summary
In FY 12, the Administration has requested a funding level
of $1 billion or a 16.9 percent increase from FY 10 enacted
funding for the NIST. The budget request would provide $678.9
million for NIST's core Scientific and Technical Research and
Services (STRS); $84.6 million for Construction of Research
Facilities (CRF); $142.6 million for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) program; and $75.0 million for the
Technology Innovation Program (TIP).
Research and Facilities
The FY 12 NIST budget request is $678.9 million for the
Agency's Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS), an
increase of $163.9 million or 31.8 percent, and includes $168
million in specific initiatives to address national priorities
related to cyber infrastructure, technology interoperability,
nanotechnology, and advanced manufacturing and materials. The
STRS FY 12 request continues the Administration's plan to
double funding for key basic research agencies.
The FY 12 budget request for Construction of Research
Facilities (CRF) is $84.6 million, a 42.4 percent decrease from
FY 10 enacted. The significant decrease represents the
completion of several major renovation projects at the
laboratory facilities in Boulder, CO. CRF funding would support
maintenance and repair of existing NIST buildings as well as
continue the interior renovation efforts of the Boulder lab
Building 1 ($25.4 million).
In order to advance measurement science, standards, and
technology, NIST currently operates six laboratory units:
LMaterial Measurement Laboratory (MML) The MML
serves as the national reference laboratory for
measurements in the chemical, biological, and material
sciences. The MML provides measurement services used by
a broad set of industries including but not limited to:
healthcare (biomarkers), renewable energy (measuring
the quality of fuels) and forensic science (biometric
identification techniques).
LPhysical Measurement Laboratory (PLM) The PLM
develops and disseminates the national standards of
measurement, e.g., length, mass, force and shock,
acceleration, time and frequency, electricity,
temperature, humidity and pressure. This information
supports consistent timekeeping, on which many
technologies like GPS rely; and underpins the safety of
our national electricity grid.
LEngineering Laboratory (EL) The EL develops
and disseminates advanced manufacturing and
construction technologies, guidelines, and services to
the U.S. manufacturing and construction industries.
Examples of EL work include researching ways to reduce
the spread of fire in residential buildings and
developing performance metrics for advanced
manufacturing processes.
LInformation Technology Laboratory (ITL) The
ITL develops and disseminates standards, measurements,
and testing for interoperability, security, usability,
and reliability of information systems, including cyber
security standards and guidelines for federal agencies
and U.S. industry. ITL works in areas such as cloud
computing, health information technology, and advanced
voting technologies.
LCenter for Nanoscale Science and Technology
(CNST) is the only national nanotechnology center
focused on commerce. The facility offers shared space--
utilized by a variety of public and private
stakeholders--for nanoscale fabrication and measurement
and develops innovative nanoscale measurement and
fabrication capabilities.
LCenter for Neutron Research (NCNR) provides a
national user facility, utilized by universities,
government and industry, to study neutron-based
measurement capabilities. The level of measurement
capabilities is unavailable anywhere else in the
country, allowing researchers to answer questions in
nanoscience and technology with a broad range of
applications.
Strategic and Emerging Research Initiative (SERI): Within
its laboratory programs, NIST also operates a program ($10
million requested in FY 12) providing flexibility to target
research efforts in certain ``high-risk, high-payoff'' areas of
interest. Current areas of focus include quantifying greenhouse
gas measurements, standards for remediation and decontamination
of structures contaminated by methamphetamine laboratories,
biomanufacturing, and characterizing nanoparticles currently
used in consumer products.
Industrial Technology Services (ITS)
In addition to the laboratories, NIST manages several
extramural programs supporting industry. The FY 12 $142.6
million request for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program is a $17.9 million or 14.4 percent increase from
the FY 10 enacted level. The MEP program is a public/private
partnership run by Centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico
that provides technical assistance for small and medium-sized
manufacturers to modernize their operations and adapt to
foreign competition. MEP Centers are supported by equal
contributions from federal funds, state funds, and industry
client fees. The requested increase would expand the program in
support of the Administration's initiatives to reinvent
domestic manufacturing to create jobs and respond to future
challenges and opportunities.
The FY 12 request for the Technology Innovation Program
(TIP) is $75 million, a $5.1 million increase over FY 10
enacted. TIP awards cost-shared grants to small companies and
joint ventures for the development of high-risk, high-reward
technologies that meet critical national needs. This program
was created by the 2007 America COMPETES Act but was not
reauthorized in the 2010 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 111-358).
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) would
receive $1.9 million less than FY 10 enacted in the FY 12
budget request, reflecting the Administration's goal of
transitioning the program to privately funded sources. Baldrige
provides criteria and evaluation of successful strategies and
performance practices across an array of industries.
New in FY 12 is the Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Consortia (AMTech) Program, with a $12.3 million request.
Modeled after the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), a
partnership between NSF, NIST, industry, and universities
across the nation, the AMTech program would align industry
needs with university research in innovative manufacturing. The
program would fund facilities, equipment, and research at
universities and government laboratories to address long-term
research needs of the manufacturing industry.
Public Safety Innovation Fund
The FY 12 budget request includes a plan to invest
broadband spectrum receipts in a variety of areas, including
$100 million annually provided to NIST for 2012-2016 for
research supporting the development and promotion of wireless
technologies to advance public safety, Smart Grid, and other
broadband capabilities. NIST's participation is a piece of the
$3 billion WIN fund.
Chairman Hall. Okay, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. And good morning and welcome to
today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Proposal at the National Science Foundation and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.'' That
information is in your packets and contained in the written
testimony biography and the Truth in Testimony disclosure for
today's witnesses.
And today's hearing includes two panels. Our first panel
will feature National Science Foundation Director Dr. Subra
Suresh. I am going to mispronounce that. Subra Suresh. And my
name is Hall. You spell it with an A too, not an E. And
National Science Board Chairman Dr. Ray Bowen, a man I have
known and admired for many years.
Our second panel will feature the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Dr. Patrick
Gallagher.
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement. I am pleased to discuss the Fiscal Year 2012 budget
request for the two agencies within the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee's jurisdiction. The National Science
Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST. There is no denying that both of these
agencies make vital contributions to our nation's
competitiveness, and this committee has long bipartisan records
of support for these agencies and their contributions.
NSF's work is diverse and far-reaching. NSF's investments
have yielded barcodes, the sign language dictionary, MRIs, and
Google. In the last year alone, the foundation has supported
research ranging from new techniques to combat the flu virus to
sustaining the budding field of nanoelectronics, whatever that
is, through ways to minimize the negative impacts of sunspots
on communication technology.
NSF is the primary source of Federal Government support for
our colleges and universities as most NSF investments are for
merit-based, peer-reviewed research conducted in university
laboratories across the nation. In fact, I suspect that every
one of our districts has benefited from NSF funding in one form
or the other.
NIST is a non-regulatory laboratory of the Federal
Government tasked with innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology. They work alongside the industry to make sure
their activities improve the quality of life for Americans and
the economic security of our nation.Although we may not be
aware of NIST impact on our lives, their work is making things
run smoothly for us from online security to health information
technology.
I note that the request for both of these agencies in
Fiscal Year 2012 are significant. NSF's budget would increase
by 13 percent over Fiscal Year 2010's appropriations, and NIST
budget would increase by almost 17 percent.
I must say, given the current economic realities, I am
gravely concerned that we can't afford continued spending at
these rates, but we will look closely at everything. I applaud
the Administration's efforts to terminate ineffective programs
and make reductions in worthy areas, but I am told that these
cuts and reductions do not go far enough, particularly when
there are just as many new and/or duplicative programs created
in the process.
I also remain very concerned that the Administration
continues to place a greater emphasis on specific applied
research areas at these agencies, whose core missions are and
should remain basic, fundamental research.
Regardless, the committee appreciates the opportunity to
learn more about how Fiscal Year 2012 funds would be utilized
by NSF and NIST. And I thank our witnesses for their time and
flexibility in conducting this hearing today, and those who
support them in their appearance here today.
I now am very pleased to recognize Ms. Johnson for her
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall
I am pleased to discuss the fiscal year 2012 budget request for two
agencies within the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's
jurisdiction: the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
There is no denying that both of these agencies make vital
contributions to our Nation's competitiveness, and this Committee has a
long, bipartisan record of support for these agencies and their
contributions.
The National Science Foundation's work is diverse and far-reaching.
NSF investments have yielded bar codes, the sign language dictionary,
MRIs, and Google. In the last year alone, the Foundation has supported
research ranging from new techniques to combat the flu virus to
sustaining the budding field of nanoelectronics to ways to minimize the
negative impacts of sunspots on communication technology. NSF is the
primary source of federal government support for our colleges and
universities, as most NSF investments are for merit-based, peer-
reviewed research conducted in university laboratories across the
Nation. In fact, I suspect every one of our districts have benefited
from NSF funding in one form or the other.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a non-
regulatory laboratory of the federal government tasked with innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science,
standards and technology. They work alongside industry to make sure
their activities improve the quality of life of Americans and the
economic security of our nation. Although we may not be aware of NIST's
impact on our lives, their work is making things run smoothly for us,
from online security to health information technology.
I note that the requests for both of these agencies in fiscal year
2012 are significant; NSF's budget would increase by 13 percent over
fiscal year 2010's appropriation, and NIST's budget would increase by
almost 17 percent. Given the current economic realities, I am greatly
concerned that we simply cannot afford to continue spending at these
rates.
I applaud the Administration's efforts to terminate ineffective
programs and make reductions in worthy areas, but I am afraid these
cuts and reductions do not go far enough, particularly when there are
just as many new and/or duplicative programs created in the process. I
also remain very concerned that the Administration continues to place a
greater emphasis on specific applied research areas at these agencies
whose core missions are and should remain basic, fundamental research.
Regardless, the Committee appreciates the opportunity to learn more
about how fiscal year 2012 funds would be utilized by NSF and NIST, and
I thank our witnesses for their time and flexibility in conducting this
hearing today.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
welcome Dr. Suresh and Dr. Bowen, who will be testifying before
our Committee for the first time this morning. And we will
welcome back Dr. Gallagher who we will hear from in the second
panel.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the
President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the National
Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, two agencies that are key to our ability to spur
innovation and improve STEM education in this country. I am
pleased to see that the President's budget request shares this
Committee's goal, as reflected in America COMPETES Act and the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, of doubling the budgets
of these agencies, laying a strong foundation for our nation's
future competitiveness.
This President understands that our future economic growth
and therefore our ability to reduce our debt in the future is
tied very strongly to the investments we make in science and
innovation today.
In contrast, if the funding bill H.R. 1, passed by the
House last month, is enacted, we will be moving exactly in the
wrong direction. I share the well-founded concern of many
Members if we don't act to address our deficit, we will be
leaving our children and grandchildren with a growing debt that
they will spend their lifetimes trying to pay down. However, I
am dumbfounded we are even considering cutting the very
investments that will reduce our debt over the long run and
ensure that there are well-paying jobs for future generations
and help our young people develop the skills that they need for
these jobs.
The lasting consequences of the proposed cuts to science
and education are enormous and go well beyond the jobs at
research facilities that would be lost today. Fortunately the
President, as evidenced by his Fiscal Year 2012 budget request,
recognizes the importance of these investments.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Suresh and Dr. Bowen
about some of the new research initiatives and directions being
proposed by NSF in this budget as well as hearing from Dr.
Gallagher about NIST's new initiatives.
Overall, I am quite happy with the request. I am
particularly pleased with the robust research budget being
proposed by NSF and its efforts to provide opportunities to
address critically important interdisciplinary research needs.
I am also pleased to hear that NIST's budget request includes
sustaining commitments to addressing critical challenges in
manufacturing, clean energy, and cybersecurity.
That being said, I do have a couple of specific concerns.
First, this administration has made a strong commitment to STEM
education, and I do not underestimate the impact of having the
President himself publicly engaged in this critical issue. Once
again, however, the administration is proposing a budget for
NSF's education directorate that barely keeps pace with
inflation.
I support an increased role for the Department of Education
in STEM education, and I am happy to hear that collaboration
between the agencies has increased significantly. Nevertheless,
I think Chairman Hall will be with me when we say that this
Committee will continue to stand up for the very important and
unique role of NSF in STEM education.
I understand that NSF funds education programs across the
entire agency, so maybe we need to look at more than just one
budget line. Even when we do that though, NSF's own budget
chart tells us that total agency STEM support will not increase
in buying power. I worry about both the statement being made by
the request and the consequences of flat funding for NSF's
excellent programs.
Second, while I am supportive of NIST's efforts to catalyze
the development of standards in emerging technology to address
national priorities in cloud computing, health information
technology, and smart grid, I want to ensure that those efforts
are being appropriately coordinated with the regulatory
agencies that are involved with these issues. If these efforts
are to succeed, it is important that the other agencies respect
the unique expertise of NIST in working with industry on
standards development and that NIST's work be as responsive as
it can be to the needs of other agencies.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I
look forward to working with Chairman Hall and our witnesses on
all of these important issues, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Hall and welcome to Dr. Suresh and Dr. Bowen who
will be testifying before our Committee for the first time this
morning. And welcome back to Dr. Gallagher who we'll hear from in our
second panel.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request for the National Science Foundation and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology--two agencies that are
to key to our ability to spur innovation and improve STEM education in
this country. I'm pleased to see that the President's budget request
shares this Committee's goal, as reflected in the America COMPETES Act
and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, of doubling the budgets
of these agencies, and laying a strong foundation for our Nation's
future competitiveness. This president understands that our future
economic growth, and therefore our ability to reduce our debt in the
future, is tied very strongly to the investments we make in science and
innovation today.
In contrast, if the funding bill--H.R.1--passed by the House last
month is enacted, we will be moving in exactly the wrong direction. I
share the well- founded concern of many Members if we don't act to
address our deficit, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren
with a growing debt that they will spend their lifetimes trying to pay
down. However, I am dumbfounded that we are even considering cutting
the very investments that will reduce our debt over the long-term,
ensure that there are well-paying jobs for future generations, and help
our young people develop the skills that they need to get those jobs.
The lasting consequences of the proposed cuts to science and education
are enormous, and go well beyond the jobs and research facilities that
would be lost today.
Fortunately the President, as evidenced by his Fiscal Year 2012
budget request, recognizes the importance of those investments. I look
forward to hearing from Dr. Suresh and Dr. Bowen about some of the new
research initiatives and directions being proposed by NSF in this
budget as well as hearing from Dr. Gallagher about NIST's new
initiatives.
Overall, I am quite happy with the requests. I am particularly
pleased with the robust research budget being proposed by NSF and its
efforts to provide opportunities to address critically important
interdisciplinary research needs. I am also pleased to see that NIST's
budget request includes sustained commitments to addressing critical
challenges in manufacturing, clean energy, and cybersecurity.
That being said, I do have a couple of specific concerns. First,
this Administration has made a strong commitment to STEM education, and
I do not underestimate the impact of having the President himself
publicly engaged on this critical issue. Once again, however, the
Administration is proposing a budget for NSF's education directorate
that barely keeps pace with inflation. I support an increased role for
the Department of Education in STEM education and am happy to hear that
collaboration between the agencies has increased significantly.
Nevertheless, I think Chairman Hall will be with me when I say that
this Committee will continue to stand up for the very important and
unique role of NSF in STEM education. I understand that NSF funds
education programs across the entire agency, so maybe we need to look
at more than just one budget line. Even when we do that, though, NSF's
own budget chart tells us that total agency STEM support will not
increase in buying power. I worry about both the statement being made
by the request and the consequences of flat funding for NSF's excellent
programs.
Second, while I'm supportive of NIST's efforts to catalyze the
development of standards in emerging technology to address national
priorities in cloud computing, health information technology, and the
smart grid, I want to ensure that those efforts are being appropriately
coordinated with the regulatory agencies that are involved with these
issues. If those efforts are to succeed, it is important that the other
agencies respect the unique expertise of NIST in working with industry
on standards development and that NIST's work be as responsive as it
can be to the needs of the other agencies.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses. I look forward to
working with Chairman Hall and our witnesses on all these important
issues, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. If there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point. And at
this time, I would like to introduce our first panel of
witnesses that we really appreciate. Dr. Subra Suresh is the
Director of the National Science Foundation. Prior to his
service at NSF, Dr. Suresh wore many hats at MIT, including
Dean of Engineering. Dr. Ray Bowen is the Chairman of the
National Science Board and President Emeritus of Texas A&M
University, the one my daughter plans to attend if she can get
in, with a faculty appointment in mechanical engineering.
This is the first appearance before this Committee for both
of you in your current roles, and we welcome you and look
forward to working with you. As our witnesses should know,
spoken testimony is limited to five minutes. After which, the
Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask
questions. And I know Dr. Suresh and recognize you in just a
moment, but I want to talk about the five minutes.
If we can stay as closely as we can to the five minutes to
where those at the end of the line, and particularly our newest
Members of Congress, get their chance to ask their questions.
Just be considerate of everybody, Republicans and Democrats
alike.
With that time, I thank you, Mr. Suresh, and I want to
recognize you.
STATEMENT OF DR. SUBRA SURESH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
Dr. Suresh. Members of the Committee, it is my privilege to
be here with you today to discuss the National Science
Foundation's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.
I came to the United States as a young engineering student
because it was the world's beacon of excellence in science and
engineering research and education. The mission of NSF is to
sustain that excellence as we continue to lead the way for the
important discoveries and cutting edge technologies that will
help keep our Nation globally competitive, prosperous, and
secure.
The Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request for NSF is $7.8
billion, an increase of 13 percent or $894 million over the
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted level. NSF's request is consistent
with the President's Plan for Science and Innovation and with
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.
America's economic prosperity and global competitiveness
depend on innovation that comes from new knowledge, new
technologies and a highly skilled and inclusive workforce. NSF
has an unparalleled track record in supporting the best ideas
and the most talented people for over 60 years. The Fiscal Year
2012 budget builds on these past accomplishments and provides a
direction for future success. NSF will strengthen support for
basic research and education, the building blocks of future
innovation, while strengthening our disciplinary excellence.
A new NSF-wide investment of $117 million will accelerate
the progress of science and engineering through the deployment
of comprehensive cyberinfrastructure. The cyberinfrastructure
framework for the 21st Century Science and Engineering will
explore ways to handle the vast quantities of data generated by
today's cutting edge observational and computational tools,
broaden access to cyberinfrastructure, and support community
research networks.
Research at the interface of the biological, mathematical
and physical sciences, a new $76 million investment, will
explore nature's ability to network, communicate, and adapt and
apply this understanding to engineer new technologies.
Today's most challenging research problems often bring
together insights from across computer science, mathematics,
and the physical life and social sciences. INSPIRE, new to the
NSF's portfolio, is a $12 million investment to encourage
investigators to undertake interdisciplinary research that is a
hallmark of much contemporary science and engineering.
Many NSF activities provide incentives for investigators to
undertake use-inspired research that translates basic
discoveries into applications for the benefit of society and
the economy. A $15 million investment in Enhancing Access to
the radio spectrum will pursue innovative ways to use the Radio
Spectrum more efficiently, enabling more applications and
services used by individuals and businesses to occupy the
limited amount of available spectrum.
Over the next five years, NSF will receive $1 billion from
the Wireless Innovation Fund established with receipts from the
spectrum auctions. NSF's support of advanced economics research
led to the FCC's current system of spectrum auctions that have
netted over $45 billion for the Federal Government since 1994.
The Wireless Innovation Fund is expected to provide $150
million dollars to NSF in Fiscal Year 2012 for research on
wireless testbeds and systems such as smart sensors for
buildings, roads, and bridges.
Many fields are on the threshold of discoveries that can
establish U.S. leadership in next generation technologies. In
the 1960s and '70s, NSF support of mathematical process
innovations lead the rapid prototyping and revolutionized
manufacturing in the country.
The budget includes $190 million for a new advanced
manufacturing initiative to pursue innovations in sensor and
model-based smart manufacturing under the reinvestment of $30
million is allocated for the robotics initiative.
NSF will continue to play a lead role in multi-agency
National Nanotechnology Initiative with an investment of $456
million. Over the past decade, NSF nanotechnology centers and
networks created 175 startups and been in collaborations with
over 1,200 companies.
U.S. leadership in science and engineering requires the
most knowledgeable and skilled STEM workforce. Three new
programs in STEM education, each funded at $20 million will
improve teacher preparation, strengthen undergraduate STEM
education, and broaden participation of underrepresented groups
in the STEM workforce.
To conclude, OneNSF characterizes my vision for NSF as a
model agency. NSF will work seamlessly across organizational
and disciplinary boundaries to create new knowledge, stimulate
discovery, address complex societal problems, and promote
national prosperity.
Robust NSF investments in fundamental science and
engineering have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives
and livelihoods of generations of Americans. The Fiscal Year
2012 NSF Budget Request will carry this success into the
future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes
my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Suresh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Subra Suresh
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Committee, it is my privilege to be here with you today to discuss the
National Science Foundation's fiscal year (FY) 2012 Budget Request. My
name is Subra Suresh and I am Director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF).
I hope to make a clear and compelling case for the critical value
of NSF support for science and engineering research and education at a
time when America faces many pressing needs and tight budget
constraints. I came to the United States as a young engineering student
because it was the world's beacon of excellence in science and
engineering research and education. I stayed for the same reason. The
mission of NSF is to sustain that excellence as we continue to lead the
way for the important discoveries and cutting-edge technologies that
will help keep our Nation globally competitive, prosperous, and secure.
The President's request for NSF for FY 2012 is $7.8 billion, an
increase of 13 percent, or $894 million, over the FY 2010 Enacted
level. The President's Plan for Science and Innovation calls for
doubling the federal investment in key basic research agencies. NSF's
request is consistent with this plan, with the Administration's
Innovation Strategy, and with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
of 2010. The increase will support 2,000 more research awards across
the nation.
In FY 2012, NSF will strengthen support for basic research and
education in all fields of science and engineering, and promote
collaborations that reflect the increasingly interdisciplinary nature
of modern science and engineering, while strengthening our disciplinary
excellence. We will capitalize on many promising areas of investigation
where new discoveries can help establish U.S. leadership in next
generation technologies, and we will invest in transformational work,
new fields, and novel theoretical paradigms to fuel the innovations of
the future. Innovative programs to bolster world-class science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM), from coast
to coast, and from north to south, are central to the success of all
these activities.
NSF: Where Discoveries Begin
Sustained federal support for research and education has fueled
innovation and provided benefits to the American public for decades,
and NSF has played a significant role in this success. For over 60
years, NSF has been a catalyst for the development of new ideas in
science and engineering and supported the people who generate them.
In 1952, Caltech professor Max Delbruck used one of NSF's first
grants to invent molecular biology techniques that enabled one of his
students, James Watson, to determine the molecular structure of DNA.
Since then, an entire biotechnology industry has bloomed and prospered,
with profits reaching $3.7 billion last year.
In the 1960s and ,70s, NSF provided seminal funding for fundamental
mathematical and process innovations for manufacturing that industry
considered too risky to fund. These led directly to rapid prototyping-
and revolutionized how products are designed and manufactured.
In the 1980s, NSF supported the very first computer science
departments in U.S. universities, bringing computer science into the
mainstream of research, and providing a training ground for the first
and subsequent generations of computer scientists and entrepreneurs.
Today, NSF provides 82 percent of total federal support for research in
computer science conducted in the nation's universities and colleges.
Jobs related to computer and information technologies are among the
most rapidly growing in the nation according to Bureau of Labor
Statistics projections.
In the 1990s, NSF supported pioneering research in the emerging
field of nanotechnology. Between 2001 and 2010, NSF-supported centers
and networks created 175 start-ups and developed collaborations with
over 1,200 companies.
Investments in basic research often yield unexpected benefits as
well. NSF's support of game theory, abstract auction theory, and
experimental economics provided the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) with its current system for apportioning the airwaves. Since
1994, FCC ``spectrum auctions'' have netted over $45 billion in revenue
for the federal government and more than $200 billion in worldwide
revenue.
The NSF FY 2012 Budget Request builds on these past accomplishments
and provides a direction for future success. To fuel the innovations of
the future, NSF continues to support fundamental research and education
in all fields of science and engineering to maintain a global edge in
the competition for new ideas and the most talented people. The core
science and engineering disciplines form the ``building blocks'' for
future innovations, and provide the new ideas and approaches needed to
advance the interdisciplinary research that is a hallmark of
contemporary science and engineering. In all these activities, we keep
a steady focus on the frontier, where discoveries begin.
The NSF FY 2012 Budget Request
The Administration's A Strategy for American Innovation makes clear
the larger rationale for investments in science and engineering
research and education. This is to put knowledge to work-to create the
industries and jobs of the future, and to improve the quality of life
and enhance the security and prosperity of every citizen. NSF
investments support each of the three pillars of this strategy: Invest
in the Building Blocks of American Innovation, Promote Market-Based
Innovation, and Catalyze Breakthroughs for National Priorities.
Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation.
A robust U.S. science and engineering research enterprise is
necessary to maintain a global edge in the competition for new ideas.
In FY 2012, NSF will continue to support the most promising research
programs and launch several new initiatives.
Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and
Education (INSPIRE) will support new activities to encourage
investigators to undertake the interdisciplinary research that is a
hallmark of much contemporary science and engineering. This effort will
be in concert with disciplinary excellence. INSPIRE will catalyze
interdisciplinary research by seamlessly integrating a suite of new
activities with existing efforts and other NSF investments. The goal is
to foster and support the transformative research that
interdisciplinary research so often produces. INSPIRE is a new $12
million initiative in FY 2012, and will involve participation from all
Directorates.
Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law (SEMBL) explores next
generation computing, including quantum computing, that addresses the
limits of current technology. Those limits may be reached in as few as
10 to 20 years. In FY 2012, NSF will invest $96 million to continue
this multidisciplinary program.
Research at the Interface of the Biological, Mathematical, and
Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) is a $76 million investment to investigate
biological systems that provide architectural and operational blue
prints which can guide engineering of adaptive technologies. BioMaPS
will integrate research in the biological, engineering, mathematical,
and physical sciences to better understand and replicate nature's
ability to network, communicate, and adapt. The research will
accelerate the generation of bio-based materials and sensors, and the
advanced manufacturing of bio-inspired devices and platforms.
Global leadership also requires the most knowledgeable and skilled
STEM workers in the world. NSF's approach is to develop the nation's
talent pool by integrating research and education. This longstanding
NSF practice facilitates the direct transfer of new knowledge to the
private sector. It happens every time graduate students with experience
working at the frontiers of discovery enter the work force. A strong
suit in U.S. competitiveness, this is one of NSF's greatest
contributions to the nation's innovation system. NSF will support three
new initiatives to strengthen STEM education throughout the nation, and
continue support for highly effective efforts to develop the nation's
talent and workforce.
Teacher Learning for the Future (TLF), funded at $20 million, is a
new teacher-training research program that will fund innovative efforts
that design, develop, implement and test new teacher-training programs
in cooperation with the Department of Education.
Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-based Reforms
(WIDER), a new $20 million program to support research on how to
achieve widespread sustainable implementation of improved undergraduate
instructional practices and student outcomes at major universities.
Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM (TBPS), a third new
program, will expand support for activities to broaden participation of
underrepresented groups through partnerships that match research
centers with other institutions committed to broadening participation.
The FY 2012 investment in TBPS is $20 million.
The Faculty Early Career Development program (CAREER) develops the
future scientific and technical workforce through support of young
faculty who are dedicated to integrating the excitement of research
with inspired teaching and enthusiastic learning. In FY 2012, NSF will
invest $222 million to support approximately 606 CAREER awards, an
increase of 60 awards. The Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRF),
funded at $198 million in FY 2012, supports the development of graduate
students in order to cultivate the next generation of STEM workers. In
FY 2012, NSF will award 2,000 new fellowships, sustaining the doubling
of new fellowship awards achieved in FY 2010. In addition, the cost of
education allowance will be increased from $10,500 to $12,000, the
first increase in this level since 1998. The Budget Request also
includes initial funding for a stipend increase to $32,000 that will be
fully implemented in FY 2013.
Community college funding continues to be a priority for NSF in FY
2012. NSF engages community colleges through several programs,
including Advanced Technological Education (ATE), Transforming
Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (TUES), the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation (LSAMP), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
(TCUP). The total investment in community college programs is $100
million.
Promote Competitive Markets that Spur Productive Entrepreneurship.
Advances in technology, economic growth, and a prosperous society
depend on the translation of fundamental discoveries into new
processes, practices, and commercial products that are widely used.
Many NSF activities provide incentives for scientists, engineers, and
educators to undertake use-inspired research that transforms basic
discoveries into applications for the benefit of society and the
economy.
The Advanced Manufacturing initiative will pursue advances in
sensor and model-based smart manufacturing; cyber-physical systems such
as advanced robotics; smart buildings and bridges; and nano-
manufacturing. This initiative holds tremendous potential for
significant short-term and long-term economic impact by developing the
foundation for entirely new classes and families of products that were
previously unattainable. The NSF request for FY 2012 includes $190
million for these activities.
The Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund, a component of the
Administration's new Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative
(WI3), will provide $1 billion to NSF over the next five years. WI3
proposes to reallocate a total of 500 megahertz of federal agency and
commercial spectrum bands over the next ten years to increase the
Nation's access to wireless broadband. NSF will support research on
experimental wireless technology testbeds, more flexible and efficient
use of the radio spectrum, and cyber-physical systems such as wireless
sensor networks for smart buildings, roads, and bridges. A portion of
the receipts generated through electromagnetic spectrum auctions will
provide funding for WIN. NSF's FY 2012 investments will be coordinated
with a number of other agencies, including the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS),in addition to the
related research funded through the WIN, will support research into new
and innovative ways to use the radio spectrum more efficiently so that
more applications and services used by individuals and businesses can
occupy the limited amount of available spectrum. NSF proposes an
investment of $15 million in FY 2012.
Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) and Industry/University
Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC)direct much of their basic
research to problems with potential economic impact. By working closely
with industry, these programs create enabling technologies for national
needs, such as managing the electrical power system, improving
manufacturing and biological processing, and supporting new healthcare
information and telecommunications technologies. They also prepare
students for innovation leadership in a globally competitive
marketplace. The FY 2012 NSF investment is $96 million.
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR)programs, funded at $147 million in FY 2012,
build partnerships between the academic and industry sectors. They
bolster the innovation economy by funding translational research at
U.S. small businesses on topics that span the breadth of NSF scientific
and engineering research and reflect national and societal priorities.
Catalyze Breakthroughs for National Priorities.
In FY 2012, NSF will focus on key national priority areas, where
the expertise of physical, biological, and social scientists and
engineers can help advance U.S. goals through frontier research. NSF-
catalyzed research includes investments in clean energy and the
advancing fields of bio- and nanotechnology, areas that are poised for
innovative breakthroughs.
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and
Engineering (CIF21) is a new portfolio that builds on NSF's long
history of providing leadership for cyberinfrastructure and
computational science for the U.S. academic science and engineering
community. The $117 million CIF21 will advance data-enabled science
through the development of novel approaches to collect, manage, and
curate the vast quantities of data generated by modern observational
and computational tools. The program will also expand access to
cyberinfrastructure to promote collaboration, and support improved
community research networks to connect people, facilities, computers,
and other tools.
The Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)
portfolio, funded at $998 million in FY 2012, draws together NSF
programs that spark innovations for tomorrow's clean energy solutions.
SEES will promote a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability
science to explore the environment-energy-economy nexus in order to
inform energy and environmental policies and improve our capabilities
for rapid response to extreme events, such as power grid disruption,
floods, or extreme weather.
Clean Energy investments, a significant component of SEES, will
lead to future clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.
Investments totaling $576 million are found throughout the NSF
portfolio, in core research programs and in activities such as BioMaPS
and SEES.
The National Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives are promising
research themes that have the potential to generate applications with
widespread economic benefit, as well as address national and homeland
security challenges. In FY 2012, NSF will invest $117 million in three
research areas: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and
Conversion, Sustainable Nanomanufacturing-Creating the Industries of
the Future, and Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. NSF also supports
advanced manufacturing research through these investments.
The National Robotics Initiative (NRI), a new interagency
initiative for FY 2012, partners NSF with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. NRI will marshal broad science and
engineering support to provide U.S. leadership in the development of
next generation robotics. The focus is on robots that work beside, or
cooperatively, with people in areas such as manufacturing, space and
undersea exploration, healthcare and rehabilitation, military and
homeland surveillance and security, education and training, and safe
driving. Collaboration and coordination strengthens the research effort
and also ensures that agency programs do not overlap. NSF will invest
$30 million in NRI in FY 2012.
Interagency Initiatives
NSF participates in a number of interagency programs that aim to
coordinate research and development activities in areas of critical
national importance.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), involving 25 departments
and agencies across the federal government, focuses on realizing the
tremendous potential of nanotechnology. Investments in nanotechnology
have led to the discovery and development of entirely new classes of
materials. NSF will increase support for NNI research by 10.6 percent
to a total of $456 million. This investment includes the National
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) explores new frontiers in computer, information, and networking
science, and coordinates these efforts among multiple agencies. NSF
will increase its investment in these activities by 15.3 percent to
$1.258 billion in FY 2012. The focus of NSF support includes human-
computer interaction and information management, high-end computing
infrastructure and applications, large scale networking, and
cybersecurity and information assurance. Other initiatives in the NSF
budget will explore new techniques in education and workforce training
to exploit cutting edge networking and information technologies.
Homeland Security Activities across NSF will increase by 9.2
percent to about $426 million. The focus is on two general areas:
protecting critical infrastructure and key assets and defending against
catastrophic threats. Approximately 73 percent of this investment
supports research in cybersecurity, emergency planning and response,
and risk management, modeling, and simulation of resilient
infrastructure.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
People and their ideas form the core of a robust science and
engineering enterprise. But leading-edge tools are also needed in many
cases to advance the frontiers and train students for the workplace.
NSF provides the assets that will be central to success in the emerging
``New Era of Observation,'' without precedent in terms of the sheer
scale, scope, reach, resolution and volume of what we are able to
observe. This new era has been enabled by the ``Era of Data and
Information'' where we are now entering an emerging paradigm of data-
enabled science.
NSF provides sophisticated tools to a broad population of
scientists, engineers, students, and educators. All of the projects in
the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account
undergo major cost and schedule reviews, as required by NSF guidelines.
The following projects receive continued support.
The Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory (AdvLIGO) is a planned upgrade of the existing
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO).
AdvLIGO will be ten times more sensitive, powerful enough to
approach the ground-based limit of gravitational-wave
detection. The FY 2012 investment is $21 million.
The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) will
enable study of the Sun's magnetic fields, which is crucial to
our understanding of the types of solar variability and
activity that can affect communications and navigational
satellites in space and power grids here on earth, and may
influence climate. The FY 2012 investment is $10 million.
The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) is the
world's most sensitive, highest resolution, millimeter
wavelength telescope. ALMA will provide a testing ground for
theories of planet formation, star birth and stellar evolution,
galaxy formation and evolution, and the evolution of the
universe itself. The FY 2012 investment is $3 million.
The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)
will consist of geographically distributed field and lab
infrastructure networked via cybertechnology into an integrated
research platform for regional to continental scale ecological
research. The FY 2012 investment is $88 million.
The Ocean Observatories Initiatives (OOI) will
provide continuous, interactive access to the ocean through a
network of sensors designed to collect physical, chemical,
geological, and biological data. OOI will produce never-before-
seen views of the ocean's depths. The FY 2012 investment is
$103 million.
Terminations/Reductions
NSF continually assesses its portfolio to ensure that investments
align with agency priorities and focus on the frontiers of innovative
science and engineering research. NSF proposes six programs for
termination or reduction in FY 2012.
Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory
(DUSEL): NSF eliminates funding for DUSEL. Termination is based
on National Science Board reviews that concluded the cost and
scope of DUSEL were inconsistent with the agency's traditional
strengths and its role in advancing research and education
across many fields and disciplines. NSF will continue to
solicit proposals for future particle physics research. No
funding is required in FY 2012 for DUSEL.
Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education: NSF
eliminates the agency-wide Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12
Education (GK-12) program. While the program has been effective
in meeting its overall goals, recent evaluation findings
indicate that the effects of this program's fellowship
experience in improving research skills is mixed, and program
design limits the ability of participants to gain in-depth
experience in K-12 teaching. NSF plans to build on experiences
gained during the ten years of GK-12 funding to widen the
breadth of graduate traineeship experiences through other
programs.
National STEM Distributed Learning Program (NSDL):
NSF eliminates funding for the NSDL program (formerly the
National STEM Digital Library). While NSDL has been successful
in meeting its original goals, an October 2010 preliminary
evaluation by the RAND Corporation, Steps Toward a Formative
Evaluation of NSDL: Phase 2, noted the challenges of sustaining
the collection in the face of changing technology, and raised
concerns about the currency of the collections, peer review of
collections, collaboration across pathways, and lack of
standardization. NSF plans to build from the substantial NSDL
experience to address key areas in cyberlearning through other
programs and activities, such as Cyberlearning Transforming
Education (CTE). No funding is required in FY 2012 for NSDL.
Research Initiation Grants to Broaden Participation
in Biology: NSF eliminates funding for the Research Initiation
Grants to Broaden Participation in Biology program (RIG)
because it did not achieve the goal of broadening participation
in biology. The number of proposals from underrepresented
groups did not increase. RIG concludes in FY 2011.
Science of Learning Centers (SLC): NSF proposes to
reduce funding for the SLC program, which currently supports
six large-scale, long-term centers that conduct science of
learning research. The on-going center review process and
reviews from an external May 2010 Advisory Committee both
recommended that NSF phase the program down as funding for
individual centers concludes and shift resources wherever
possible to enhance support for the science of learning using
non-center mechanisms. NSF expects there may be additional
reductions to this program in future years as funding for
individual centers comes to a close.
Synchrotron Radiation Center (SRC): NSF eliminates
funding for the Synchrotron Radiation Center facility at the
University of Wisconsin. The SRC is 30 years old, and more
powerful and capable facilities have come on-line since 1980.
Model Organization
The National Science Foundation aims to perform as a model
organization in carrying forward its mission. Only six percent of the
NSF annual budget is spent on management and administration. The FY
2012 request includes $494 million, an increase of $64 million, for
activities to strengthen NSF's ability to manage its operations
effectively and efficiently. These funds will support:
Staff will include 40 additional full-time
equivalents for a total of 1,365 FTE;
IT investments of $86 million will include NSF
financial system modernization (iTRAK), Research.gov expansion,
and improvements to the operational IT system's reliability and
security;
Headquarters lease expiration funding is $45 million
to plan and prepare for a new headquarters lease; and
IAcquisition, part of the government-wide effort to
strengthen the acquisition workforce and improve capabilities
in the pre-solicitation phase of major acquisitions, receives
$2 million.
NSF is committed to promoting strong, independent evaluation to
inform its policy decisions, program management, and performance, and
to sharing publicly available findings online.
OneNSF
The concept ``OneNSF'' characterizes NSF efforts to perform as a
model agency. The National Science Foundation will work seamlessly
across organizational and disciplinary boundaries to create new
knowledge, stimulate discovery and address complex societal problems
and promote national prosperity.
Within this overarching context, the process of setting NSF
priorities involves many considerations and results in our best view of
how to advance the nation's science, engineering, and education
enterprise. Internally, NSF holds a series of retreats and planning
meetings where directions are developed based on an understanding of
new research frontiers, emerging fields, and opportunities to advance
research and educational goals. NSF also considers opportunities to
coordinate and collaborate with other agencies. Staff from all
Directorates and Offices participate in these activities.
The NSF system of competitive merit review helps to bring the best
ideas forward from every corner of the nation. NSF continues to accept
and review unsolicited proposals, a practice that ensures that
unanticipated and novel ideas of great promise are heard.
Conclusion
President Obama has spoken of this generation's new ``Sputnik
moment,'' a reference to the challenge of meeting the nation's economic
and societal needs in the current climate of global competition for new
ideas and talent. NSF's strategic investment in research and education
will help the nation meet the challenges of our times and move beyond
them.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope my testimony
explains NSF's transformative role in building our nation's future
prosperity and continued leadership at the frontiers of discovery,
innovation and learning. Robust NSF investments in fundamental science
and engineering have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives and
livelihoods of generations of Americans. The FY 2012 NSF Budget Request
supports leading edge programs and activities that will continue this
success in the future.
This concludes my testimony. I thank you for your leadership, and
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Dr. Subra Suresh
Dr. Subra Suresh, distinguished engineer and professor, was sworn
in as the 13th director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) on
October 18, 2010.
Dr. Suresh leads the only federal agency charged with advancing all
fields of fundamental science and engineering research and education.
He oversees the NSF's $7-billion budget, directing programs and
initiatives that keep the United States at the forefront of science and
engineering, empower future generations of scientists and engineers,
foster economic growth and innovation, and improve the quality of life
for all Americans.
Prior to his confirmation as NSF director, Suresh served as Dean of
the Engineering School and Vannevar Bush Professor of Engineering at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He joined MIT's
faculty ranks in 1993 as the R.P. Simmons Professor of Materials
Science and Engineering. During his more than 30 years as a practicing
engineer, he held joint faculty positions in four departments at MIT as
well as appointments at the University of California at Berkeley,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Brown University.
A mechanical engineer interested in materials science and biology,
Suresh pioneered research to understand the mechanical properties of
materials. His most recent research tackled the biomechanics of red
blood cells under the influence of diseases such as malaria. In 2006,
Technology Review magazine selected Suresh's work on nanobiomechanics
as one of the top 10 emerging technologies that ``will have a
significant impact on business, medicine or culture.''
Holding true to his personal ideals, Suresh successfully leveraged
his renowned research and leadership positions in academia to increase
the number of women and minority engineers. He personally mentored more
than 100 engineers and scientists in his research group. As department
head and dean of engineering, he also led a successful campaign to
increase the number of women among MIT's engineering faculty ranks.
The Padma Shri Award (2011) from the President of India, Indian
Science Congress General President's Award (2011), Society of
Engineering Science Eringen Medal (2008), European Materials Medal
(2007) and Acta Materialia Gold Medal (2006) are among the many
prestigious awards Suresh has received for his innovative research and
commitment to improving engineering education around the world. He
holds honorary doctorate degrees from Sweden's Royal Institute of
Technology and Spain's Polytechnic University of Madrid. He has been
elected a fellow or honorary fellow of all the major materials
societies in the United States and India, including the American
Society of Materials International, Materials Research Society,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Ceramic Society, the
Indian Institute of Metals and the Materials Research Society of India.
Suresh has authored more than 230 research articles in
international journals and is a co-inventor in more than 18 U.S. and
international patent applications. He is author or co-author of several
books that are widely used in materials science and engineering,
including Fatigue of Materials and Thin Film Materials. He has
consulted with more than 20 international corporations and research
laboratories and served as a member of several international advisory
panels and non-profit groups.Suresh has been elected to the U.S.
National Academy of Engineering, American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences, German National Academy of Sciences,
Academy of Sciences of the Developing World, Indian National Academy of
Engineering and Indian Academy of Sciences.
He earned his bachelor's degree from the Indian Institute of
Technology in Madras in 1977; his master's from Iowa State University
in 1979; and his doctorate from MIT in 1981. Suresh married his wife,
Mary, in 1986, and they have two children, Nina and Meera.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Dr. Suresh. I now recognize Dr.
Bowen to present his testimony. Dr. Bowen.
STATEMENT OF RAY BOWEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Bowen. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today in support of the National Science
Foundation budget request for Fiscal Year 2012. I am Ray Bowen,
Chairman of the National Science Board and President Emeritus
of Texas A&M University. I am especially pleased to appear
before you today with our new NSF Director, Dr. Subra Suresh.
On behalf of the entire National Science Board, I would
like to thank the Members of the Committee for the longstanding
commitment in support of NSF and its investments and a broad
portfolio research and education in science technology,
engineering and mathematics, known to us as STEM.
NSF is a primary source of funding for academic basic
research across non-biomedical science and engineering
disciplines. During its 60-year plus history, NSF's broad
portfolio of investments has underwritten a wealth of research
and have directly and indirectly benefited the American economy
and general public.
I would like to briefly touch on one what we think is the
best known example of this feature. It is the development of
the Internet. On the first Internet, the interconnection of
unrelated networks was established by DARPA in 1977. NSF
investments over the next decade lead to a system of networks
managed by a mix of universities, nonprofit organizations, and
governmental agencies. By the mid 1980s, primary financial
support for the Internet had been assumed by NSF, and the
increasing demand for advanced networking and research
computing capabilities was met by what we call NSF Net.
By 1991, the NSF Net acceptable use policy was modified. It
was modified to allow commercial traffic, and as the private
commercial market grew, NSF decommissioned NSF Net. This was in
1995, allowing for public use of the Internet. Regional,
national and international computer networks became widely
accessible because companies began publicly offering gateway
service.
This is just one example of many positive economic impacts
flowing for NSF investments over the years. Due to its strong
track record that the Board urges your strong support for the
agency's FY 2012 budget request.
The NSF budget request reflects an understanding of
investments of science and technology that are critical to
building America's future. This requesting knowledge is the
importance of science and technology to America's long-term
economic growth.
One specific area I would like to mention is the
Foundation's Agency Operations and Award Management accounts,
so-called AOAM account. This account provides the framework
through which the foundation of science and engineering
research and education programs are administered. The agency
operation award management funding covers NSF's scientific,
professional, and administrative workforce, the physical and
technological infrastructure and the essential business
operations critical to providing a high quality of customer
service to the public.
With the AOAM account comprising only four percent of the
agency's budget request, NSF has achieved an impressive state
of administrative efficiency. The Fiscal Year 2012 request for
AOAM aims to ensure that the agency will remain a model
organization. The Board urges full funding of NSF's Operation
and Awards Management account.
I would like to describe, briefly describe, the Board's
role in the development of the agency's budget request. The
Board's Committee on Strategy and Budgets, the CSB committee,
has primary responsibility for working with the NSF during the
budget development phase, leading up to the Board's approval of
the budget submitted to OMB. CSB has several discussions both
by telephone and face-to-face meetings with the NSF national
budget development during the course of the year. These
discussions include priorities established by the
administration articulated in the Office of Management and
Budget and the Office of Scientific and Technology Policy
research and development memo, a memo which emphasizes
coordination across agencies of common goals in science and
engineering activities.
Programs and research areas of interest such as those
emphasized in reauthorization bills and those articulated in
congressionally mandated reports from the National Academy of
Sciences are also part of these deliberations. In addition,
there is a continual engagement of relevant STEM communities
across the Nation. Further involvement with the science and
engineering community includes NSF's advisory committee
meetings, which are held throughout the year.
These committees, constituted through the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, provides strong strategic input to each of the
agency's Directorates, especially with regard to envisioning
science at the horizon. The budget process and priority setting
are on the minds of these groups, which openly share the needs
of their respective communities.
Development of each year's budget request is somewhat a
unique process. It is very interactive. There is no set
formula. Considerations include the potential for impact, the
readiness of the community, and the ability of programs to
leverage activities with other resources.
In the end, we believe a continual assessment and
reassessment of priorities brings the best budget forward for
the Foundation and for the Nation. We understand that
investments in science and technology compete with a host of
other worthy priorities. While it might be tempting to forego
the long-term investment in the face of these near-term
challenges, neglecting scientific research and education now
may have serious consequences for the future of our country.
I respectfully ask that you bear in mind something that you
all realize, that investments in our scientific and
technological workforce, infrastructure and basic research are
critical for long-term prosperity and security. This critical
need for investment is best demonstrated in the recent report
of the National Academies, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,'' a report which received bipartisan acclaim.
On behalf of the National Science Board and the STEM
research and education communities, I would like to end by
again thanking the Members of the Committee for your long-term
recognition of the National Science Foundation and your
commitment to this agency. We look forward to our continuing
productive working relationship, and that completes my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bowen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ray M. Bowen
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in
support of the National Science Foundation's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2012. I am Ray Bowen, Chairman of the National Science Board
(Board) and President Emeritus of Texas A&M University. In 2002, I was
nominated to the Board by President Bush, confirmed by the Senate, and
then renominated and confirmed in 2008. I was elected Chairman of the
Board by my peers in May 2010. In my experience with the Board during
these past nine years, I have been consistently impressed with the
quality of research supported, the long reach of National Science
Foundation (NSF) activities, and by the dedication and expertise of the
agency's staff.
Introduction
On behalf of the entire Board, I would like to thank the Members of
this Committee for your long-standing commitment to support of the NSF
and its investments in a broad portfolio of research and education in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). NSF is the
primary source of funding for academic basic research across non-
biomedical science and engineering (S&E) disciplines. NSF funds
cutting-edge research at the frontiers of knowledge, and also supports
scientific facilities and activities in STEM education. During its 60-
year plus history, NSF's broad portfolio of investments have
underwritten a wealth of research that have directly and indirectly
benefited the American economy and the general public. In light of the
many achievements garnered from previous investments in S&E research,
the Board urges your strong support for the agency's fiscal year 2012
budget request.
The context for our fervent support for NSF's budget request may be
best appreciated within the context of the history of Federal support
for basic scientific research. During WWII, Dr. Vannevar Bush led the
Office of Scientific Research and Development, and with the strong
backing of President Roosevelt, he organized and provided Federal
funding for hundreds of research projects in university and industrial
laboratories to support the war-time effort. The success of this
endeavor precipitated a profound reassessment of the Federal role in
national research.
In 1945, Bush published Science-The Endless Frontier, which was a
treatise on the need for the Federal government to provide regular,
peace-time support for both basic research at universities and the
education of future scientists through a single new agency. Bush wrote:
``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the
flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific
talent of our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of
the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our
national security.'' Importantly, he noted that ``basic research is
essentially noncommercial in nature. It will not receive the attention
it requires if left to industry.'' The Bush vision encouraged the
mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were
deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions.
Five years later, in 1950, the National Science Foundation was
created. Federal support for science research was encouraged, and with
it, unprecedented innovation in the scientific and technological
arenas. Due in large part to NSF's support for S&E research and
education, our research universities have become the envy of the world.
The application of new knowledge and human capital development in STEM
fields resulting from this Federal/academic partnership has indeed
created handsome benefits for all Americans. These long-term and often
uncertain investments in S&E research and education over a half-century
have provided extraordinary dividends for successive generations of our
citizens.
In the presence of global competition, our Nation should be strong
in all facets of technical innovation and should have available a
continuously renewed base of knowledge to inform its decisions and
those of its citizens. In order to prosper over the long term, a nation
requires several essential building blocks of innovation, including a
robust high-tech industry, a well-educated scientific talent base, and
a vigorous research community.
Although the Board is very cognizant of the current Federal fiscal
constraints that our Nation faces, we are also certain that the unique
and long-term value of NSF programs in science and engineering research
and education foster the bedrock of our future economic health. This
long-term value is the basis of the Board's support for the
Foundation's FY 2012 Budget Request.
Concern about U.S. Leadership in S&E
A recurring concern of the Board is the potential loss of U.S.
global leadership across the science and engineering spectrum. As many
other countries invest heavily in science and engineering research,
graduate a record number of scientists and engineers, and increase
incentives to attract outstanding international students and scholars,
it would be unwise for the U.S. to neglect our science and engineering
enterprise.
The United States has long been a leading center of science,
technology, and innovation, but we now face challenges as a result of
growing capacity in science and technology (S&T) across the globe.
Economists increasingly emphasize the central role of knowledge,
particularly R&D and other activities to promote science and
technology, in a country's economic success. But as recent indicators
show us, in our biennial statistical report, Science and Engineering
Indicators 2010 (SEI 2010), many countries and economies have taken
steps to open their markets to trade and foreign investment, develop or
recast their S&T infrastructures, stimulate industrial research and
development (R&D), expand their higher education systems, and build
indigenous R&D capabilities. In short, they are developing strategic
plans and policy frameworks for increasing S&T capacity, and investing
in the requisite infrastructure and workforce to achieve their
objectives.
The current status of the Nation's economy makes it imperative that
we do not lose ground in the global S&E race. While the United States
still leads the world in R&D investments, other countries have
continued to increase R&D expenditures at an expanding rate. For
example, between 1996 and 2007, China increased its R&D expenditures at
a 20 percent annual growth rate. Increased global R&D activity should
by no means be viewed as negative. It leads to a dynamic global system
of exchange of scientific knowledge and collaboration among diverse
researchers, and provides opportunities to build shared international
facilities. However, the United States must view increased global
capacity in S&T as a call to sustained action to continue robust
investments in science and technology.
One of the key returns on investment in science and engineering is
the creation of new jobs. The S&E workforce has shown sustained growth
for over half a century, and growth is projected to continue into the
future. The number of workers in S&E occupations grew from about
182,000 in 1950 to 5.5 million in 2007. This represents an average
annual growth rate of 6.2%, nearly 4 times the growth rate for the
total workforce.
If innovation in the form of new technologies, goods and services
are imported from other countries, our national competitiveness will be
affected. The distribution of R&D funds by the U.S. is a direct
reflection of our dedication to lead the world in S&E, and it provides
insight into the Nation's broad mission priorities. Outcomes and
benefits of R&D depend heavily on the total resources devoted to it.
Board Role in Development of the NSF FY 2012 Budget Request
The NSF budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 reflects a clear
understanding that investments in science and technology are critical
investments that will build America's future. This request acknowledges
the critical nature of science and technology to America's long-term
economic growth. Federal support for research and education across S&E
fields is of special importance in uncertain economic times, especially
when private firms are hesitant to invest in long-term research and
development projects.
For the past 60 years, the National Science Foundation has played a
central role in innovation by catalyzing the development of fundamental
ideas across the frontiers of science and engineering knowledge and
supporting the people who generate them. As the only federal agency
dedicated to the support of basic research and education in all fields
of science and engineering, NSF is positioned to strategically
stimulate innovative research that connects the science and engineering
enterprise with potential economic, societal, and educational benefits.
NSF's high-risk, potentially transformative investments will continue
to lead the way for the important discoveries, the education of the
future science and engineering innovators, and cutting-edge
technologies that will help keep our Nation globally competitive,
prosperous, and secure.
The Board is intimately engaged with the development of the
agency's initiatives featured in its budget request. The Board,
primarily through its Committee on Strategy and Budget, with NSF senior
leadership participates in the development of the budget from the
initial planning stage for the next budget through informal
discussions, numerous teleconferences, and final approval of the
submission to OMB. In working with the agency on determining
priorities, we take into account the priorities of the Administration
and Congress. We also bring our experience with the needs and readiness
of the Nation's science and engineering community as a whole. NSF FY
2012 Budget Request
The Board supports the FY 2012 Budget Request in its entirety. We
are especially supportive of those programs that reach across
disciplines to bring fresh approaches from differing perspectives to
tackle some of the greatest challenges of our time. Throughout its
history of developing successful collaborations with researchers in
many disciplines, NSF is in the best position to bring together the
science community to address seemingly intractable problems or
controversial ideas at the frontiers of knowledge. The details of these
efforts are best left to Dr. Suresh and the agency's senior management
to describe.
For the budget request before you today, one specific area I would
like to focus on is the Foundation's Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM) account.
The AOAM account provides the fundamental framework through which
the Foundation's science and engineering research and education
programs are administered. AOAM funding covers NSF's scientific,
professional, and administrative workforce; the physical and
technological infrastructure necessary for a productive, safe and
secure work environment; and the essential business operations critical
to managing NSF's administrative processes and providing high-quality
customer service to the public.
The quality of the merit review process greatly depends upon NSF
professional staff with the necessary expertise, within and across
disciplines, to select and recruit superior reviewers and panelists,
and the outstanding administrative staff to support them. The need for
first-class scientific review is very high as just in the last year,
NSF staff directed reviews of over 55,000 proposals. Each was
thoroughly examined to ensure only the highest quality research would
be supported. To sustain this excellence in merit review, the Board
urges full funding for NSF's AOAM account.
For the National Science Board Office, the Board requests $4.84
million, an increase of $340,000, or 6.6 percent, for FY 2012. This
proposed increase will allow the Board to continue to strengthen its
national and NSF policy role and in oversight for NSF.
NSB Oversight Role
When Congress established the National Science Foundation in 1950,
it defined dual responsibilities for the National Science Board. First,
the Board was to oversee the activities of, and establish the policies
for, the National Science Foundation. Second, the Board was to serve as
an advisory body to the President and Congress on national policy
issues related to science and engineering and education in science and
engineering. For today's testimony, I'd like to focus on our first
responsibility, that of oversight of NSF.
Merit Review
As you all know, NSF-funded research and education projects are
selected through competitive, merit-based review. This is often cited
as the `gold standard' for funding research, and is emulated by many
countries as they develop and enhance their own scientific research
efforts. Expert panels rely on two criteria to evaluate proposals:
intellectual merit and broader impacts. Every year, the Board reviews
the outcomes of the agency's merit review process. In the latest report
(for FY 2009), NSF made nearly 10,000 awards with Omnibus funding. An
additional 4,620 awards were supported with the $3 billion of American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. With the ARRA funding,
NSF reached a 32 percent funding rate in FY 2009, significantly
exceeding the 25 percent funding rate in the previous year.
A large number of meritorious proposals are declined each year.
Every year, NSF must decline highly rated scientific proposals due to
budget limitations. For FY 2009, approximately $1.3 billion in added
funding could have supported the many proposals that merited awards.
This represents a substantial lost opportunity in terms of both
innovation and job creation.
MREFC
The National Science Board has statutory responsibility for the
oversight of activities funded from the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. These are high profile, high
cost activities that are unique, meaning that they must often be
designed and developed without a template. In my time on the Board, the
agency has made great strides in overseeing both the design and
construction of these critical facilities. It is a substantial
challenge to prioritize and manage MREFCs, and the Board invests
substantial efforts to review scientific needs, construction costs, and
operations and maintenance costs in the MREFC process. (URL for the
process or attach the document)
Future operating costs for facilities are considered when the Board
decides whether to approve construction of a new facility under the
MREFC account. Projects are repeatedly assessed throughout the planning
and construction period to ensure accurate awareness of projected
operating costs. Beginning with the NSF FY 2009 budget request, the NSF
Director instituted a ``no cost overrun'' policy requiring that the
project cost estimate include adequate contingency funds to cover all
foreseeable risks, and that any cost increases not covered by
contingency be accommodated by scope reduction. Since implementing the
policy for new facilities, NSF has been successful at staying within
cost and schedule plans.
In FY 2012, NSF will continue construction of five MREFC account
projects: Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory
(AdvLIGO), the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), the Atacama
Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). All five MREFC
projects in the 2012 Request have been reviewed and recommended for
funding by the Board. The Board continues to work with agency senior
management to improve the process for selecting and managing the MREFC
account.
NSF Strategic Plan for FY 2011-FY 2016
NSF senior management worked closely with the Board in developing
its new strategic plan. The plan, ``Empowering the Nation through
Discovery and Innovation,'' establishes an overarching vision for NSF's
role in the Nation's innovation enterprise, challenging the agency to
set its sights high. The three major goals outlined in the strategic
plan emphasize the unique role of the agency. The first goal, Transform
the Frontiers, embraces support for the fundamental, interdisciplinary,
high-risk, and transformative research and education that NSF has
pioneered. The second goal, Innovate for Society, links the results of
fundamental research to national and global policy areas where science
and engineering play a significant role. The final goal, Perform as a
Model Organization, sets high standards for attaining excellence in
operational activities, promotes a culture of integrity and
accountability, and encourages new approaches to assessment and
evaluation of NSF's investment portfolio.
The America COMPETES Act
The 2007 reauthorization of NSF, commonly referred to as the
America COMPETES Act, recognized the critical role the agency plays in
maintaining the Nation at the forefront of research. With COMPETES,
Congress recognized that the Federal Government must increase its
investment in basic research and in science and math education, stating
as the purpose of the Act ``to invest in innovation through research
and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States
and for other purposes.'' On behalf of the National Science Board, I
want to reiterate the key role that science advancement plays in
furthering the Nation's economic base. The Board intends to continue
its oversight of NSF awards to ensure the national treasure is invested
productively.
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 requires the Board
to report to Congress on the mid-scale instrumentation needs of the
science and engineering communities. The Subcommittee on Facilities is
in the process of collecting background data and consulting with
experts throughout the Nation's science and engineering community about
future instrumentation needs. The report is due in January 2012, and
NSB expects to submit its final report by that time.
ARRA
The National Science Board has taken particular interest in
overseeing the $3 billion provided to the agency in the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, stimulus). The stimulus funding
represented nearly 50 percent of the agency's annual budget, and the
Board, acting in its oversight capacity for the agency, endeavored to
ensure the additional funds were well spent.
NSF management set up an overall framework for ARRA investments
which emphasized sustainability and innovation. Management determined
that grants would be allocated with varying durations. This would allow
the agency to structure a sustainable portfolio with requests for
renewal of projects staggered through the years. To encourage
innovation, NSF management prioritized the funding of new principal
investigators and funding of high-risk, high-return research. Because
NSF has a large number of highly rated proposals that it is unable to
fund, the agency used the majority of the funding to support those
meritorious proposals which had already had been submitted, reviewed,
and found to be deserving of funding, though available funds were
insufficient to support them until ARRA funds were made available.
For every Board meeting since ARRA was enacted, NSF has provided
detailed updates on its disposition of this special category of
funding. NSF skillfully managed this new responsibility, making timely
awards in concert with the law's requirements. Funds had to be
distributed quickly to meet the intent of the stimulus, and NSF was one
of the most successful agencies in meeting this goal. In addition,
stringent reporting requirements from the awardees was another mandate
of the stimulus, and NSF, working closely with the community, developed
a robust reporting process that has seen more than 99 percent of
awardees submit their results on time.
Closing remarks
As our Nation recovers from economic recession, investments in
science and engineering research and education are ever more critical
to laying the long-term foundation for S&T-based innovation that drives
the creation of new jobs and industries. The economic growth and the
quality of life that we enjoyed in the 20th century were made possible
in large part by scientific discoveries and technological innovations.
Continued economic prosperity will require continued Federal
investments in science and engineering research and education.
Investments in science and technology compete with a host of other
funding priorities. Though it might be tempting to forego the long-term
investments in the face of short-term challenges, neglecting scientific
research and education now will have serious consequences for the
future of our country. As other countries now actively seek to emulate
our success by building their own innovation infrastructures, we must
be ever vigilant to enhance our own innovative capacity.
This is a difficult time for Federal budgets for S&E research and
education and the institutions and individuals in the nonprofit and
public sectors that rely on Federal support. The Federal government has
sustained a continual, visionary investment in the U.S. research and
education enterprise in the expectation that such investment would
benefit all Americans. That Federal effort has expanded the horizon of
science and engineering discovery and achievements far and wide,
leading to the realization of enormous benefits to our Nation.
In recognition of our current Federal fiscal realities, the
National Science Board will ensure that NSF sets priorities, makes hard
programmatic budget decisions and, as a result, obtains the greatest
benefit from the funds provided. However, even in a time of budget
constraints, as a Nation we cannot ignore our growing dependence as a
society on innovation for economic prosperity and the ever-improving
quality of life Americans have come to expect. The Federal compact in
research and education with the nonprofit sectors is an essential
pillar of our Nation's global dominance in S&T.
On behalf of the National Science Board and the S&E research and
education communities, I would like to thank the Members of the
Committee for your long-term recognition of and commitment to support
for the National Science Foundation. We look forward to continuing our
productive working relationship with you in service to the Nation.
Biography for Dr. Ray M. Bowen
Ray M. Bowen was born in Fort Worth, Texas, and earned his B.S. in
mechanical engineering at Texas A&M University. After receiving his
M.S. at the California Institute of Technology, he returned to Texas
A&M for his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. From 1994 to 2002, he
served as president of Texas A&M and is currently president emeritus
with a faculty appointment in mechanical engineering. His research
interest is in nonlinear continuum mechanics. He teaches in the
Department of Mathematics as well as in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at Texas A&M.
Under Bowen's leadership, Texas A&M was admitted to the Association
of American Universities, expanded and enhanced numerous academic
programs, and successfully completed a major capital campaign. Bowen
has been instrumental in the creation of Vision 2020, an effort to
propel the institution into the ranks of the country's top ten public
universities by the year 2020.
Before assuming the presidency of Texas A&M, Bowen served for a
year as interim president of Oklahoma State University. He joined the
administration of Oklahoma State in 1991 as provost and vice president
for academic affairs. His earlier academic appointments included Dean
of the College of Engineering, Director of the Center for robotics and
Manufacturing Systems, and Director of the Center for Applied Energy
Research at the University of Kentucky (1983-1989); faculty member in
the Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences Department, Rice
University (1967-1983); and member of the engineering mechanics faculty
at Louisiana State University (1965-1967).
Bowen held two managerial positions at the National Science
Foundation. In 1982-1983, he served as Director of the Division of
Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, and in 1990-1991, he was
Deputy Assistant Director and Acting Assistant Director for
Engineering. He is a member of several professional societies and has
authored or coauthored numerous professional articles and books.
Bowen was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002 and
reappointed in 2008. He was elected Chairman in 2010.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Dr. Bowen and Dr. Suresh, for
your testimony, and once again, I will remind all of us that
the committee rules limit us to five minutes, and we have two
distinguished panels before us today. I will open by
recognizing myself for 4 minutes and 59 seconds.
Dr. Suresh and Dr. Bowen, I will ask both of you this
question. NSF received $3 billion in stimulus or American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. Could you please give us
an update on the NSF investment, particularly how many jobs
were created? Has all the money been spent? If not, why not?
And if so, were any significant scientific breakthroughs
realized, or is it still too early to tell? You can't hardly
answer that with a yes or no, so we will start out with how
many jobs were created if you have that information.
Dr. Suresh. Mr. Chairman, NSF last year received 55,000
proposals, of which we funded 13,000. NSF receives far more
outstanding proposals than we are able to fund in the
community. When the ARRA funding became available to the tune
of $3 billion a few years ago, we were able to very quickly
allocate those funds to truly outstanding proposals that were
peer reviewed based on our very well-established criteria. So
with respect to your question, all of the funding has been very
efficiently allocated to the community.
NSF takes a long-term view on basic research, even though
oftentimes we have many short-term benefits. The funds that we
have allocated have only been out there for one to two years,
so it will be too early and somewhat premature for us to assess
how many jobs have been created.
But let me just point to one reason, a set of data, that
addresses your question. NSF was a pioneer in the new creation
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative that came into
existence in 1999. In just 11 years, NSF-funded centers,
created 175 startups that involved 1,200 companies around the
country, involving thousands of jobs. So based on that and
based on other data that we know from the past, it is our every
expectation that this investment in scientific discovery will
lead to substantial payoffs in the mid-term and the long-term
for the country.
Chairman Hall. Do you agree with the $3 billion that you
received, has all the money been spent?
Dr. Suresh. All the money has been committed.
Chairman Hall. Or committed.
Dr. Suresh. Yes.
Chairman Hall. Yeah, okay. And, Dr. Bowen, would that be
your answer too probably pretty close?
Mr. Bowen. Yes, sir, all the money has been committed. We
are quite proud of the Foundation and staff for the effective
way they have utilized this money, and I think the long-term
payoffs will be something we will celebrate before this
Committee sometime in the future.
Chairman Hall. On the grants, Dr. Suresh, were they new
jobs, or were they additional funding for existing jobs?
Dr. Suresh. So the 13,000--every year we--our typical grant
goes for about three years or so. So typically one-third of the
funding that we have goes for new funding, and the typical
grant size is about $150,000 per year, and it goes for three
years. So we have a process whereby we not only review
proposals every year, but we also look at how funded proposals
perform. We have annual reviews, grantee conferences when we
periodically ask the performance of the grantee.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. And do either of you have any
significant scientific breakthroughs realized, or is it too
early to tell, or do you either care to comment on that?
Dr. Suresh. Well, we have lots and lots of scientific
discoveries that evolve every year. Just--I can go back to the
long-term one, and I can tell you the short-term one. Our
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate funded
research on communities networking for the benefit of
interactions with respect to resources, natural resources that
are available through Dr. Elinor Ostrom, from the University of
Indiana, and that led to a Nobel Prize in 2009. We have
discoveries in nanotechnology all across the foundation,
especially in engineering, math, and physical sciences, and the
computer and information sciences and engineering that are
revolutionizing computer industry and creating new jobs.
Chairman Hall. Okay, thank you very much. My time is up. At
this time, I recognize Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Suresh,
in December Congress reauthorized and passed the America
COMPETES, and I know that it has been quite recent. Three years
ago, of course, we passed the first America COMPETES, and it
really was in direct response to ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm.'' We realize we are in the midst of the storm now.
But can you give us any update yet on whether or not it has
had any impact?
Dr. Suresh. I think that it has galvanized the community
and brought to focus the pressures that are on us, not only
with respect to the continued need to support science and
engineering in the country, but the increasing global
competition for science and engineering, for innovation, and
for the workforce.
One example that I can give with a lot of data points and
personal experience is when I came to the United States in
1977, there was no question for me, as a young 21-year-old
engineering graduate, as to where I wanted to go in the world.
And I came here, as did many of my colleagues, fellow
graduates. Today there is competition from all over the world,
and I think if--and that competition is increasing. It is
increasing significantly. Other countries with a large
population are investing hugely into science and engineering
and scientific infrastructure.
And therefore I think--and that is why the second report
put out by the National Academies is entitled Category Five--
even though there has been a significant impact of the first
report, there is continued belief in the community that we are
reaching a crisis stage still, even with the investment. And
therefore we cannot take the eye off the ball.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Women continue to go down in their
numbers in entering these fields, and I did put an amendment on
the original bill before it went to the Senate that contained a
study to involve more women. I have now introduced it as an
independent bill as I have done before, but are there efforts
going on to attempt to increase women's and even minority and
handicapped participation? Because we need all we can get, and
we are not seeing that much of an increase.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you for asking this question. As you
know, Ms. Johnson, when you and I met recently, this is a topic
that is not only of great importance to NSF and has been a
topic that NSF has played a leading role over the last decade
or so. I have a personal commitment to this topic. Let me give
you some brief remarks related to your point. With respect to
women in the engineering workforce, NSF supports it in many
different ways.
We introduced an ADVANCE program some years ago, which is
having a huge impact in the community. Our support for graduate
research fellowships has gone up. Forty percent of the graduate
research fellows last year are women graduates. We have some
encouraging news with respect to women coming into the
workforce. For example, the most recent year for which we have
data, 2009, 72 percent of the valedictorians in American high
schools were girls, and their fraction is increasing. In 2009,
20 percent more women graduated from college than men did, and
that difference is increasing.
In the last 20 years in the United States, there was a ten
percent increase in the number of Ph.D.s given to science and
engineering graduates. That entire ten percent increase was
because of women receiving Ph.D.s in science and engineering.
So this is all good news with respect to women in the
workforce. And NSF supports women through a CAREER award, and
this year in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, we have a request for
an increase of 60 percent or about a little more than 10
percent--60 CAREER awards or a little more than ten percent for
supporting all candidates, including women candidates.
But here is the problem. The retention of these women in
the workforce has been an issue. The most recent year for which
we have data is 2006, and women comprise only 26 percent of the
STEM workforce, so there is a lot that needs to be done with
respect to retention even though their entry into the process
has seen some very good news. And this is something that we
have discussed internally. There are a number of mechanisms
that we will introduce using existing programs that will go in
the right direction.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is about up, but
it appears to me that we are still attempting to be where we
are supposed to be with only 50 percent of our brain power.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. On behalf of Dr.
Brown here and the other male Members of this, could I have a
copy of your amendment? You said 70 percent increase? Will you
give me a copy to introduce.
Ms. Johnson. Okay.
Chairman Hall. Alright, thank you. Alright, at this time, I
recognize Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Let me just--thank
you everybody in your organization. Your--the work you do is so
important for our country, and perhaps that is one of the
reasons why we have to pay attention to make sure the money is
being channeled in the right direction. We are talking about
$7.8 billion budget. Is that correct? And that represents a 13
percent increase over last year's budget.
Dr. Suresh. Over the 2010 enacted level.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, is the $3 billion stimulus, that is
13 percent over and above the $3 billion in stimulus or not? Is
that included in this?
Dr. Suresh. No, the stimulus funding has expired. It has
already been committed. It is a one-time funding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Suresh. The $3 billion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Dr. Suresh. So that is not in this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you went through $3 billion within a
year or 18 months in terms of committing it when your usual
budget would be $7.8 billion? Is that correct?
Dr. Suresh. That is correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, so you would suggest to us that a $3
billion increase in your spending level that you are capable,
that you guys are capable of actually expanding that much? I
mean that is a dramatic expansion of spending in a one-year or
two-year period. And you are able to do that and put the
taxpayers' money to good use?
Dr. Suresh. Well, that is an excellent question, Mr.
Rohrabacher, and I cannot only claim that we are capable of
spending it. We have demonstrated that we are capable of
spending it, but for the following reason. We funded between 10
and 12 percent of the actual number of proposals that come to
us. We fund only a small fraction of the outstanding proposals
that are out there from the community.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So what you obviously did then was take
the proposals that had been rejected when you had less money
and had to make a more, let us say, fine-tuned decision as to
where that money was going to go. And you have received more
money, and you were just able to use those things that had been
rejected in the years before because you didn't have all the
money?
Dr. Suresh. Not all of the funding, if I may add a point.
We also funded a variety of programs because of the
availability of money that we could not have funded----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right, well I am just suggesting that when
you had to prioritize, you didn't fund certain things that as
soon as we gave you the stimulus money, they were funded. Let
me ask you about one specific item here and what this
represents. I noticed that there has been a $171,000 grant to a
New York theater company for a climate change play. Now, if we
were talking to the National Endowment for the Arts, maybe this
would be a different level of discussion. What is your
organization doing financing plays, theater plays?
Dr. Suresh. So I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Especially ones that are aimed at
basically presenting a point of view on a vision of climate
change, which should be very serious rather than
propagandistic.
Dr. Suresh. So let me add a few points. I have not seen the
play, so I don't know the contents of this in the interest of
full disclosure. NSF not only engages in funding science, but
also in engaging science for the public, disseminating the
information from science to the public. That is point one.
The second point is NSF does not engage in advocacy. We
don't--we just present the facts. We just present the
scientific data. The community makes up its mind on that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me note that. The description of this
play, certainly it is an advocacy play, and I would suggest you
take a very close look at that and do not repeat that and come
back to us to expect to take your opinion seriously if you are
funding this type of nonsense. And the bottom line is that we--
yeah, it is science for the public. That could well be said
that, yeah, we are going to propagandize people on points of
view if we get into controversial areas.
Your job, and what you have done well and what we all
applaud, is when you are expanding the horizon of scientific
knowledge in this country so that it can be utilized to uplift
humankind, we don't necessarily need a leader of discussion
among the public on various issues, whether they deal with
morality or whether they deal with climate change. So with that
said, I would hope that you pay a little more attention to
things like this so that we don't have to bring it up to you in
hearings next year when you come before us.
Because I know you will have done--nine out of ten things
you are doing this year will be wonderful and that we can
support. And unfortunately at the hearings, quite often we are
only looking at those things where we disagree. So let me
just--I am not trying to ignore the good things, but we have to
bring up these things as well.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Lofgren, the young lady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to the two of you for being here today to testify to us,
but beyond that, your service to our country at the NSF. It is
outstanding, and it is appreciated.
You know I come from Silicon Valley, and we know that when
times are tough, it is time to double down on science funding,
and that is a broadly supported proposition in the valley, not
only among scientists, but you can go out among working people
who understand that prosperity is very much tied to what we do
in science and innovation. So I am interested, Dr. Bowen, in
your take on the C.R. H.R. 1 that was recently passed and we
are still trying to come to grips with the ongoing funding.
I received a letter from research universities in
California, the California Institute of Technology and Stanford
University in my neck of the woods, University of California,
University of Southern California, and what these research
universities said to me in the letter was that the cuts of 5.2
percent below the 2010 level for NSF would result in far fewer
grants to scientists and limit the basic research in fields
such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and applied
physics, which drive many of the cutting edge discoveries that
power our innovation economy.
Now, you are the president Texas A&M. I mean do you agree
with that assessment? What can you tell us about the impact
those reductions would have on our economy if they were
sustained across the budget years?
Dr. Bowen. Well, truth in advertising. I am the former
president. Their current president works much harder than I do
these days. I subscribe to the content of the message you
received. The dilemma that we have always is that we deal with
long-term horizons. We support very fundamental research that
the benefits will be seen somewhere downstream. A year from
now, we probably could not identify a huge loss, a huge
setback, but a few years later, we would feel the hurt. You
categorize the categories of stresses that produces at the
universities.
Another one is young people. Young people beginning their
careers in STEM areas that plan to spend their lifetime
educating and conducting scholarly research would not have the
opportunity to have that small grant from the National Science
Foundation to start their career. There will be impacts. We are
concerned about it, but we also understand the huge pressures
that are on our nation at this time to address all of these
problems.
But within the isolated area that I live and the areas of
my concern, you characterize the same concerns that we have.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Suresh, I wonder if it is fair to ask you
that same question. We had a reduction, and, yes, I mean we
have a budget problem, and we need to deal with that. I don't
think there is any disagreement from anybody on this panel. The
question is how to do it, and one of the big fighters of
deficit is prosperity. So the concern I have is if you unwisely
reduce investments in science and education, you are killing
your future prosperity.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you for the opportunity to respond, Ms.
Lofgren. Let me just give you what the impact would be, the
impact, compared to the Fiscal Year 2011 request. There will be
1,800 fewer awards and 20,300 fewer people will be supported if
this level is passed. If you compare it to the 2010 enacted
level, there will be 500 fewer awards and 5,500 fewer people
will be supported because of this.
In the area of STEM education, which was referred to
earlier, the impact will be 5,000 fewer people with respect to
the 2011 request, and 4,400 fewer people compared to the 2010
request.
Ms. Lofgren. I don't know if there is time to quickly get
into the Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law, but can
you tell us anything very quickly about what that is going to
do?
Dr. Suresh. It is a very important topic. For truth in
advertising, I have spent a lot of time in your neck of the
woods, and at one time, I was fortunate enough to hold chair at
Cal Tech, so I personally know Mr. Moore whose----
Ms. Lofgren. So do I.
Dr. Suresh. --which is named after him is expected to come
to an end in this decade. One of the things that research
funding that NSF funds, with respect to Science and Engineering
Beyond Moore's Law, is to look into new ways of doing
computing, new ways of creating computational engines, whether
it is handheld or computers and computer chips that could
inform new technologies.
For example, there is a new material for which the Nobel
Prize was given in physics last year called graphene, and
helping to engage graphene into the manufacture of a computer
chip. And when we look at nanoelectronics, which the Chairman
referred to earlier, as the dimensions in a computer chip,
which is about the size of a thumbnail, we have tiny copper
wires.
They carry current of magnitude more than the current
density that is carried by the electrical wiring in this room.
If we send the same amount of current here, this building will
burn down in no time. The computer chips are so efficient. And
one of the things that the science and engineering beyond
Moore's Law talks about is how do we manage the heat that is
generated by computers while increasing their speed and
increasing their efficiency.
There are a number of other things. Single molecule
computing and so forth.
Ms. Lofgren. I can see my time is up, and the Chairman has
been very kind to indulge the answer, so I will have to follow
up with you further. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Chairman Hall. Thank you very much. Chair at this time
recognizes Dr. Bartlett, gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. I was just wondering how our
metric was going. As I was sitting here, I was thinking about
the confusing set of weights and measurements we have. I
remember one of my favorite teachers was Dr. Moses Warton Young
from Howard Medical School. And when the medical students came
in, he wanted to know where he needed to begin in teaching
them. So he said he was going to begin with a nursery rhyme to
see how they did.
There was a crooked man who walked a crooked mile and found
a crooked style--crooked sixpence beside a crooked style. So he
I want to know three things. What is a six-pence? What is a
mile? And what is a style? And almost none of the students knew
what a six-pence, a mile, and a style were. So now he said he
knew where to start. You need to start at kindergarten with
them.
We do indeed have a confusing set of measurements, don't
we? Temperature, it freezes at 32 and boils at 212. If it was
the Centigrade scale, it is zero and 100. It makes a lot of
sense, doesn't it?
In surveying, we still use rods and chains and perches.
When you buy farm fence, you buy it in a 20-rod roll, which is
330 feet. If you buy fence for your lawn, you buy it in a 50-
foot roll or a 100-foot roll. We measure the depth of water by
fathoms. Sixteen ounces to a pound, but not all ounces are
equal. You have different kinds of ounces. Two thousand pounds
to a ton but not all tons are equal. You have short tons, and
you have long tons. In length, we have inches, but they are not
divided decimally. They are divided by quarters and eighths and
sixteenths and thirty-seconds and so forth. And we have 12
inches to a foot and three feet to a yard.
Because I buy things from other countries, I have two
complete sets of tools to handle the metric things and those
that are made in our country. When it comes to weight, when I
was a researcher, I knew the weight of my rats. They were in
grams, and a really big one was a kilogram. That is a big rat.
I never thought of my weight in kilograms. I always thought of
my weight in pounds. So I lived in two different worlds in
thinking about weight.
Grams and liters and so simple. It is a milligram and it is
a kilogram, and it is a centimeter, and it is a kilometer. And
you can go both ways, and all you do is move the decimal. In
thinking about surface measurements, we have acres, and I had
forgotten what an acre was, but I knew that there were 640
acres in a square mile. And I thought I remember a mile was
5,280 feet. So I divided--so I multiplied. I squared 5,280
feet. I got 27,878,400. I divided it by 640, and my acre is
43,560 feet if I did the math right. Is that what an acre is?
Gee we really do have a confusing set of weights and
measurements, don't we?
That has to be a real burden on our economy. It really
costs us a lot of extra money to do these things. How are we
coming at moving metric? You know we buy things in meters, and
my car has--I can now look. I have a Prius, and I punch the
wrong thing, I am really speeding. I am going in kilometers
rather than in miles per hour.
How are we coming in moving metric, which we really need to
do, don't we?
Dr. Suresh. Mr. Bartlett, by having switched at age 21
overnight from the metric system to the English system, I feel
the pain. With respect to the weights that you mention, pounds
versus kilograms, personally I always use kilogram because it
is 2.2 times smaller than the pounds. So I look lighter when I
measure that.
Mr. Bartlett. That is true.
Dr. Suresh. But to your question, the National Institutes
of Standard and Technology is the primary organization that is
interested with weights and measures and standards for the
country. I am sure Pat Gallagher, when he testifies, will
respond to that question. But NSF does basic research, and as a
graduate student here, I did all my homework problems in both
the metric system and the English system.
Mr. Bartlett. It just has to be a pretty big burden on our
economy. Just the two sets of tools that every garage and every
homeowner has to have. That is costing us something, and there
are enormous confusions and inconsistencies and so forth.
It has been years now we have been trying to do this. What
do we need to do to the culture so that we can get there?
Dr. Suresh. I think it has to start with education early
on, and we need a national standard. And switching is not easy
overnight because you have to switch all the tools and the
costs associated with the change of the entire system. And I
think this is something that is in the direct domain of
National Institutes of Standards and Technology, rather than
the National Science Foundation.
Mr. Bartlett. I appreciate it.
Mr. Bowen. If I might add a comment. I will try to be
brief. I spent all of my time the last several years teaching
large, undergraduate engineering classes, and you and I are
approximately the same generation as I have struggled with the
same kind of issues that you have.
They don't seem to be concerned. They are very flexible.
They have their little calculators. They go online. All these
conversion factors are right at their fingertips. It is
frustrating how easily they deal with it, and I think long
term, your point is well taken. And the country needs to get
through this transition. But the young people that I have
interacted with are quite comfortable.
Chairman Hall. Okay, thank you. The gentleman's time is up.
Usually those of us on the committee here learn more when we
listen to Dr. Bartlett's questions as much as we do when we get
the answers. He is a great member.
At this time, I recognize Ms. Fudge for really and truly
five minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I always stay
within my time. Dr. Suresh, of particular interest to this
committee are the NOYCE Teacher Scholarship Program and the
Math and Science Partnerships, MSP Program, that we expanded
under the America COMPETES Act. Both of these programs have
demonstrated success, and both of these programs bring teachers
to high-need areas, such as my district in Cleveland, Ohio.
Rather than investing in these programs that work, the
budget request proposes decreasing funding for both NOYCE and
MSP by $10 million in order to start a new, $20 million teacher
quality program. How did NSF arrive at the decision to decrease
funding for these programs in order to fund a new teacher
training research initiative? And how would the new program
relate to NOYCE and MSP?
Dr. Suresh. Thank you for the question. As you said, the
NOYSE Program, teacher training program and MSP program have
been programs that have given us a lot of very good input and
feedback. They have been funded over a period of time. The main
reason, we have a long process that leads up to the budget
process. So informed by the information that we have and the
successful practices that have been developed from the NOYCE
program and the MSP program, we thought now would be an
opportunity to leverage the successes of these programs as
educational practices change to leverage them through the
Teacher Learning for the Future, which is the new program that
you referred to, so that we can assess the elected merits of
scholarship support versus teacher training support. And using
these two, what is the optimum way to move forward based on
evidence that we have gathered? So it doesn't in any way
indicate any reduction in a commitment on our part. All it
indicates is that we are, based on a lot of internal discussion
that has led up to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.
We are assessing the relative merits of this, and as you
said, it is the funds from those programs that will be used to
create the Teacher Learning for the Future.
Ms. Fudge. I would just suggest to you at this time of very
difficult budget cuts to try to start something new that is
unproven and not continue a program that is proven is a concern
to me.
My second question. Last fall, the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, released a report on
STEM education. One of the key recommendations of that report
was that the Federal Government should establish a mission-
driven R&D entity focused on the development of innovative
technologies in K-12 education.
In response to that report, the Department of Education
recently announced an ARPA-ED initiative, which would be funded
at $90 million for Fiscal Year 2012. NSF has long supported
research in this area, yet the proposed ARPA-ED initiative is
housed solely at the Department of Education. I am interested
in hearing how ARPA-ED will differ from current programs at NSF
and whether or not NSF is planning to have a role in this
effort.
Dr. Suresh. We would very much hope that NSF will have even
a greater role than the collaborations that we have already
with the Department of Education. We have had a long-standing
collaboration with the Department of Education. You mentioned
the Math and Science Partnership Program. We have also been
engaged with them on a number of initiatives. Following the
America COMPETES Act Reauthorization of December of 2010, we
have established the National Science and Technology Committee
on STEM education. I co-chair that committee along with the
OSTP Deputy Director Carl Weiman. And part of the mission of
the committee is to find greater ways in which NSF and the
Department of Education can work together.
The other area where there is a lot of opportunity for
collaboration with respect to potential ARPA-ED is in CTE,
something we call CTE, Cyberlearning Transforming Education.
This is a program where NSF brings in new tools with respect to
improving cyberinfrastructure, and we will increasingly engage
them, not just through the EHR directorate within NSF, but also
through every Directorate at NSF for potential collaborations
with the Department of Education.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Adams from
Florida.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up on
what Ms. Fudge asked you. You are doing away with some programs
and starting new programs at a time where it appears you are
taking the money and then some to create new programs where
they are new and unproven programs. So I just want to know how
do you explain the decision making process for the terminations
and reductions as well as the creation of the new programs. And
is it the scientific community driving these decisions, or is
it the Administration?
Dr. Suresh. That is an excellent question. NSF typically
follows a process that includes input from the peer community.
Whenever there is an issue, we have--we convene a panel of
experts. And the panel of experts from around the country,
these are the leaders in the field in the community that tell
us what is the best way to engage the community. We have, as
Dr. Bowen mentioned in his opening statement, we also have a
Committee of Visitors who inform us what to do. And then there
is a long internal process, so everything we do engages the
community very, very strongly.
Mrs. Adams. Dr. Bowen?
Dr. Bowen. Excuse me. I have nothing to add to his
comments.
Mrs. Adams. Okay, well in your opening statement, and I
just want to--you said the priorities established by the
administration. Are you still with that statement?
Dr. Bowen. Yes.
Mrs. Adams. So the priorities are set by the
Administration?
Dr. Bowen. It is one of a set of interactions we have.
Mrs. Adams. Okay, thank you. Scattered throughout the
Federal Government are entire federal budget requests--dramatic
increases in spending in clean technologies. At the Department
of Energy alone, there are enormous spending increases for
Clean Tech through ARPA-E and EERE, the Office of Science, the
Loan Guarantee Program, the Energy Innovation Hubs, to name
just a few. Similar programs are proposed throughout the
government including NSF, Science, Engineering, and Education
for Sustainability Portfolio, and it just goes on and on.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request is $998 million for
this effort. This is 51 percent increase over the Fiscal Year
2010 amount and reflects 13 percent of your entire budget.
Given what was just asked you earlier, given the questions
asked about the CR, wouldn't it be best to prioritize your
spending on things that may be, just may be are not spread
across other agencies?
Dr. Suresh. So let me just briefly mention two or three
factors. Unlike other agencies----
Mrs. Adams. Very briefly. I have another question.
Dr. Suresh. Unlike other agencies like Department of
Energy, including Department of Basic--Department of Energy
Basic Science, NSF does not push a particular mission. This
particular program, it looks like sustainability in the broader
sense. Of course, clean energy is an important part of it,
which includes fundamental basic research that covers the wide
spectrum of energy, clean energy options and alternative energy
options.
Mrs. Adams. So you then are saying that you believe that
you need $338 million in new spending on this one topic alone?
Dr. Suresh. Because this covers---
Mrs. Adams. Yes or no.
Dr. Suresh. Yes please.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. I just want to get to my questions.
I am one of those people. And going back to another question I
heard about the funding the STEM education for individuals from
historically underserved populations, minorities, women,
persons with disabilities. I know that Ms. Johnson touched on
women, but out of the $160 million budget request for the
division, $20 million for which is for new broadening
participation programs, only $1.6 million is available for
increasing opportunities in STEM education for women and zero
is available for increasing opportunities in STEM education for
persons with disabilities.
Can you please explain the rationale for this and why the
division has become more narrowly focused?
Dr. Suresh. You know, a couple of quick responses that I
will give to that. We launched a program a year or two ago in
engineering looking at new educational opportunities for
veterans coming from the recent wars. Last year, we supported
this to the tune of $3.7 million, and this is an area in which
we have a lot of potential opportunities, not only to attract
people with disabilities, but also disabled veterans from
underrepresented groups in science and engineering.
This is a topic where we are now doing--we had a retreat on
this topic. We are looking into potential opportunities in
which NSF can support in concert with the Department of Defense
and other agencies.
Mrs. Adams. So you are okay with turning that over to
another agency for this, but you are not----
Dr. Suresh. This is within NSF in the Engineering
Directorate.
Mrs. Adams. So there is zero in your request is what I
found. So but for the record, outside the human resource
development division programs, would you please provide us with
funding and programmatic details on all programs within the
foundation that are either specific to serving historically
underserved populations, minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities that will provide special considerations for these
populations?
Dr. Suresh. I will be happy to get that information to you.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. I thank you. Chair now recognizes Ms.
Edwards, the gentlelady from Maryland.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, Dr. Suresh, and Dr. Bowen, for your testimony today. Dr.
Suresh, I think when I saw you last, you had arrived only one
day in town, so I hope that you have settled by now. I also
want to say a special thank you to Dr. Cora Marrett, your
deputy who is here. She has had a chance to come out to my
congressional district and see what we have going on there with
some STEM learning. And I think it is an important relationship
that NSF has with local communities and school systems to
understand how we need to move K to 12 and beyond for STEM
education.
This morning, although I have some questions of my own, I
actually this morning want to ask a question on behalf of our
colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, that has been provided by
her staff. It is an area of focus that she has spent a lot of
time on over this last Congress, and I know that were she here
today, she would want to make sure that we got this on the
record. As you know, she has been a strong advocate for STEM
education at every level. Only by providing solid educational
foundation for America's youth will we be able to compete in
the 21st Century economy of tomorrow.
Congresswoman Giffords expressed that on a number of
occasions here in this committee last year when she introduced
the 21st Century Graduate Education Act, which authorized NSF
to award grants for implementing research-based reforms and
graduate level STEM education that emphasized preparation for
diverse careers in the STEM workforce.
The idea that Ms. Giffords has had was to help budding
American scientists prepare for the diverse career
opportunities that they will face such as researching in
academia, teaching in high schools or working in the national
labs or industry. The 21st Century Graduate Education Act was
actually incorporated into the America COMPETES reauthorization
that we passed last year. And so, Dr. Suresh, I wonder if you
could tell all of us, for the record, what steps NSF has taken
and will take to implement this program.
Dr. Suresh. I will get you specific details on this
program. On this particular program, for the record, the--we
are increasing commitment for a number of programs that are
aimed at graduate students from many different angles. So let
me just briefly point at what they are. We will have 2,000
additional graduate research fellowships in Fiscal Year 2012.
That is over and above 3,200 or so existing fellowships that we
will continue.
We are increasing the cost of education for graduate
fellows, which has been long overdue. In 2013, we plan to
increase the living expenses, which has also been long overdue
to help attract graduate students. We are also looking at the
IGERT Program with 50 percent support from the research
Directorates within NSF. The IGERT Program provides
opportunities for graduate students in interdisciplinary
research.
Then we have the Engineering Research Centers and Science
and Technology Centers, which give unique opportunities for
students in many interfacing with the industry, many leadership
roles and so forth.
So our commitment is very strong, and it is growing. And I
will get you the specific data on that particular program.
Ms. Edwards. If you could both share it with the committee,
obviously share it with me, but also make sure that that is
copied to Congresswoman Gifford's office. Thank you.
Dr. Suresh. I will be happy to do that.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. With that, I yield.
Chairman Hall. I thank you. At this time, we will recognize
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you. I very much appreciate the
opportunity to visit with you again. Enjoyed the visit to the
NSF recently. Very impressive the people that you have
collected together to administer the various programs that you
all have oversight for.
I am going to focus primarily on fiscal matters. Since
Fiscal Year that started October 1, 2007, deficits have
averaged $1.2 trillion with the current year estimated at $1.65
trillion by the White House. And while it is most impressive
that President Obama's Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposes to
increase NSF funding by 13 percent or $894 million according to
Dr. Suresh's testimony, I submit that it is irresponsible for
the White House to propose these increases with absolutely no
way to pay for them other than by raising taxes on our job
creators, which, of course, will increase unemployment while
mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren while
risking a government insolvency and potential bankruptcy that
would likely cut national science foundation funding to zero if
that risk should occur. With an economics background, I believe
it is an absolute certainly that it will occur. It is not a
matter of it, it is a matter of when unless we get our
financial house in order and do it quickly.
In order to help prevent a Federal Government bankruptcy,
Congress is going to have to make some very tough budgeting
decisions. In that context, which NSF grant fields are most
deserving of funding in your judgment? Which will be most
likely to produce technology that will, in turn, produce
American jobs?
I know you have a bunch of fields. You introduced me to a
lot of department heads. In your judgment, where should we put
the money if we are going to advance our technology, which
will, in turn, advance jobs, which will, in turn, create wealth
for America, which will, in turn, help us with these budget
deficits?
Dr. Suresh. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned in
my opening testimony, NSF-funded research historically over the
last 60 years creates for the near term, for the long term,
significant job opportunities. For example, as the Chairman
mentioned in his opening remarks, we funded the two co-founders
of Google when they were graduate students at Stanford when the
work was not ready yet for commercial success.
Just in the last ten years, NSF-funded research centers in
the area of nanotechnology have lead to 175 startups--this is
just NSF-funded work--involving 1,200 companies.
So one of the things about NSF and its impact is that it is
even more important in this economy than in a well-functioning
economy because this is the engine of innovation for the
country at a time when we have growing international
competition.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Suresh, I am sorry. I am going to have to
cut you off. Everything you said I just agree with. The NSF has
done, in my judgment, a good job in advancing basic research
projects that, in turn, result in technologies that result in
more jobs. But my question is how do you prioritize between the
various fields? I think you introduced me to 10 or 12 different
divisions of research.
How do you prioritize that we put the money where there is
going to be the most bang for the buck, where the American
taxpayer will get the technological advances that is most
likely to produce the greatest number of jobs? What is your
priorities?
Dr. Suresh. We prioritize using a well-established process.
We prioritize based on how the work that has been funded gives
results. We periodically review them. We have a well-
established peer review process. We have a process internal to
NSF where we engage every layer of the organization. We get
input from the community. Just in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget,
we have terminated six programs so----
Mr. Brooks. Well, do you treat all the fields the same, or
do you evaluate them on a case-by-case basis?
Dr. Suresh. We evaluate them on the basis of new knowledge
they create, the discoveries they produce, the impact they have
both in knowledge creation and on society. So we have two
criteria.
Mr. Brooks. Well, are you--okay, I am trying to get at the
specific fields that you believe are most important, not
necessarily the criteria by which you, on a case-by-case basis,
determine which grants to give. But which fields are the most
important to create jobs? Which are the least important?
Dr. Suresh. So we have the priorities that we have
articulated in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget gives specific
areas. The area of new science, basic science and engineering,
in broad area of sustainability. Sustainability definitely
refers to clean energy, but it also refers to other things
beyond clean energy. Transportation, cities, infrastructure,
the basic sustainability science.
Cyberinfrastructure for the 21st century in increasing
data. Cybersecurity, we will be investing in $155 million in
Fiscal Year '12 in cybersecurity. Robotics is another area. NSF
will be a leading partner in the National Robotics Initiative.
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives that I talked about
earlier. So these are all areas where we think now is the right
time to invest.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Now, I recognize Mr.
Clarke, the gentleman from Michigan. And I might say we are
going to have the vote shortly, and we have some decisions to
make on when to come back and how we do it. I thank you, Mr.
Clarke. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Suresh, Dr. Bowen.
Really appreciate your testimony here. My question is really
similar to many that have been already posed. My concern is
with inner city kids. You know on standardized test scores,
especially in the city of Detroit, they have done horribly in
the areas of science and mathematics. So like other Members
here, I am concerned about the proposed $41 million cut in the
kindergarten through grade 12 educations provided by NSF. And
also the elimination, proposed elimination of the graduate
fellows program, also for kindergarten through grade 12.
Now, I am aware that the President would have the
Department of Education offset some of these cuts, but in light
of NSF's long history to being committed to highly effective
education programs, could you help underscore what the
administration's commitment is to improving science technology,
engineering, and mathematics education for urban school
districts?
I am really concerned about these inner city kids who many
of them are from families where no one ever graduated from
college. I want them to have a chance to get a job or have a
business in this new and emerging advanced manufacturing sector
that you have helped promote and that is going to help put many
metro Detroiters to work. I just want to make sure that every
kid has a chance to get the training that they need to make
money and advance manufacturing.
Dr. Suresh. Mr. Clarke, a lot of the things you mentioned
resonate with me personally. I was the first one in my family
to go to college so I fully understand and appreciate the
comments you make. NSF is very, very strongly committed to K
through 12 education, especially with respect to groups that
are underrepresented, that have fewer opportunities and
underprivileged--come from underprivileged areas.
You mention the GK-12 Program. The GK-12 Program has been
funded by NSF for 12 years. It has had very many positive
things that have come out of this, but over the last 12 years,
we have also had other programs that have evolved, such as the
IGERT Program, which have taken up important aspects of the
spirit of the GK12 Program, and we will continue to honor the
commitments that we have made for Fiscal Year '12 in the GK-12
Program as we look at new opportunities to fund, especially in
K through 12 education.
So I want to underscore the fact this moving from one
program to another is a realignment of priorities in the
context of changes in circumstances around the country based on
the information and evidence that we have gathered through
long-term funding. It does no way reflect a reduced commitment,
particularly toward education.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Doctor. Just a follow up. Many
districts, school districts, like Detroit really don't have the
capacity to apply for many of your grants. How do you structure
your grants in educational initiatives so that those school
districts and students that are in most need can have access to
them?
Dr. Suresh. Well, we look at a number of mechanisms, and
one of the mechanisms is to seek input from the community on
what the best ways of doing this are. And our Assistant
Director for Education and Human Resources, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy,
who is sitting behind me, she has recently articulated a vision
for not only making commitments from what the budget of EHR is,
but also bringing the best practices from all the research
Directorates and involving them.
So with respect to how specifically we interface with a
particular community, we seek input from the experts related to
that particular community. We gather information on best
practices. In fact, we are in the middle of preparing a report
for the Appropriations Committee on the best practices from
select schools in the country for STEM education in the K
through 12 area, and take that information, apply it more
broadly to situations where we have underprivileged children or
children without access to good education.
Mr. Clarke. Before I yield back my few seconds, I want to
commend your work and tenure at MIT, and I enjoy--I look
forward to working with the NSF staff on this issue.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, both. Recognize Mr. Benishek of
Michigan. We are limited time now. Make your questions as short
and answers as accurate as you can. Thank you.
Mr. Benishek. Director Suresh and Dr. Bowen, thank you for
being here. Members of my district elected me because they saw
that our government was spending money, more than we had. So it
is distressing to see that your budgeting has an increase of 13
percent. I mean everything that we do, that you are doing, is
all great, but we can't spend money we don't have. So in my
view, we need to really focus on doing things effectively and
spending the money wisely because frankly, we can't continue
doing this. And everyone says that their program is the best
and that it is very important for our future and our children.
But frankly, our children aren't going to be able to afford
anything if they are trying to pay off this massive debt that
we are building. More specifically, I just want to ask you one
thing. This STEM education that we have all been hearing a lot
about, don't you think it would be more effective to have--I am
not talking about the effectiveness, which I don't even want to
get into. But STEM education apparently is administered by 12
different agencies of the Federal Government and 100 different
programs amongst those agencies. And this type of thing goes on
among other fields as well.
Don't you think it would be much cheaper and more effective
to have one agency deal with a subject like this?
Dr. Suresh. That is a very good question, Mr. Benishek. Let
me just offer two brief responses to that. NSF is unique in its
role compared to, let us say, the Department of Education,
which has a much larger budget for STEM education
implementation than NSF does. NSF's primary mission is to
develop new and innovative models, validate them, test them,
assess them, and then let agencies like the Department of
Education take it over.
And in that context, NSF for the last many decades has
played a pioneering role in creating new models for STEM
education.
Mr. Benishek. I am talking about the effectiveness of the
overall plan. Don't you think that one agency would be better
off, it would be better off and more efficient and better
communication if one agency did all the aspects related to this
subject of STEM rather than having to share the information
then with 12 other agencies?
Dr. Suresh. Perhaps for implementation, but for creating
new models for STEM education, the kinds of infrastructure and
capabilities that NSF has from the scientific and engineering
community may not be present in the Department of Education or
other agencies, where NSF is unique. And this is why we were
asked for many decades to play a role in creating research
models and new modes of STEM education at NSF, and this is a
unique role that NSF plays for the community and for the
country that, as far as I know, is not broadly engaged by other
agencies even the----
Mr. Benishek. I understand that, but don't you think it
would be better off if it was all in one agency?
Dr. Suresh. Well, perhaps for implementation but not for
creating models because other agencies do not have the same
flexibility in all fields of science and engineering as NSF
does. NSF is the only federal agency that engages in all fields
of science and engineering and research in the broadest sense
without pushing a particular mission.
So it is unique in that respect, and that is why I believe
NSF is ideally suited to create unique models for STEM
education.
Regarding your point on reducing duplication and waste, the
committee on STEM education that I mentioned in response to an
earlier question, the very purpose of the committee that I co-
chair is to find out what all the other agencies do, how to
engage with them more efficiently and how to reduce waste. This
is part and parcel of our conversation.
We had a meeting about two weeks ago to look into that, and
this is very much on the agenda for us.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you very much for your answer. I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Hall. Thank you for your good questions, and I am
sorry to pass fine people at the end of the line there and ask
you to be as--and I won't waste any more time bitching about
it. Mr. Lipinski, you are back now so you moved ahead of poor
Mr. Sarbanes again. And we recognize you for five minutes. And
we just have four to go, and I would like to dismiss this panel
if we could as early as possible.
Mr. Lipinski. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
Suresh, as you know, I have championed research prizes,
coauthoring the H Prize and writing the prize language included
in the COMPETES reauthorization last year. As a result of that
bill, the Federal Research Agencies now have broad, new
authority to offer prizes for innovative research or solutions
to critical problems. And I think that this tool is a
complement to traditional research funding.
They offer a new way to incentivize high-risk, high-reward
research and generate excitement about the frontiers of science
and engineering. And I know that as dean of MIT's engineering
school, that you have been involved firsthand with the highly
successful Lemelson MIT prize. I expect that some of your
students have also been part of MIT's $100,000 entrepreneurship
competition.
So based on your experience with scientific prizes at MIT,
I would like to hear your thoughts on how this new authority
might be used at NSF and what we can do to maximize a return
from scientific prizes, both at the NSF and other Federal R&D
agencies.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and also thank you for
taking the time from your busy schedule to visit us a couple of
weeks ago with Mr. Brooks. As you mentioned, I have had the
good fortune to interact with a lot of students in connection
with different prize programs. Just two days ago, MIT announced
the winner of this year's MIT Lemelson Program, a young woman
named Alice Chen, for her work in health sciences and
technology.
The prizes help to galvanize the innovative spirit of young
minds, but one of the critical things, one of the reasons it is
so successful in a place like MIT or other institutions is
because the competitions are closely coupled with a very good
and very basic science and engineering. And NSF--and this is
something that is very important that we do, not only create
prize programs, but also couple them to basic research and
innovation.
I have charged Dr. Cora Marrett and also a chief technology
officer, in collaboration with the head of our engineering
Directorate to look into best ways in which NSF can engage in
various prize activities. One of the initiatives that could
possibly be a vehicle for this could be the new robotics
initiative.
So we are talking to other agencies. We are having internal
conversations on how best to launch these prize programs so
that we will have the biggest impact based on the experiences
that we have from the community.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I just wanted to, because of time,
move on. Second thing I want to talk about, maybe just a make a
statement here about I am concerned about our academic research
infrastructure and I really--I am greatly concerned that we are
underinvesting in research and teaching labs, instrumentation
and shared-use facilities. And what this is going to mean is
problems for the United States competing with countries like
China for top talent and also lead to inefficient use of
research dollars.
I think that NSF is planning on publishing an update of the
report that came out in 2005 that said that there is a $3.5
billion backlog of needed renovations. So that is a great
concern of mine, and I will be submitting a question for the
record for you, Dr. Suresh, on that.
But I want to use the remainder of my time to talk about
and ask you about advanced manufacturing. I was excited to see
in your written testimony the focus on turning innovation into
competitive advantage. I think that leveraging our basic
research success to create jobs is tremendously important,
especially in this economy. And I applaud your efforts to
increase technology transfer and incubate small businesses.
And I particularly would like to register my support for
the proposed $190 million advanced manufacturing initiative.
The statutory basis for this initiative came from Section 506
in the COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which I had authored, and
I just wanted to know a little bit more what you could tell us
about what you think this program can accomplish in both the
short and long term. And I also I would be particularly curious
to hear your thoughts on nanomanufacturing.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you for the question. In the 1960s and
'70s, NSF sponsored a variety of basic research activities in
mathematic modeling and process modeling, which at that time
was not funded by American industry. And that investment from
NSF lead to significant advances in graphic prototyping in the
country in the 1970s. And that led to major innovations for the
country and the economy in succeeding years.
So manufacturing is an area that it is very strongly
predicated upon basic fundamental research work. So I want to
emphasize that. With particular references to
nanomanufacturing, in the last 15 years or so, nanotechnology
has advanced to such a point, and I can speak for hours on this
because this happens to be my own----
Mr. Lipinski. I don't think you have that time.
Dr. Suresh. No, I know. That is why I will be very brief.
We have the ability to manipulate single molecules, single
atoms, and we can create objects from atomic level up. So we
can go from atoms to systems, and this is an area we have
unprecedented opportunities for innovation for a significant
industry impact. And that is why our colleagues at NSF felt
that now is the time to put emphasis on advanced manufacturing
for the future of the country.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Lipinski asks good questions, and you have the right to give
him an answer in writing more thoroughly, and he is entitled to
it, if you want to. At this time, we recognize Mr. Hultgren of
Illinois.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman Hall. Thank you, Director
Suresh. I am going to be very brief. I have some other
questions so I will submit those as well hopefully to get your
response to that. But I want my good friend, Dr. Harris, to be
able to ask some questions as well. So I am just going to ask
one quickly. And I represent Fermilab area and am very
interested in some of the projects that they are working on.
But just wanted to ask you will NSF provide support for the
experiments at DUSEL, such as the long-base line neutrino
experiment, dark matter search experiments, and other
underground science experiments?
Dr. Suresh. NSF has had a long and rich history of
supporting basic research and physics, high energy physics,
plasma physics, neutrino physics and so forth. So that
commitment has not changed. We will continue to support it.
With particular reference to DUSEL, the National Science Board,
which Dr. Bowen chairs, decided unanimously and articulated
very clearly in December of last year that the proposed
stewardship model for the DUSEL was inconsistent and
unacceptable with respect to NSF's mission.
As a result of this, the National Science Board, which
necessarily has to authorize any funding for DUSEL beyond a
certain threshold level, decided unanimously not to support
this for the reasons that they very clearly articulated.
In light of this, there is--DUSEL is one of the programs
that is slated to terminate in Fiscal Year 2012. Having said
that, NSF continues to support basic research in areas, and we
will be happy to have a discussion with the Department of
Energy. There are already conversations going on. If either the
Department of Energy, or other agencies, were to come up with a
appropriate stewardship model, NSF will be happy to work with
them to look into ways in which we can collaborate and fund
innovative science in the physics area that is relevant to
DUSEL.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I really do hope we have support there.
Many have already come along. I know universities are a part of
this. Much has been spent already to pursue this. I think also
we have to realize we have lost so many of our best and
brightest now going over to Europe with the work that is going
on there. We need to have important researches being done here
to keep our best and brightest working here in America.
So I want to encourage you to do that. I want to work with
you on that however I can, but I just wanted to let you know
how important that is to me, something I believe we need to be
a part of as the Federal Government with that basic scientific
research. So thank you. With that, I will yield back. Thanks,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. Time has expired. Chair
recognizes Mr. Sarbanes from the state of Maryland.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be
brief as well. We are hearing a lot from our constituents on
different issues. We obviously hear concern about the fiscal
situation of the country and desire to have us tighten our
belts and be prudent in making these tough choices.
But the other theme I hear as I move around my district is
a real recognition that we need to rebuild this country, that
while we were sleeping, in effect, the infrastructure of the
country has been crumbling around us, whether you speak to
physical infrastructure, building bridges, tunnels, railways,
and so forth, whether you are speaking to human infrastructure,
investing in human capital, civic infrastructure, building
community and so forth.
There is a recognition that we need that investment. We
need to rebuild the country. We are up to the task if we are
given the tools and the leadership to do that. You are really
focusing on that second piece, that investing in human capital,
in human infrastructure, making sure in particular that the
next generation is getting the skill set, the talents, the
tools they need to lead us into the future.
And so I want to congratulate you on and commend you on
staying focused on that particular investment because that is
going to determine whether we are successful going forward or
not.
While I have you here, I just wanted to encourage you,
particularly around STEM education and I think you are
preaching to the choir in many respects really across the aisle
here in recognizing the importance of science, technology and
these other investments that we need to make. I have been
working for a while on something called No Child Left Inside,
which is an attempt to get outdoor education promoted,
environmental education really well integrated into the
instructional programming in our schools across the country.
And one of the reasons is because when you look at programs in
schools that emphasize environmental education and get children
outdoors applying what they are learning in science classes to
the outdoors and all the stimulation that goes with that, what
it does is it triggers their interest in pursuing careers in
science and technology and so forth and engineering and math.
So I am just asking you if you will be receptive to our
providing you with more information about the NCLI initiative
and opportunities for NSF to collaborate on that initiative and
promote that kind of imagination and innovation for the next
generation.
And with that, I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Chairman Hall. Sure. Thank you. I would tell you we have
about 10 minutes until we have to vote. Dr. Harris, we
recognize you for such a time of the five minutes as you choose
to use. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Suresh,
for being here. And I am just going to follow up a little bit
on what Mr. Brooks from Alabama had to say. And I appreciate
science. I always have my whole life obviously. But the fact of
the matter is that you use the word invest many times in your
written testimony. But I will tell you the only investing going
on now are foreign governments, including China, investing our
bonds because we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit. And, Dr.
Suresh, you are a scientist. You have seen the same curves I
do. You know it is not sustainable. It is just not. It is black
and white. It is not sustainable. So we do have to look at ways
to cut, and I am a little disappointed.
You know you got $3 billion in stimulus funding. Stimulus
was sold to the American public as a one-time expense that has
to be paid back. Every single dollar of the $787 billion was
borrowed, with over half those dollars coming from foreign
ownership of those bonds. And they do need to be repaid, and I
think they need to be repaid starting now. The stimulus idea
was let us move up some spending, and then let us pay it back.
So I am disappointed to hear that you think a five percent
cut in H.R. 1, I think that is what you said, a 5.2 percent
cut, which you would have gotten in H.R. 1, having gotten $3
billion, a 50 percent increase in your funding a couple years
ago, is something that you think well the sky will fall. I am
kind of disappointed to hear that.
But the priorities are such that--and I know your--does
your agency do anything with economics? I mean does it do
economic science forecasting? That is--you don't have anything
to do with that?
Dr. Suresh. We have a Directorate called Social Behavior
and Economics Directorate.
Mr. Harris. You do? Okay, do you know if they have done
any--I mean was it a priority for that Director to do any
studies on the effect of our debt growing above our GDP? Could
you get that to me because we have limited time? If you can get
that to me, I am a little surprised that the administration
didn't make that a priority for your organization given the
fact we are on a fiscal--we are at the edge of a fiscal cliff
with that.
But the only thing, again I want to just follow up with the
gentlelady from Florida, what she said about I am a little
puzzled by this duplication. I have been--now this is the--I
think it is the third budget hearing in this committee. Every
single one by organization has a climate research and says
their climate change research is absolutely essential. I don't
think that is part of what I think of the National Science
Foundation. And NOAA came in, EPA, and Department of Energy,
all with this.
The GAO just came out with their famous finding that there
is an incredible amount of duplication within the agencies, so
I am going to ask you to just answer in writing what your
agency has done to make sure that there is no duplication at
all in what all those other agencies are doing about climate
change.
Because I am afraid--and again, look, I had NIH grants when
I was in medicine. I know the way it works. You have a wide
variety of agencies. It takes a lot of time when different
groups are requesting grants, it takes a lot of your
intellectual energy to prepare all those different grants, so
consolidating these kind of things would be useful. And, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Hall. Okay, I thank you, and I do thank Dr. Suresh
and Dr. Bowen for good answers, good timely answers. Sorry we
were pressing, but we now have about eight minutes to get over
there to vote. It will take about four minutes to get there,
two minutes for staff to tell us how to vote, and about a
minute to vote.
We are going to excuse you both and thank you very much,
and to the group that will be testifying on NIST, we will be
back probably within 45 minutes, 15 after the last vote over
there.
Dr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. She said five minutes after the last vote.
We will settle for 7-1/2 minutes. Is that okay? I thank all of
you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Hall. I thank you, and we are back in session with
appreciation for the past two witnesses, and our second panel
is Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology and Director of NIST. And I want to
particularly thank Under Secretary Gallagher for waiting so
patiently through the first panel. I think you were here the
whole time. I kept waiting for you to go up there and tell them
just five minutes in their sixth or seventh minute.
And we thank you. We have to be flexible with you. You have
been too good. So at this time, I will welcome Dr. Gallagher.
Prior to his service at NIST, he served as Director for one of
the NIST user facilities, the Center for Neutron Research. And
Dr. Gallagher started in 2008 as acting Director of NIST and
was confirmed as Director in November of 2009. As a practicing
physicist, he has a unique understanding of the inner workings
of NIST.
As the witness should know, spoken testimony is limited to
five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask questions. And most of us have an
airplane to catch, and I know the Chairman wants to get back to
his office. So at this time, I thank you for your testimony in
about five minutes from now. Thank you, sir. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK GALLAGHER, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will respect your
time and I appreciate the Committee. Congresswoman Edwards,
thank you as well and Members of the Committee for this
opportunity.
The NIST mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness is well aligned with the President's goals of
supporting economic growth through innovation, infrastructure,
and education in a time that we know to be a very tough budget
environment.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for NIST is $1 billion.
This represents a 17 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2010
enacted level. Let me briefly summarize the request. For NIST
Scientific and Technical Research Services account, which funds
our laboratory activities, the budget request is $679 million,
a net increase of $174 million. These funds will accelerate the
development of standards, technology and measurement science in
areas as diverse as advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, and
critical infrastructure.
For the NIST Industrial Technology Services account, the
budget request is $238 million, an increase of $33 million, and
it reflects a $1.9 million reduction to the Baldrige
Performance Excellence Program consistent with the
Administration's goal of transitioning this program out of
federal funding.
The budget requests $84.6 million for the Construction of
Research Facilities account. This represents a $62.4 million
decrease. The construction request includes $25.4 million for
the continued renovation of the aging Boulder Building 1
facility and funds for needed repairs and maintenance of our
facilities at our two campuses.
Finally, NIST requests $100 million in new mandatory
account for the creation of a public safety infrastructure
fund. This is NIST component of the President's Wireless
Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative (WI3).
Let me touch on several major themes that are in the
request. Those are manufacturing, infrastructure and education.
The President's 2012 budget for NIST includes a strong focus on
advanced manufacturing to provide the measurement tools and
other essential technical assistance that U.S. manufacturers
need to invent, innovate, and produce and to do that more
rapidly--and more efficiently than their competitors.
Within the laboratory budget, there are five manufacturing-
related initiatives totaling $85.3 million. These initiatives
will enable NIST to bolster and diversify needed research and
services in areas like nano and biomanufacturing, additive
manufacturing, and advanced robotics that will strengthen U.S.
competitiveness. My written testimony discusses each of these
in more detail.
The President's budget also strongly supports manufacturing
through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the
Technology Innovation Programs. For MEP, the budget request is
$143 million. This is an $18 million increase. NIST's MEP will
expand the capabilities of its nationwide network of centers
located in all 50 states in a number of critical ways to assist
manufacturers to successfully compete over the long term.
And the request for TIP of $75 million enables the program
to hold competitions to fund high-risk, high-reward research in
critical national need areas like manufacturing.
NIST is also requesting $12.3 million for the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or AMTech. This new program
is a public/private partnership program to provide grants for
the formation of industrial consortia to address industrial-
driven technology challenges that no one company can solve on
their own.
With regard to strengthening the U.S. infrastructure, the
budget contains $43.4 million in three initiatives for
cybersecurity-related programs and activities. This includes
initiatives building upon NIST core cybersecurity work in
support of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative,
to support a national program office to coordinate activities
for the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,
or NSTIC, and to expand the scope of the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative Education Initiative.
In the area of interoperability infrastructure, the budget
proposes an initiative to focus on the standards needed for
smart grid, an interoperable system of electronic medical
records, and for cloud computing.
The physical infrastructure initiatives in NIST will
further development of increased energy efficiency and
environmental impact for manufacturing and support more
disaster-resistant structures. In light of this morning's news
from Japan, this includes efforts to support disaster-resistant
infrastructure or what are called lifelines in the community
that are so critical to the survivability of a community under
natural disaster scenarios.
And I would remind the Committee that NIST is the lead
agency in the Interagency National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program, a critical effort in this regard.
And finally in the wireless infrastructure, the Public
Safety Innovation Fund that I mentioned earlier will focus our
efforts in support of providing our public safety community
with a network-based emergency communication infrastructure.
This budget incorporates over $11 million in administrative
savings and the proposed decrease for the Baldrige Programs
saves an additional $1.9 million.
Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for NIST
reflects the Administration's recognition of the important role
that NIST can play in innovation, and I thank you for this
opportunity. I look forward to answering the Committee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This budget
reflects the important role that NIST plays as part of President
Obama's Plan for Science and Innovation. As the President has said.``We
know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time.
We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the
world.'' \1\ The NIST FY 2012 budget clearly lays out the NIST role in
the Administration's priorities by making critical investments in key
areas that will help preserve our nation's economic security and
strengthen American competitiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remarks by the President in State of Union Address on January
25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start with a quick mention of the
context of this budget. Overall, this is a very difficult budget
environment. The President made clear that it was important for the
government to live within its means and establish some priorities
within those limits. The President has focused on a number of key
goals, including innovation, infrastructure and education.
Within that context, NIST finds itself with a mission that's very
well aligned to those goals. Over the past few years, numerous reports
have underscored the importance of a robust Federal presence in the
sciences to advance technological innovation. The ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' report and its follow-on, ``The Gathering Storm,
Revisited,'' were a clarion call to action that helped to shape the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act that this Committee championed and
the President signed into law earlier this year. In addition, in
February of this year, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers
jointly released an update to the 2009 ``Strategy for American
Innovation'' that ``focuses on critical areas where sensible, balanced
government policies can lay the foundation for innovation that leads to
quality jobs and shared prosperity.''
The NIST mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness through measurement science, standards and technology.
The NIST mission is very well-aligned with the priority goals that the
President has laid out. The FY 2012 budget for NIST reflects that
alignment.
Mr. Chairman, the President's FY 2012 discretionary budget request
for NIST is $1 billion, a 17 percent increase over the FY 2010 enacted
level. The budget maintains the President's commitment to double the
NIST laboratory budget, and to support and enhance our world leadership
in the physical sciences and technology.
The NIST budget is comprised of three discretionary spending
accounts and one new proposed mandatory spending account.
For the NIST laboratories, the budget requests $679 million to
accelerate the development of standards, technology, and measurement
science in areas as diverse as advanced manufacturing technologies,
cybersecurity, and infrastructure. The request reflects a net increase
of $173.6 million over the FY 2011 annualized CR level. We did not
continue funding $10.5 million in previous year earmarks and redirected
this amount to new initiatives. Thus, the budget proposes $178.5
million in laboratory initiatives and $5.6 million in adjustments to
base.
For the NIST Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account, the
budget requests $238 million, an increase of $33 million over FY 2011
annualized CR levels. The account includes NIST's external programs:
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), the Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP), the Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program (BPEP) and the newly proposed Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Consortia (AMTech) program. The request includes $12.3 million for the
AMTech, a new cooperative grant program with industry and academia to
foster public-private partnerships to develop needed technology to
support advanced manufacturing industries that will broadly benefit the
Nation's industrial base. Also in the ITS line is a $1.9 million
reduction to BPEP from the FY 2011 annualized CR levels.
The budget requests $84.6 million for the Construction of Research
Facilities (CRF) account; representing a $62.4 million decrease from
the FY 2011 annualized CR level. The request includes $25.4 million for
the continued renovation of the Boulder Building 1 renovation but does
not include $67 million in FY 2010 earmarks and the Construction Grant
Program.
Finally, NIST requests $100 million in mandatory appropriations for
the Public Safety Innovation Fund, NIST's component of the Wireless
Innovation Fund, which itself is part of the President's Wireless
Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative (WI3). This mandatory
appropriation request will fund NIST's safety efforts in this area,
with particular focus on working with industry and public safety
organizations to develop new standards, technologies, and applications
to advance public safety.
Let me speak in more depth about the major thematic initiatives in
this request: manufacturing, infrastructure, and education. These
themes directly relate to the President's stated goals to ``out-
innovate, out-educate, and out-build.''
Out-Innovate: Supporting Innovation for a Strong Manufacturing Base.
In order to ``Out-Innovate,'' the U.S. must have a strong
manufacturing base. With that focus innovation in manufacturing is key
to the NIST 2012 budget. In the area of manufacturing, U.S. industry
faces relentless competition that has trimmed the nation's share of
global manufacturing output from 25 percent in 2000 to about 20 percent
today.
The U.S. manufacturing sector, still the world's largest, is the
nation's innovation engine. Manufacturers perform half of all research
and development in the U.S., and they employ 17 percent of the nation's
scientists and engineers. The sector develops, builds, and supplies the
advanced equipment that enables the U.S. military to maintain
technological superiority over our adversaries.
Providing the measurement tools and other essential technical
assistance that existing U.S. manufacturers and aspiring start-ups need
to invent, innovate, and produce-more rapidly and more efficiently than
their competitors-is a top NIST priority. NIST has partnered with the
manufacturing sector for over a century. Today's challenges require
stepping up efforts to enhance and strengthen the nation's underlying
technical infrastructure, which is integral to our innovation and
advanced manufacturing capabilities.
To reap the economic benefits of our ability to innovate, our
nation's manufacturing sector must be able to renew itself by adopting
new technology and developing new markets. The nation's manufacturers
must respond quickly and effectively to an ever-changing mix of
requirements, risks, and opportunities, from new regulations to rising
energy costs to emerging technologies and markets. The revitalization
of the U.S. manufacturing base is critical to driving innovation and
job creation in the future and will play a major role in building an
economy that can help raise the standard of living for all
Americans.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Executive Office of the President, A Framework for Revitalizing
American Manufacturing, Dec. 2009.
2012 Manufacturing Initiatives:
The President's FY 2012 budget for NIST includes five
manufacturing-related initiatives in NIST's scientific laboratories
that will enable NIST to bolster and diversify needed research and
promote proven services that will strengthen U.S. manufacturing
competitiveness in high-value-added product markets.
Strengthening Measurement Services in Support of
Industry Needs ($20.0M) The U.S. economy depends upon a robust
and reliable physical science-based measurement system.
Industry is increasingly relying upon and utilizing NIST's
precision time and synchronization services to drive
innovation. Industries as diverse as telecommunications,
electric power distribution, broadcasting, and navigation
networks, as well as many crucial applications in national
defense, intelligence, and homeland security rely on NIST
calibrations and measurement services. In aeronautics, for
example, NIST calibrations for commercial and federal
government partners ensure the accuracy and performance of
altimeters and electrical systems that enable F-18s and
commercial aircraft to fly. This initiative will enhance
systems for distributing NIST measurement services to meet the
growing demand from industry for such services.
Advanced Materials for Industry ($14.2M) The
discovery and optimization of new materials is costly and
inefficient. Today, U.S. researchers can design and create new
materials at a rate that outpaces our ability to support the
measurements to characterize and exploit these discoveries.
NIST efforts in advanced materials development and measurement
science can help manufacturers save millions of dollars in
design costs. This initiative will help to provide that support
to industry through the development of a national measurement
and standards infrastructure necessary to enable computer
modeling and simulation capabilities for discovering new
materials and reliably optimizing structures and properties for
manufacturing processes and product performance and features.
Innovations for 21st Century U.S. Manufacturing:
Faster, Smarter and Cleaner ($13.3M) Innovation is central to
manufacturing, and in turn, to the overall growth and health of
the U.S. economy. The ability to rapidly introduce product
innovations provides a foundation for future growth in U.S.
manufacturing and with it, the creation and retention of high-
skill, well-paying jobs. This initiative will fund efforts to
develop advanced robotics technologies that allow the U.S. to
retain manufacturing competitiveness, and fund programs that
will promote sustainable operations and improve energy
efficiency in both the manufacturing and construction sectors
of the economy.
Measurement Science and Standards to Support
Biomanufacturing ($9.5M) The high cost of biotechnology
medicines is adversely impacting the U.S. healthcare system and
economy. Biotechnology drugs, currently dominated by protein
therapeutics, are the fastest-growing class of pharmaceuticals
and the fastest growing ( cents20%/year) category of
health care spending. \3\ Inefficiencies in the manufacturing
process contribute to the high cost of these drugs. Under this
initiative, NIST will work closely with industry, the FDA, and
other standards organizations to better understand the
manufacturing process resulting in higher quality biologic
products through continuous improvement of manufacturing
processes. It will also enable the development of agile
biomanufacturing processes required for next generation
products such as stem cells and personalized biotherapeutics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Biotech 2008--Life Sciences: A 20/20 Vision to 2020, Burrill
and Company, 2008.
Measurements to Support the Manufacture and
Production of Nanotechnology-based Products ($28.2M) There
remain significant barriers to the full commercial exploitation
of nanotechnology. The lack of manufacturing and
characterization tools adds significantly to the development
cost of nano-based products. Rigorous measurement science is
needed to characterize the environmental, health, and safety
risks of engineered nanomaterials. NIST's expertise in
measurement science as well as its world-class nanotechnology
fabrication facilities at the Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology (CNST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, provides industry
unique resources to advance the measurement science needed to
enhance our understanding of the safety of nanomaterials, and
fund research on the development and manufacture of cost-
competitive technologies. This initiative will position the
U.S. to be globally competitive in emerging technologies
through safe use of nanotechnology. It will also provide needed
investments in the CNST to keep it at the cutting-edge of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
innovation.
The President's budget strongly supports manufacturing through the
Industrial Technology Services programs.
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
The President's 2012 Budget requests $142.6 million for the MEP
program. This request is a $17.9 million increase over the FY 2011
annualized CR level. The MEP is a federal-state partnership which
requires a two-thirds financial match from non-NIST sources. Through
its national network of MEP Centers located in every state, 1,400
technical experts help small- and medium-sized manufacturers navigate
economic and business challenges and connect to public and private
resources essential for increased competitiveness and profitability.
Through competitively awarded cooperative agreements, NIST MEP will
expand the capabilities of its nationwide network of centers to
accelerate commercialization of technological innovations, adopt
environmentally sustainable business practices, promote renewable
energy initiatives, foster market diversification, and connect domestic
suppliers to manufacturers to assist manufacturers in successfully
competing over the long term in today's complex global manufacturing
environment.&
The Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
The FY 2012 request for TIP is $75 million. The proposed TIP budget
represents an increase of $5.1 million above the FY 2011 annualized CR
level. TIP funds cutting edge, transformative research and development
projects that address critical national needs and societal challenges
not already being addressed by others. TIP requires a 1:1 match of
funds from the private sector. In FY 2012, TIP expects to hold a
funding competition in one or more of the following research areas:
advanced robotics and intelligent automation, energy, healthcare,
water, civil infrastructure technologies, and manufacturing.
TIP funding will incentivize innovative research and development
(R&D) projects, conducted by small- and medium-sized U.S. based
companies, alone or as joint ventures with universities, national
laboratories and other non-profit research organizations. Further, it
will foster research collaborations, enable the creation of
intellectual property in the United States, disseminate new knowledge,
and advance the state-of-the-art in technologies that address societal
challenges. In its most recent round of funding for manufacturing
projects, TIP awardees included those young, small companies which are
the engines of innovation and the future generators of globally
competitive jobs.
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
NIST is also requesting $12.3M for the Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Consortia (AMTech) program, a new public-private partnership
that will broadly benefit the Nation's industrial base by providing
grants to form and fund industrial consortia to address industrial
driven technological challenges that no one company can address alone.
AMTech is modeled upon NIST's successful partnership, the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, which in collaboration with
industry, funds research consortia targeting the nanoelectronics
technology sector.
AMTech will collapse the timescale of technological innovation by
including partners that span the innovation lifecycle from idea to
discovery, from invention to commercialization. Through cost-sharing
and a common research agenda, these consortia would support the
development of innovative new technologies directed at creating high-
wage jobs and economic growth across the industry sector. These
consortia will develop road-maps of critical long-term industrial
research needs and provide support for research and equipment at
leading universities and government laboratories directed at meeting
these needs.
Out-Build: Building the Nation's Infrastructure--Cyber, Physical and
Wireless
To meet the President's challenge to ``Out-Build'' other nations,
NIST is requesting funds in the FY 2012 budget to strengthen the U.S.
infrastructure in three main areas: the cyber infrastructure, the
physical infrastructure and the wireless infrastructure.
Cybersecurity Infrastructure. A secure cyber infrastructure is
vital to the economic vitality and national security interests of the
United States. In addition to enabling more than $200 billion in annual
e-commerce, interconnected networks of computers are essential for
critical functions such as air traffic control, electric power
distribution and the GPS in our cars. The nation's cyber infrastructure
is central to maintaining the timely delivery and quality of public
services that are part of everyday life. Our nation's computers face
ever-increasing threats from malicious individuals, organizations, and
nation states. Currently, our computer security tools are manually
implemented, too complex to be effectively used, and too static to
respond to rapid changes in the threat environment. This allows many
attacks to succeed, causing significant damage and undermining
confidence in vital commercial and public information systems. The
result is a large, direct economic impact--estimates show that
Americans lose billions of dollars each year to cyber crime.
NIST is responsible for cybersecurity research, development of
federal cybersecurity standards, establishment of methods and metrics
for determining the effectiveness of security controls, and providing
technical support to public and private sector implementation of
security standards and controls. The FY 2012 budget request contains
$43.4 million for cybersecurity related programs and activities that
will strengthen NIST's contribution to the development and promulgation
of effective and usable cybersecurity standards.
The cybersecurity infrastructure request has three initiatives.
Scalable Cybersecurity for Emerging Technologies and
Threats ($14.9M) The request would provide improvements to
NIST's core cybersecurity work in support of the Comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and other national
priorities. NIST will develop improved security techniques,
support the creation of consensus security standards, increase
the interoperability and usability of security technologies,
and expedite the secure adoption of emerging information
technologies.
National Program Office for the National Strategy for
Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) and NSTIC Grant
Program ($24.5M) The request would support a National Program
Office (NPO) to coordinate federal activities needed to
implement NSTIC. This initiative is in direct response to the
recommendations of the White House Cyberspace Policy Review and
will raise the level of trust associated with the identities of
individuals, organizations, services, and devices involved in
online transactions. NIST will be responsible for day to day
and overall operation of the NPO. NIST will work with the
private sector to identify potential funding opportunities for
the delivery of NSTIC solutions. Of the $24.5 million for
NSTIC, $7.0 million will support a National Program Office and
$17.5 million will fund the pilot grants.
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education
(NICE) ($4.0M) The request supports NICE, which expands the
scope of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative's
(CNCI) Education Initiative from the training of the Federal
workforce to a larger national education focus. NIST will
develop a cybersecurity education framework that addresses:
national cybersecurity awareness, formal cybersecurity
education, Federal cybersecurity workforce structure, and
cybersecurity workforce training and professional development.
Interoperability of Infrastructure. Other critical
emerging technologies such as the Smart Grid and national
health care information systems have the potential to transform
our society and revitalize the U.S. economy. To be effective,
the many interconnected components in these systems must be
fully interoperable to allow information to be exchanged and
used seamlessly across systems. As a respected and trusted
technical partner, NIST is uniquely positioned to bring
together stakeholders from industry, government, academia, and
standards development organizations to establish consensus-
based interoperability standards and conformity tests. The
President's budget request for NIST contains an initiative that
will support continued efforts in these critical areas as well
as provide the infrastructure necessary to address other
emerging interoperability challenges.
The Interoperability Standards for Emerging
Technologies Initiative ($23.8M), will focus on the development
of standards to enable or accelerate the successful development
of new technologies such as a smart electrical grid (Smart
Grid), interoperable electronic healthcare records, and cloud
computing. These technologies have the potential to transform
our society and galvanize U.S. industry, and provide new
opportunities for exports of U.S.-developed technologies. For
each technology to be effective, however, many complex
interconnected components must be built to be enable full
interoperability and reduce the full potential of these
technologies. Lack of standards for interoperability can
significantly slow adoption of these emerging technologies,
dampen confidence in industry, and increase the risks of
stranded investments in solutions that quickly become obsolete.
Physical Infrastructure. Buildings in the U.S.
consume 72 percent of all electrical energy produced in this
country. Emissions associated with buildings and appliances are
projected to grow faster than those from any other sector. To
ensure adequate supplies of energy and curtail the projected
growth of carbon dioxide emissions, it is essential to reduce
building energy consumption significantly while minimizing the
environmental impacts of buildings during their life cycles. In
addition, many of the nation's largest buildings and much of
its infrastructure are concentrated in disaster-prone regions
where hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other hazards are
common. Catastrophic failures in infrastructure as a result of
natural disasters are costly and directly impact our personal
and economic health. NIST is requesting funds for two
initiatives that will further the development of a stronger
building infrastructure.
Measurements and Standards to Support Increased
Energy Efficiency and Reduced Environmental Impact initiative
($13.3M) This initiative will fund research in Net-Zero Energy
Building (NZEB) design. NZEB designs would use as much energy
from renewable sources as they consume. Such design also
doubles the service life of building materials, products, and
systems in order to minimize their lifecycle impacts--this also
takes indoor air quality into account. Current analysis methods
are not able to assess the indoor air quality impacts of key
design decisions or impacts of new technologies. This
initiative will provide the measurement science required to
achieve net-zero energy, high-performance buildings. It will
also provide the measurement science to support gas measurement
standards to ensure their accuracy and comparability.
Measurements and Standards to Support Advanced
Infrastructure Delivery and Resilience ($10.6M) The disaster
resilience of our structures today is determined in large
measure by the building codes, standards, materials, and
practices used during their construction. There are gaps in the
measurement science needed to improve the disaster resilience
of infrastructure exposed to natural and man-made hazards. This
request funds efforts to provide improvements to our nation's
physical infrastructure to damage from earthquakes, windstorms,
and fire. This funding will also develop comprehensive measures
of construction practices so our Nation's building
infrastructure can be both more efficiently built and more
resilient.
Wireless Infrastructure. The request to create the Public Safety
Innovation Fund (PSIF), a mandatory account within NIST funded at $100
million ($500 million over five years) is part of the Administration's
Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative (WI3).
President Obama called for a National Wireless Initiative to make
available high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of
Americans. The WI3 will make it possible for businesses to achieve that
goal, while freeing up spectrum through incentive auctions, spurring
innovation, and supporting a nationwide, interoperable wireless network
for public safety. An important element of this plan is the
reallocation of the D Block for public safety, and some of the proceeds
from the incentive auctions being dedicated to NIST research,
experimentation and testbeds. The funds will also focus on applied
development to foster the development of a next-generation Public
Safety communications network.
Specifically, to spur innovation, the WI3 includes a Wireless
Innovation (WIN) Fund for research and development of emerging wireless
technologies and applications. NIST will focus on applied development
to foster the development of a next-generation Public Safety
communications network. The current systems for 4G high speed wireless
services are not tailored for public safety's requirements. Developing
and implementing such requirements, including capabilities to enable
handsets to operate in peer-to-peer (or without the aid of a central
network) will require technological leadership that NIST can help
provide. NIST, in consultation with agency partners, including the
National Institute of Justice at the Department of Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security, will focus on developing and testing
requirements, standards, wireless applications, and other wireless
technologies in support of an interoperable nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network.
Out-Educate: Training the Next Generation of Scientists.
In order to ``Out-Educate,'' each agency must do its part. While
NIST does not have a primary mission in education, the future
development of the nation's scientists is critical to the future of
NIST. NIST has an important role to play in helping to identify,
recruit, and retain the next generation of scientists and engineers to
help drive American competitiveness. There is one initiative associated
with this area:
The Postdoctoral Research Associateship Program
($3.0M) This highly competitive program is very effective at
attracting outstanding scientists and engineers to consider a
career in science by providing opportunities to work alongside
NIST researchers. I want to thank the Committee for its support
in eliminating the cap on funding for the post-doc program. The
elimination of this cap allows NIST to fund more associates.
The requested increase will enable the program to offer at
least an additional 23 positions per year and keep the pipeline
of bright, new scientists flowing.
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education
(NICE) ($4.0M) As mentioned earlier, the request supports NICE,
which expands the scope of the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative's (CNCI) Education Initiative from the
training of the Federal workforce to a larger national
education focus.
Construction of Research Facilities (CRF): The FY 2012 request
totals $84.6 million, a $62.4 million decrease over the FY 2011
annualized level. The request contains $25.4 million to continue the
renovation of the 60-year-old Building 1 on the NIST Boulder campus,
which houses the majority of research and measurement laboratories on
the Boulder campus. The balance of the account, $59.2 million, will
provide funding for NIST to address deficiencies and maintain NIST's
laboratories and facilities. The decrease reflects the elimination of
congressionally-directed projects from FY 2010.
Budget Decreases: Finally, let me touch on two areas in which the
budget reflects savings: The Administration's Administrative Efficiency
Initiative challenged all agencies to identify savings as part of the
budget development process. NIST's FY 2012 budget incorporates over $11
million in administrative savings across the agency in order to make
the agency more efficient and effective in an era of tight budgets.
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) requests $7.7
million, $1.9 million less than the FY 2011 annualized CR level. The FY
2012 funding supports the continued development of the Baldrige Program
Criteria, dissemination of best practices, and the annual awards
process. At the proposed level, BPEP will evaluate alternative sources
of funding and alternative cost models consistent with the
administration's goal of transitioning the program out of federal
funding.
Summary
In summary, I would like to note that for more than 100 years NIST
has maintained the national standards of measurement. This role was
assigned by the U.S. Constitution to the Federal Government to promote
industry and ensure market fairness. The FY 2012 budget request for
NIST reflects the Administration's recognition of the important role
that NIST plays in innovation and the impact that the research and
services NIST provides can have on moving the nation forward by laying
the foundation for long- term job creation and prosperity. By
sustaining our investments in fundamental research, we can ensure that
America remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby
enhancing our ability to shape and improve our nation's future and that
of the world around us. I look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman
and members of the Committee and would be happy to answer any
questions.
Biography for Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher
Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Science
and Technology and Director. Dr. Patrick Gallagher was confirmed as the
14th Director of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) on Nov. 5, 2009. He also serves as
Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, a new
position created in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,
signed by President Obama on Jan. 4, 2011.
Gallagher provides high-level oversight and direction for NIST. The
agency promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by
advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. 2010
resources include $856.6 million from the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-117), $49.9 million inservice fees, and
$101.5 million from other agencies. The agency employs about 2,900
scientists, engineers, technicians, support staff and administrative
personnel at NIST's two main locations in Gaithersburg, Maryland and
Boulder, Colorado.
Gallagher had served as Deputy Director since 2008. Prior to that,
he served for four years as Director of the NIST Center for Neutron
Research (NCNR), a national user facility for neutron scattering on the
NIST Gaithersburg campus. The NCNR provides a broad range of neutron
diffraction and spectroscopy capability with thermal and cold neutron
beams and is presently the nation's most used facility of this type.
Gallagher received his Ph.D. in Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
in 1991. His research interests include neutron and X-ray
instrumentation and studies of soft condensed matter systems such as
liquids, polymers, and gels. In 2000, Gallagher was a NIST agency
representative at the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
He has been active in the area of U.S. policy for scientific user
facilities and was chair of the Interagency Working Group on neutron
and light source facilities under the Office of Science and Technology
Policy. Currently, he serves as co-chair of the Standards Subcommittee
under the White House National Science and Technology Council.
Chairman Hall. And I thank you for staying within the five
minutes and for your testimony and for those who are with you
today that have helped you prepare for this and giving of their
time and being so patient when we had to take time off to go
vote.
And I thank the folks that are back here. The main ones are
here, but the empty seats shouldn't be of any bad omen to you
because this goes into the congressional record. They get
copies of everything. It will be read. You will be heard by
more than just three or four people here, but this is the day
everybody heads for home or they have two or three other
committee meetings before the end of the week. So bear with us
and thank you. We know you have duties to go to, so I will not
take up any more time apologizing, but I thank you very much.
I don't think I have mentioned that we really have just
five minutes each of us for questions. I recognize myself for
five minutes, and I will give some of that back.
Dr. Gallagher, I have a question here. Your testimony
highlights a NIST initiative focusing $13 million in Fiscal
Year 2012 on research related to what they call ``net zero
energy buildings.'' Explain first for the record what it means
to be 'net zero'. And then why is NIST doing this work instead
of the Department of Energy or perhaps the private sector? And
is there coordination with other federal agencies to ensure
that there is not duplication of efforts and to utilize the
expertise of other agencies? That is about three questions in
one, and I used up too much time even asking. You are
recognized to give us a good answer to that, as accurate an
insight as you can.
Dr. Gallagher. Right, thank you. The net zero energy
buildings program is basically a goal to develop and build
buildings that generate as much energy as they use. It is a
stretch goal to achieve a building infrastructure that is
sustainable.
In the United States, I think you know that our building
infrastructure is one of our major consumers of power. It is
about 40 percent of our total electricity and the energy budget
goes into our building infrastructure. So if we can make
reductions and make improvements in the efficiencies of our
building infrastructure, we can really have big benefits.
The way to achieve net zero energy buildings is a
combination of high efficiency components, so it is certainly
about energy efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems,
but it is also about the optimization of those components into
a working building. And then on top of that, it is about adding
distributed energy generation, things like solar energy
distribution. So it is about design integration, and it is
about optimizing a set of building practices and materials that
are used in the construction and use of buildings.
The Energy Department certainly plays a role in the
research efforts, but a lot of this is taking place in
industry. And the NIST role is basically to support industry by
developing the basis for model codes and standards that the
building industry can use as they develop high efficiency
building designs.
Chairman Hall. Okay, is there coordination then with other
federal agencies to ensure that there is not duplication--that
is one of the things we have more concern with, and to utilize
the expertise of the other agencies, I asked why wasn't this
work being done by the Department of Energy. I think you have
answered that, and I thank you. And I will go to Ms. Edwards,
who is the ranking member here, for her five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know that
Ranking Member Johnson would want to be here. And she has asked
me to sit in her stead because she has a conflict. Dr.
Gallagher, thank you very much for the work that you do, the
fine work at NIST. Your headquarters is in Gaithersburg,
Maryland in the fourth congressional district. And I want to
suggest to Chairman Hall that it would be a great field trip
for this Committee to come out and visit the NIST headquarters
and laboratories because I know that when I visited, I learned
so much. And it makes such a huge difference in terms of
understanding the mission of NIST and the work that is done
there.
I would point particularly to the Center for Nanoscale
Science and Technology, which is doing some of the cutting edge
research in nanotechnologies, cost competitive technologies,
that really are the game changer for the future. And so, Dr.
Gallagher, thanks, and I look forward to sharing that visit
with my colleagues.
I want to ask you in particular about the manufacturing
extension partnership. I would just share with you, Dr.
Gallagher, that at University of Maryland, the entire
University of Maryland system, is in a partnership. It is
supported by NIST, and I know that for my state, that
partnership makes a huge difference. I mean it is the way that
we take some of this really innovative work that is going on at
our universities, and we partner with business and transfer
those technologies into the marketplace.
And I want to share with you a story from rural Maryland.
It is JEM Engineering, and they provide custom antenna design,
manufacturing and testing services for government and
commercial applications. NIST made--through the partnership,
there was a relatively modest investment that has actually
resulted in this private firm seeing an increase of $1.2
million in its sales.
Another company in Montgomery County, Maryland, SEMicro
Division of METE specializes in design development and
manufacturing of adhesive testing equipment. Now, I wouldn't
know anything about this, but I do know that when I paint my
walls, I want to make sure it sticks. And that is what this
company does and what they have been able to do with help
through this manufacturing and engineering partnership is to--
extension partnership is to develop a technology that allows
the use of digital technology converted from analog technology
to do testing to make sure that the stuff that we want to stick
does. And this has been really important, particularly to the
paints and coating industry.
And I know that this company has also seen significant
growth in its sales, and it is this kind of partnership that is
really the great combination that NIST does in partnering with
the business community and transferring technologies and seeing
market growth.
In Maryland, I would note that we have seen a real impact
of about $291 million across our state from very, very modest
investments through this partnership, and I know that is true
across the country.
I had a question from my colleague again, Congresswoman
Giffords from Arizona, who has been a huge proponent of
expanding our manufacturing base. And she notes that, her staff
has noted for me that in Arizona the MEP has helped over 300
manufacturers in Congresswoman Giffords' district and in the
last five years, increase sales by about $480 million, creating
641 jobs in Arizona. That is something that--it is about 1,400
jobs.
And so if you could tell me please the role that you see
from the new budget in terms of the investments that we are
making in the MEP program and whether the current budget
request really keeps us on track for increasing the partnership
to about $180 million by 2015, and the contribution that we
anticipate that can make to our manufacturing sector.
Dr. Gallagher. Well, I thank you very much for that, and I
am delighted to hear the success stories coming from some of
the manufacturers that use the MEP program. I think you touched
on a couple of critical aspects to remember about MEP. It is a
partnership program. The MEP program provides up to one-third
of the funding for centers that are across the United States.
And what that partnership does is it allows these state-based
centers to interact with each other to share and disseminate
best practices. And it allows them to share metrics, what
specifically works and doesn't work.
And the services that are being provided are services that
maybe a very large manufacturing company would be able to do
within themselves, but the small business community cannot
perform. So this is addressing and matching the capabilities of
manufacturers in supply chains with new technologies and new
products--helping these small manufacturers operate in what is
increasingly a competitive global international market.
If small business manufacturing is the center or the
heartbeat of our economic growth, I think it is imperative that
a program like this continue. The proposed budget for MEP is
consistent with the growth that we have talked about in America
COMPETES for strengthening this program that addresses a fairly
significant fraction of the small, mid-sized manufacturing
base. And I think within that community that is using these
services, it is having a very significant impact.
Ms. Edwards. Okay, thank you.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, and at this time, I recognize the
gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Adams.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. I want to touch back as something,
and then I want to move forward, and I just want quick a
response from you as possible. You said that the $13 million
that is requested on net-zero research is a stretch goal. At a
time when the American people are having to tighten their
belts, at a time when our economy is such that people are
looking every day for jobs, and we need jobs, we need our
economy to improve, do you think it is wise to come and say we
want to get $13 million for a stretch goal? Shouldn't we just
be prioritizing and working with the other agencies that are
already doing this type of investigation and investigative
research?
Dr. Gallagher. So the quick answer is I think it is wise.
Remember the goal is the challenge goal that is in front of
them, an interagency effort to develop clean energy technology.
So it came out of an interagency study that was started the end
of the Bush administration.
Mrs. Adams. Do you know how many agencies are doing this
study, or are working on this issue?
Dr. Gallagher. There are several agencies involved in----
Mrs. Adams. Multiple.
Dr. Gallagher. --their role----
Mrs. Adams. Very multiple. There are millions and millions
of dollars.
Dr. Gallagher. I don't know the amount, but their roles are
laid out in the report.
Mrs. Adams. So when you are telling us you are asking for
$13 million for a stretch goal, that concerns me. I just want
to let you know that because of the economy and the jobs that
we are trying to create at this point in time.
I understand the administration has established an
initiative known as the National Strategy for Trusted
Identities in Cyberspace. The strategy seeks to improve upon
the passwords currently used to log in online and enable people
to validate their identity securely when they are doing
sensitive transactions online. The steps the administration has
taken in this area are concerning to me because it is unclear
what the trusted identity will look like. Is the administration
proposing some central sort of national identification system?
And can you explain what the goals of NSTIC are and what
tangible output will be produced assuming the initiative moves
forward?
Dr. Gallagher. Yes, thank you. So NSTIC refers to a
national strategy for developing an infrastructure for trust.
The strategy is being prepared, and we hope it is released
shortly, so that will certainly show more details about what
the approach will be. I can share with you that the approach is
not to create a centralized identity, government-managed
infrastructure. In fact, the reason Commerce----
Mrs. Adams. Will you not create that then?
Dr. Gallagher. We will not create that. So the purpose is
to support industry to develop a variety of technologies that
can be used to establish trust between two people having an
interaction on the Internet. And our hope is that if industry
creates these solutions, whenever the government needs
something, we can turn to that.
Mrs. Adams. Yes, it is always good to see the private
sector working.
Dr. Gallagher. We agree.
Mrs. Adams. In early 2009, the National Academies published
a report titled ``Strengthening Forensic Science in the United
States: A Path Forward.'' The report detailed many concerns
with the state of forensic science in our country, and the
reliability and accuracy of the science behind techniques and
procedures used to convict or acquit people of crimes was
called into question. Could you please discuss what NIST's role
has been in forensic science, and what you think the
appropriate role for NIST should be in the future?
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you. I think the historic role for
NIST is its core mission, which is the nation's measurement
laboratory. So the activities we have had in forensic science
are to establish a scientifically validated methodology for
specific types of measurements. From the beginning of NIST's
history, we have been involved in forensic science
measurements.
The specific example that is noted most often is our role
in establishing the methodology for DNA matching, which is, of
course, used extensively. In fact, that was pointed out in the
Academy's report. So I think the correct role for NIST is to
not be a judicial agency, but to actually focus on the
measurement science and to provide a validated basis for
techniques that are used in the field.
Mrs. Adams. So that is----
Dr. Gallagher. That has been our effort.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. And also I am quickly going to ask
about the manufacturing I have heard from some in the district.
That there doesn't seem to be an understanding from our
President about the importance of the industry to the future of
American innovation. Do you feel there is leadership on this
issue, and how is the administration coordinating manufacturing
activities amongst the different federal agencies?
Dr. Gallagher. So I have an enormous passion for
manufacturing because our ability----
Mrs. Adams. As have I.
Dr. Gallagher. --as a country to innovate depends on our
ability as a country to manufacture. 70 percent of the
scientist and engineers in this country work for manufacturing
industries. So our capacity as a country to innovate is
fundamentally tied to manufacturing.
I think that there is a window of opportunity. I think
there is an enormous sense that, in fact, everyone is getting
it. I think everyone understand the importance of this. The
highest levels of the administration are now focused----
Mrs. Adams. They are now focused on it? Thank you.
Dr. Gallagher. And there is a very robust interagency
process to----
Mrs. Adams. Well, as someone who worked in the
manufacturing business years ago as a teenager and watched it
all disappear, I would love to see it all come back.
Dr. Gallagher. I would love to work with you on that.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. I Thank the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you for being here, Dr. Gallagher. I appreciated your
taking the time the other day to brief me on this. I had some
understanding of it. I have a much deeper understanding and
appreciation of the work that you do and how critical it is to
the innovation agenda for our country.
If you were here during the earlier panel, which I believe
you were, you heard me hammer on this theme of rebuilding the
country and how that is something that Americans understand
implicitly. What is involved in that is really investment in
all different kinds of infrastructure, physical infrastructure,
human infrastructure, civic infrastructure. A lot of the work
that NIST is doing is powering innovation and technology. And I
too want to commend NIST for the MEP program and for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and all that that means,
particularly for small businesses who may not have the
resources on their own to bring in new, innovative, cutting-
edge techniques but can draw on the expertise that is assembled
through the MEP program.
And I hope that at the end of this budget process, the
resources that you would like to see committed to sustaining
that effort are there to help that, the mission of that
program.
You mentioned the other day when we met and I thought you
might address it in the hearing briefly, this idea of
establishing sustainability standards. Obviously one of the
principal roles NIST has is to create these standards that can
cut across, and also to think about how our standard setting
interacts with the standard setting that goes on around the
world and make sure that we are at the table as that is
happening, that we are exercising a leadership role where that
is appropriate and useful to do.
And I was impressed to hear that the United States'
standard setting process is really the gold standard
internationally. Could you speak to the efforts to kind of push
and work with industry to develop these sustainability
standards? Before, as I gather, others have done so because I
don't think that has been established elsewhere yet. And if we
could get on the front edge of that, that would be really
helpful, I think.
Dr. Gallagher. So thank you. All right, the standard
setting in the United States is actually unique around the
world because standards are set by the private sector. Industry
leads our standards development efforts in the United States.
NIST's role by law is to coordinate the federal agencies'
interaction with the private sector standards.
In the area of sustainability, it is quite interesting
because consumers have always attached value to what a
manufactured product is. And so obviously we are sensitive to
price. That reflects how efficiently something is made, but we
also are concerned with the quality of how something is made.
In the 1980s, we were very concerned about the quality of
American manufactured products.
Increasingly, there is this sense of caring about the life
cycle of a manufactured product because of finite resources. So
whether it was officially made using either natural materials,
including the recyclable costs or the recovery costs when the
useful lifetime of that manufactured product is done, whether
it is the use of energy in manufacturing that process.
And other parts of the world are actually addressing these
and in some cases, making requirements in their marketplace
about whether hazardous materials of a certain type will be
used or certain types of energy efficiency.
U.S. manufacturers are coming to NIST because they see the
strategic advantage of having their products be identified as
sustainably manufactured. And for consumers to attach value to
that, we have to help define what that means, and so this is a
classic case of NIST working with industry to help define
what--how do you define sustainability, and what the voluntary
consensus standards are around that.
My feeling is that consumers will attach value to this, and
as they do, that will strongly advantage U.S. manufacturers
because many of the attributes of manufacturing in the United
States with our energy infrastructure and our environmental
approach re-advantages manufacturers in that context.
So it is critically important. This Committee has
recognized that it was called for under the America COMPETES
reauthorization, and we have tried to reflect that in our
request. It is critically important.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. Thank Mr. Sarbanes, and now we recognize the
gentleman from Arizona, one of our new Members, Mr. Quayle, for
five minutes.
Mr. Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gallagher, good to
see you again.
Dr. Gallagher. Yes.
Mr. Quayle. Thanks for coming. One of the things I wanted
to talk to you about is health IT, and one of the things that
has been coming up a lot is electronic medical records and how
we can actually probably be able to reduce injuries and
mistakes and also reduce costs because a lot of times, we
repeat and duplicate procedures that aren't needed.
But one of the things that I have been talking to doctors
back in my home district about is that there are so many
different types of electronic medical records, and they are not
compatible with one another. And so what happens is that it is
much easier and much quicker for them to actually just go and
do the same procedures over again.
So we are starting to have a lot of electronic records that
can't communicate with one another. And we are just duplicating
the same problem that we had before. So I wanted to know how
have you at NIST been able to deal with the huge laundry list
of various health IT standards in trying to make sure that
there is one set way that electronic medical records can
communicate with one another?
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you very much. It is critically
important, and I think you enunciated the advantages of
information in medicine, that the efficiencies we can gain are
extremely large. The challenges are large too because if this
information can't be officially shared, protecting the security
so we don't violate the privacy of patients, that it is used
appropriately, then this system doesn't work.
By law, the responsibility for fostering the creation of a
national not interoperable system of health care records was
given to HHS, and they have an office of the national
coordinator that is led by Dr. David Blumenthal. NIST works
extremely closely with that office, and, in fact, that role was
also laid out by legislation.
The best way to understand the NIST contribution is that,
as a nonregulatory, technical agency, our job is to work both
with the industries that are developing these electronic
medical systems and with HHS, the federal agency that creates
the incentives through Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements that
are set out by law, to make sure that when we set requirements
or standards for these products that they are testable and
achievable.
So a key part of the NIST role is how do you show that two
systems can share information and that the information will be
accurately and securely conveyed? So a key part of the NIST
role is its technical work to find a testable test methods,
validation methods. How would you demonstrate the two systems
can talk to each other securely and reliably? And then working
with HHS to support how they help the market. In other words,
how do you help a physician, who is buying a system, know that
the system he is buying will work in this national network? And
that it could come down to product identification or some sort
of voluntary certification process.
NIST has experience with a wide range of those processes,
and so we provide guidance there. These are called conformity
assessment techniques. How do we show in the market that
something complies with these standards that industry has come
up with?
Mr. Quayle. And in the private sector, those that are
dealing with electronic medical records, have they been helpful
and open to having some set standard in terms of being able to
communicate? Obviously each different product will have
different bells and whistles, but having the ability to have
one set standard so that they can communicate, whether one
doctor uses one product and the other uses another. Have they
been open to that?
Dr. Gallagher. Very open. So from the marketplace, if I am
a company producing these kinds of products and services, this
is to my advantage now because there is no way I am going to
capture the whole market where everybody buys my system. So
what I want is to make sure that the products I am selling, the
physicians and doctors' offices and hospitals buying it know
that it will work in this national network. It basically
creates a platform technology that they can then build on, and
they can distinguish themselves, not on whether it works--that
is now sort of a core functionality--but what additional
features their products and services offer.
So it provides a real platform on which they can go
forward, and they have been very cooperative. In fact, it is
industry that takes the lead in defining many of these
requirements. We are the technical resource for them and play a
key convening role. How would you demonstrate that these
requirements that you are proposing would work, and how would
we show it through tests and other techniques?
Mr. Quayle. And is one of the big requirements going to be,
or is it in the process of being basic cybersecurity because of
the delicate nature of medical records to make sure that they
don't get in the wrong hands? Is that being addressed in----
Dr. Gallagher. It is critically important because you are
talking about sharing information, very sensitive information
about patient and physician basically through the Internet. And
we don't want to violate patients' privacy. We don't want
anyone compromising these records or destroying them because we
are literally dealing with peoples' lives here, and so the
cybersecurity is a critical attribute of a successful
electronic medical records system.
Mr. Quayle. Okay, thank you, Dr. Gallagher. I yield back.
Chairman Hall. Thank you for that. Chair now recognizes Mr.
Wu for five minutes, and your time is almost up, Mr. Wu.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Hall. Since you are a member of the Committee, we
recognize you for your five minutes.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, you have always appropriately kept me
on a correct length leash. Thank you. Thank you very much for
being here, Dr. Gallagher. You are a very capable leader for a
very important agency. My three-part description of NIST has
always been if you can't measure it, it is not real for
economic or technical purposes. If you don't have a reference
material for it, you don't really know what it is. And if you
don't have technical standards, then it is potentially
interoperable, and you run the risk of a technologic tower of
Babel.
Your agency is absolutely crucial to our technology and to
our economy and to American innovation. I am here today to ask
you about a very prosaic, very practical matter that has been
forcefully brought to our attention by the tragedy in Japan
this morning. These earthquakes, the earthquake in Japan, and
we certainly extend our heartfelt condolences to all the
Japanese who have been affected by this and those who are
currently here in the United States.
This kind of tragedy has also struck Chile and Haiti in the
recent past. It is also something that is very much on my mind
because a similar phenomena will occur off the coast of Oregon.
The Cascadia Fault runs off the Washington, Oregon, and
California coasts, and of particular concern is a 250-mile
stretch of the Cascadia Fault that is currently locked up.
Historically it has locked up, and every 300 years or so, there
is an earthquake of up to 9.0 magnitude right in the range of
the 8.9 Richter Scale magnitude that occurred in Japan this
morning. The fault is also close to the Oregon coast, like the
Chilean fault earlier this year and like the Japanese fault.
NIST is taking a leadership role in setting standards and
doing cutting edge research on structures, buildings, and other
infrastructures, which are resistant, better resistant, to
earthquakes. I would like you to talk a little bit about that,
and then I have one quick follow-up question after that.
Dr. Gallagher. Great, thank you. And it is tragic that this
is such a timely topic today. Many of our colleagues and
friends from Japan were waiting to hear how things are faring
with them. So the relationship with NIST and hazard reduction
for earthquake hazards goes back to 1977 when Congress passed
the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act. In that process,
several agencies have critical responsibilities. There are four
major agencies: NIST, the U.S. Geologic Survey, FEMA, and the
National Science Foundation. They are working with the Office
of Science and Technology Policy.
The roles complement each other, so USGS looks at seismic
research and how you predict and map out hazard areas. FEMA
looks primarily at response and recovery activities, and NSF
supports the long-range engineering research that we need to
help engineers design seismically-resistant structures and the
NIST role is quite interesting.
The NIST role is to support the development of
infrastructure and buildings that are resilient against
earthquake hazards. And the way we affect that is understanding
how buildings are built. That is when you design in how
resistant a building is to a hazard. So the most critical thing
you can do is take the research results that these larger
efforts are doing, plus what we learn when an earthquake
happens, and make sure we are reflecting the latest
understanding in building codes.
The Federal Government doesn't set building codes. What we
do is work with the codes community to develop model codes, and
those are adopted at the local level. So the NIST role is
interesting because we have to learn from tragedy: so one of
our roles is to use the field as experience, figure out why
structures fail under earthquake or other natural disasters,
and also look to what the research community is telling us, and
then work with the standards and codes community to reflect
that.
And I think the advisory committee for the Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program is actually at NIST. Yesterday and
today, I will be meeting with the committee as soon as I leave
here, and I think they would tell you we have a balance of the
portfolio problem. That we, while we have very strong efforts
in the recovery part of our--the emergency recovery part of our
portfolio. We are not spending enough on the hazard mitigation
or the risk reduction piece.
And that includes not just the buildings themselves but
also the infrastructure. If you lose power and natural gas and
water the ability of a community to respond is severely
compromised, and so these lifeline issues are critically
important. And this is also reflected in our request.
Mr. Wu. Doctor, the Chairman will forcefully say that my
time has expired, so let me ask this question and ask for your
answer later. And my understanding is that different building
codes, different nations, the Chileans, the Japanese, some of
them have had remarkably resilient buildings, and I would like
to know how the United States compares to some of these other
countries when you have time to respond, not during Committee
time. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Congressman Wu, and thank you,
Dr. Gallagher, for your very direct and professional answers.
We appreciate it. Thank all those of you still here in
attendance. And Members of the Committee may have additional
questions that they will submit to you. We ask that you answer
those in writing. If you can, we would like for you to do it
within the two weeks time if that is possible. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional comments. The Members
and witnesses are excused. I thank all of you for coming. The
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Subra Suresh, Director, National Science Foundation
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Scattered throughout the entire federal budget request are
dramatic increases in spending on ``clean technologies.'' At the
Department of Energy alone, there are enormous spending increases for
clean tech through ARPA-E, EERE, the Office of Science, the Loan
Guarantee Program, and Energy Innovation Hubs, to name just a few.
Similar programs are proposed throughout the government, including
NSF's ``Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)''
portfolio intended to ``spark innovations for tomorrow's clean energy
sources with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science.''
The FY 12 budget request is $998 million for this effort. This is a 51
percent increase over the FY 10 amount and reflects 13 percent of the
entire NSF budget.
a. Given that President Obama said in the State of the Union that he
was ``willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do
without,'' and the immense amount of spending across the federal
government on clean energy activities, do you really believe the NSF
can't ``afford to do without'' this $338 million in new spending on
this one topic?
b. Further, is it even possible for NSF to responsibly absorb and
spend such dramatic increases in funding? How is NSF working with the
Administration to ensure that there is a government-wide coordinated
research strategy, with specific, government appropriate research to
confined areas? How can you prevent ``research crawl,'' when identical
research proliferates into every agency? How can you assure us that the
research NSF is supporting is not identical to the research being
supported by the plethora of other agencies performing similar
research?
A1a. NSF's involvement in clean energy is driven by the fundamental
research questions that underlie future energy pathways. NSF's
investments in clean energy support research and education in
alternative energy for electricity (solar, wind, wave, geothermal) and
fuels (chemical and biofuels). NSF grantees also address the
collection, conversion, storage and distribution of energy from diverse
power sources (including smart grids), the science and engineering of
energy materials, energy use and energy efficiency. As an integral part
of the NSF Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
(SEES) portfolio, clean energy research addresses our advancement
toward reliable and sustainable energy resources that will not degrade
essential ecosystems and environmental services, not lead to
unacceptable social or economic consequences, and will prepare society
to responsibly adopt them.
In FY 2012, the SEES activity, which is designed to advance
science, engineering, and education to inform the societal actions
needed for environmental and economic sustainability and sustainable
human well-being, is proposed to include a major emphasis on
sustainable energy. NSF will mobilize the social, behavioral, and
economic science research community to work in close collaboration with
natural scientists and engineers to provide a comprehensive and
integrated approach to solving questions of sustainability. NSF views
this investment to foster insights into the environment-energy-society
nexus as vital to increasing the effectiveness of our energy and
ecosystem management policies, and to securing a prosperous future for
the Nation.
Future U.S. economic competitiveness, energy independence, and
sustainable growth greatly depend upon a talented and motivated
workforce with strong competencies in science and engineering. NSF's
long track record of supporting the development of creative faculty,
and their students, form the backbone of the Nation's strength in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These faculty and
students go on to be the leaders in efforts supported by other agencies
such as the Department of Energy (DOE), entrepreneurial start-ups, and
large companies. NSF's integration of research and education is vital
for the future of the country. Specific efforts under SEES will support
postdoctoral researchers and early career scientists at the interfaces
between social sciences and engineering disciplines so that they might
gain the skills necessary to address critical scientific and societal
challenges.
A1b. NSF funds research that is performed external to the government
and across traditional disciplinary lines. This approach to research is
critical to address highly complex areas, such as the environment-
energy-society nexus, where disciplinary boundaries need to be broken
to solve seemingly intractable problems and enhance energy
independence.
Last year some $2 billion in funding requests that were judged to
be meritorious and worthy of support were declined due to
unavailability of sufficient resources. Initial SEES activities in 2010
and 2011 were significantly oversubscribed, demonstrating the
tremendous need for investment in this area, and the requested S338
million increase in SEES would support approximately 700 typical NSF
research grants. Importantly, the complex nature of the environment-
energy-society dynamic will, in many cases, best be understood through
the coordinated work of teams of investigators and require research at
multiple organizational, spatial, and temporal scales. Funding these
teams will require support at levels above the NSF average.
The issue of possible duplication of effort across agencies is
important to NSF. Our activities in the sustainability arena are
developed in close consultation with DOE, NOAA, USGS, USDA, and other
federal agencies to specifically leverage, not duplicate. federal
investments. Already, DOE partners with NSF in Engineering Research
Centers focusing on the engineering, science, social science, economics
and human behavioral aspects associated with disruptive changes in
energy strategies. Discussions with other federal agencies indicate
considerable interest in building joint programs and sharing
infrastructure. Leveraging these programs internationally is also
important to meet sustainability challenges. The proposed SEES activity
explicitly includes support for networks of diverse investigators in
order to optimize collaboration and reduce duplication.
NSF is a key player in the inter-agency sustainability arena
because of our unique involvement with all the areas of science,
engineering, and science education required to address the complex
system level problems of sustainability. As the only agency
specifically dedicated to advancing fundamental scientific and
technological understanding across all science and engineering fields,
NSF-supported research typically precedes direct application by mission
agencies or others by years to decades. In addition to closing key
knowledge gaps about the interplay of environment, energy, and society,
NSF will link the academic community with private partners to address
sustainability issues and educate the next generation interdisciplinary
workforce. Here is how NSF SEES sets us apart from the other agencies
and plays to our strengths:
NSF has developed a ``pathways approach'' to SEES.
This approach involves cross directorate and interdisciplinary
research that integrates the physical, engineering, social, and
environmental sciences to provide a comprehensive and
integrated approach to solving questions of sustainability.
Our ``sustainable energy pathways'' integrates
resource characterization and the technology needed to develop
and effectively use the resource with the social and
environmental impact of widespread adoption of that energy
source.
NSF will invest in graduate students and postdoctoral
scholars with the aim to develop a scientific workforce trained
in new technologies for emerging markets in energy and other
aspects of sustain ability science.
NSF uses a total systems approach to the
sustainability challenge that involves cutting edge science and
technology coupled with a strong commitment to education and
training. National Nanotechnology Initiative /NNI)
Q2. The budget request calls for a 10.6 percent increase for the NSF
contribution to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Please
tell us how this increase of funding will be spent and why it is
necessary at this time?
A2. The NNI investment at NSF will focus primarily on priority areas
driven by national needs (manufacturing, electronics, and energy),
public safety (nanotechnology environment, health and safety (EHS)),
and partnerships with other agencies (NNI-NSTC crosscuts) and industry.
BA portion of NSF's NNI investment, $117.40 million, will be
invested in three NNI Signature Initiatives (partially covered by the
requested increase in addition to the reallocation of funds within the
current budget)
Sustainable Nanomanufacturing ($35.40 million): This request will
support single investigator and interdisciplinary research teams in the
following areas:
Novel processes and techniques for continuous and
scalable nanomanufacturing;
Directed (physical/chemicallbiological) self-assembly
processes leading to heterogeneous nanostructures with the
potential for high-rate production;
Principles and design methods to produce machines and
processes to manufacture nanoscale structures, devices and
systems; and
Long-term societal and educational implications of
the large-scale production and use of nanomaterials, devices
and systems, including the life-cycle analysis of such
nanomaterials, devices and systems.
Partnerships with NIST, DOD and other NNI agencies are planned.
Nanoelectronics for 2020 and beyond ($50.0 million)--This request
will fund grants to advance the forefront of computation, information
processing, sensor technologies, and communications infrastructure
beyond the physical and conceptual limitations of current technologies.
The initiative is intended to support proposals by single investigators
and interdisciplinary teams of investigators committed to exploring
innovative research concepts in nanoelectronics involving fundamental
challenges from novel materials, chemistry, and logic devices, to
circuit designs and systems architectures, algorithms, and perhaps
entirely new paradigms of computation, sensing, and processing of
information. The following themes will receive priority:
Exploring new chemistries and materials for
nanoelectronics;
Exploring alternative state variables and
heterogeneous integration for nanoelectronic devices and
systems; and
Exploring novel paradigms of computing.
Co-funding with the Semiconductor Research Corporation and other
NNI agencies is planned.
Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion ($35.40
million). This request will fund single investigators and
interdisciplinary research teams in the following areas:
Improve efficiency of photovoltaic solar electricity
generation with nanotechnology;
Develop thermoelectric converters for solar thermal
energy generation and conversion with nanotechnology; and
Improve solar-to-fuel conversions with
nanotechnology.
NSF will collaborate with DOE and other NNI agencies.
Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS). In FY 2012, funds are
transferred from several Program Component Areas (PCAs) to increase
funding for the Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) PCA to reach a
total FY 2012 funding level of $34.51 million. This shift reflects the
prioritization of EHS within the overall NNI portfolio. Requests for
research are primarily directed at environmental, health, and safety
implications and methods for reducing the respective risks of
nanotechnology development. The support for EHS represents 7.6 percent
of total NNI funding at NSF.
The three signature initiatives and nano-EHS research increases
have been recommended by interagency working groups, workshops
organized with the research communities and the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). In addition, NSF sponsored
an international study entitled ``Nanotechnology Research Directions
for Societal Needs in 2020'' (NSFIWTEC report in 2010, available on
www.nsf.gov/nano.) It provides assessment of nanotechnology development
over the last ten years (2000-2010) and a long term vision of the field
over the next decade (2010-2020).
MREFC
Q3. As you are well aware, the recently passed House Continuing
Resolution reduces funding for the MREFC account significantly. Should
that amount become law, please describe how NSF will distribute the
funding across current projects.
A3. If expected funding levels are not appropriated in FY 2011, NSF
will give priority to completing projects in construction--with highest
priority to those farthest along. NSF plans to minimize the disruption
to the portfolio of projects in construction by making budget
alterations to the smallest number of projects necessary to stay within
the available budget. For early phase construction projects and new
starts, NSF will assess their plans to see where funding reductions
would produce the least impact on project performance and risk, and
result in the best overall outcome under the circumstances. Changes to
the proposed funding plans--which were based on technically limited
cost profiles (i.e. expenditure profiles based on planning projects at
the maximum rate technical work can be performed because that profile
provides the lowest total cost to the government)--could result in net
increases to the total project costs of each of the projects affected.
NSF is quantifying these cost impacts and will make adjustments to the
proposed distribution across the portfolio of projects based on an
understanding of the costs of various options.
Questions submitted by Representative Mo Brooks
Budget Priorities
Q4. Could you please identify and explain the processes and criteria
used to establish the priorities for NSF in the FY 12 Budget Request?
A4. NSF establishes scientific priorities based on a myriad of inputs
and considerations, To ensure that NSF's research funding is focused on
the needs of the scientific community, the agency takes seriously the
important feedback obtained through workshops, Advisory Committee
meetings, outreach efforts, and everyday interactions between NSF
program staff and their peers and colleagues in the science and
engineering community, In addition, the Foundation closely follows
guidance and priorities identified by OMB and OSTP in official
documents, such as the annual joint memorandum on Science and
Technology Priorities, and statutory requirements and other
Congressional priorities.
High-level planning begins early in the budget cycle and is a
highly collaborative and evolutionary process, NSF's senior management
team, which represents all directorates and offices, works closely
together throughout the planning stages to brainstorm, share, build,
and refine their ideas, Ultimately the NSF director, in concert with
the National Science Board, determines NSF's strategic budget
directions.
Q5. The Administration's Innovation Strategy details its efforts to
strengthen our nation's competitiveness and long-run economic growth.
What role does the Foundation and Board play in measuring and
evaluating the economic impacts of basic research funding? What methods
does the Federal Government use to prioritize funding areas of basic
research, both within an area of science and across areas of science?
A5. The National Science Foundation (NSF), including the National
Science Board (NSB), undertakes a number of actions that inform
government, industry, and academic officials about the economic impact
of basic research funding, The Science and Engineering Indicators
report, issued biennially by NSS, provides a broad base of quantitative
information on the U,S, science and engineering (S&E) enterprise
including: patents awarded (e,g'' academic patents awarded per 1,000
S&E academic doctorate holders); scientific publications (e,g''
academic S&E article output per $1.0 million of academic research and
development (R&D)); investments in R&D (e,g., academic and federal R&D
obligations as share of gross domestic product); and trends in R&D
performance and international R&D comparisons (e,g., ``wealthy
economies generally devote larger shares of their gross domestic
product to R&D than do less developed economies ''). In addition, NSF's
Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program invests in
research designed to develop, improve, and expand models, analytical
tools, data, and metrics that can be applied in the science policy
decision making process, Among the research topics supported under the
SciSIP program is the evaluation of the tangible and intangible returns
from investments in science and in research and development.
Retroactive impact assessments (including research-submitted
highlights) also enable NSF to measure and evaluate the impact of its
investments. Methods used by federal agencies--including NSF--to
prioritize basic research investments include: Administration-
identified national challenges, the OMS-OSTP R&D priorities, National
Science and Technology Council deliberations and decisions,
Congressional authorizations and budget allocations, and input from the
U.S. research community though NSF advisory committees and other
mechanisms such as the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology.
Q6. The NSF FY 12 Budget eliminates and reduces several programs
across the Directorates, but does not go nearly far enough in my
opinion. At the same time, several new programs are being created and
many directed programs are receiving increases. I am concerned that
while programs like the Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education and the
National STEM Distributed Learning Program are on your list because
evaluations have shown that they are not necessarily proven programs,
it seems that NSF is simply looking to shift those dollars (and more)
into new, unproven programs. Can you explain the decision-making
process for the terminations and reductions as well as the creation of
the new programs? Is the scientific community driving these decisions
or is the Administration?
A6. NSF undergoes a continual portfolio assessment process in order to
ensure that investments are closely aligned with agency priorities and
at the leading edge of science and engineering. The Foundation uses its
evaluation processes to identify where the potential might lie for more
innovative and effective investments.
The six terminations and reductions proposed for FY 2012 reflect
this ongoing process of review and reprioritization. A number of these
were informed by recent program evaluations, while others reflect
findings from major reviews by the National Science Board and other key
stakeholders.
Q7. The word ``new'' appeared 34 times in your testimony and 17 times
in Dr. Bowen's. Most of these references were to new programs or
initiatives. In light of our current economic reality, when the
American people are begging us to change our spending habits and
resources are precious, why is it necessary to begin new programs? Can
you provide a better justification for the creation of these new
programs mentioned in your testimony, especially those that seem to
duplicate existing programs, such as Teacher Learning for the Future,
and Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM?
A7. To effectively transform the frontiers and innovate for society,
NSF engages in a dynamic and ongoing process of strategic realignment
and refinement of program emphases. To do so requires phasing out
programs that have met their goals, while preserving the key elements
of those programs in new formulations that anticipate future needs.
These realignment and refinement decisions are based on a range of
factors, including key national reports, input from the research and
education communities in schools and universities, input from NSF's
advisory groups, evolving collaborations with other agencies such as
the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and analyses of evidence growing
out of NSF's funded portfolios.
The proposed Teacher Learning for the Future (TLF) and Transforming
Broadening Participation through STEM (TBPS) programs do not duplicate
existing programs. Instead, they will build on the lessons and
successes of current programs, and will draw heavily on recent research
and synthesis studies, to catalyze needed innovations and new models in
two areas that are essential for progress in improving STEM education:
the effectiveness of STEM teaching, and the recruitment, development,
and retention of a broadly diverse STEM workforce that includes people
from all groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including women
and persons with disabilities. These two programs will challenge NSF
grantees to transform the frontiers of education and innovate in ways
that are critical for society.
Q8. I understand and respect that, as mentioned in hearing testimony,
``neglecting scientific research and education now will have serious
consequences for the future of our country.'' However, Congress is
faced with many difficult funding decisions in our current economic
situation. Every Committee is hearing similar pleas from education to
transportation and from energy to defense. Federal funding cuts are a
likely reality over the next few years. How would you suggest we look
at reigning in government expenditures across the board? How do we
prioritize programmatic funding for the Foundation?
A8. The President's budget for FY 2012 identifies a path to restrain
spending overall while also protecting essential investments in the
Nation's future. The Foundation's vital role has been recognized in
significant ways: The President's Plan for Science and Innovation calls
for doubling the federal investment in key basic research agencies,
including NSF; and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
acknowledges that ``the National Science Foundation is the finest
scientific foundation in the world, and is a vital agency that must
support basic research needed to advance the United States into the
21st century.'' Consistent with this, NSF's FY 2012 Budget Request
capitalizes on promising research areas where new discoveries can help
regain U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the science and
engineering enterprise.
Q9. Dr, Bowen identified NSF as the ``only federal agency dedicated to
the support of basic research and education in all fields of science
and engineering.'' Are the more applied areas of research identified in
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, coupled with many
Administration applied priorities for NSF in the FY 12 budget request
diluting the funding for basic, fundamental research? Please explain
your response.
A9. This is not the case. Congress and the Administration recognize the
importance of funding basic, fundamental research, and the FY 2012
Request strengthens these investments.
The 2010 Act recognizes that NSF, as the only federal agency
dedicated to fundamental research in all fields of science and
engineering, supports advances that lead to downstream applications.
For example, in manufacturing research, such as nanomanufacturing and
advanced sensing and control techniques, NSF's contributions will be in
``fundamental research leading to transformative advances in
manufacturing technologies, processes and enterprises that will support
United States manufacturing . . .'' The 2010 Act also recognizes that
NSF can play a key role in developing collaborations ``that promote
innovation and increase the impact of research by developing tools and
resources to connect new scientific discoveries to practical uses.''
STEM Education
Q10. The Administration plans to invest $3.4 billion across the
federal government for STEM education, including many new initiatives
primarily at the Department of Education. While the Department of
Education should certainly take a more active role in STEM, do you know
what the rationale is for shifting this support from NSF to Education?
How actively involved can NSF be in decisions being made at the
Department of Education on STEM-related issues? What steps are being
taken to ensure that these new activities are research-based and will
have input from not only the education community but also the
scientific community?
A10. NSF continues to play the leading role across federal agencies in
advancing and improving K-12 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education, through the design, creation,
implementation, and study of models, approaches, and instructional
materials for STEM student learning, and through investment in ensuring
effective STEM teaching through teacher preparation and development.
Building on its past accomplishments and anticipating the future, NSF
is uniquely situated among federal agencies to advance this kind of
education because of its strong connections with the Nation's leading
STEM researchers, faculty, education researchers, science, technology,
and education policy makers, and other professionals.
NSF programs supporting STEM education encompass a wide range of
disciplines, including biology, chemistry, engineering, mathematics,
physics, computer science, social science, economics, behavioral
science, geological sciences, Arctic and Antarctic studies, and a range
of interdisciplinary areas. Among federal agencies, this immediate
access to such a broad range of cutting-edge science for activities in
K-12 education is unique. Complementary programs at other agencies
focus on mission-oriented areas of STEM. This unique NSF context allows
for an investment that is STEM education-specific and that complements
the more general and wide-ranging investments of the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). The Administration's request does not signal a shift of
support from NSF to ED. Rather, it conveys the more deliberate
complementarity of the two agencies' investments resulting from very
strong communication and coordination activities that have been
underway between the two agencies over the past two years. Currently,
there is a working group comprised of NSF and the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES) staff developing common ``evidence standards''
that will serve as a basis for both NSF and ED STEM programs.
Q11. Everyone touts the importance of America COMPETES and the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act, but rather than sticking to funding
proven and established programs at NSF like Noyce Scholarships and the
Math and Science Partnership (MSP), the FY 12 budget request reduces
their funding by $20 million in order to create a new teacher
development program. The Noyce program was expanded in the original
COMPETES Act to include a new program called 10,000 Teachers. 10
Million Minds. The FY 12 budget is now calling for a NEW 100,000 STEM
teachers program with the same hoped for end result. Other than the
focus being at the Department of Education versus NSF, do you have any
idea how this new program will be different? Is there a problem with
the program currently in place at NSF?
A11. NSF's MSP program is a broadly defined research and development
program aimed at improving K-12 student learning in the STEM fields.
There are a number of strategies and approaches funded in this program,
including teacher professional development; strong engagement of STEM
faculty; efforts to work with standards, frameworks and curricula; and,
to some extent, efforts to improve teachers' preservice preparation.
Evaluation evidence indicates that MSP is effective in building
professional learning communities and, in particular contexts, raising
student achievement. The Robert Noyce Scholarship (NOYCE) program is
primarily a scholarship program, and the program evaluation being
launched at this time will include examining the impact of Noyce
scholars on their students' learning. Neither of these programs is
explicitly focused on building the research knowledge to support the
innovation and improvement needed in teacher preparation to prepare
100,000 new STEM teachers who will be effective in ensuring student
learning of tomorrow's complex STEM content.
NSF's proposed TLF program would likely attract applications from
PIs who have become involved in teacher preparation research on the
basis of their implementation experiences in MSP and Noyce, and would
allow a focused and rapid development of learning about quality teacher
preparation that would serve as the foundation for the larger scale-up
activity proposed by the Department of Education.
Q12. A few weeks ago, the new National Science and Technology Council
STEM Education Committee convened. Please describe the role NSF will
play in this Committee. Do you think it will be able to effectively
identify duplicative and ineffective STEM programs across the federal
government? And if so, how and what actions can be taken to save the
American taxpayer from continuing to support these programs?
A12. NSF Director Subra Suresh, together with OSTP Associate Director
Carl Wieman, serves as co-chair of the newly constituted STEM Education
Committee (Co-STEM). Work is already well underway in two task groups--
Federal Inventory of STEM Education (FI-STEM) Task Force and the
Strategic Plan Preliminary Task Force. Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, NSF's
Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, is the NSF
representative on both of these task groups. The inventory group has
already created a draft template for gathering relevant information
about STEM programs, including information about effectiveness and
metrics, and has begun collecting the relevant information. This
inventory will serve as a key foundation for the Strategic Plan group.
NSF is confident that the kind of deliberate planning for
complementarity and interfacing of programs that has been started
between the NSF and the Department of Education can serve as a model
that can be expanded to ensure appropriate complementarities and
coordination among other agency programs. We do anticipate that this
may require the realignment and refocusing of several programs across
agencies.
Broadening Participation
Q13. NSF is proposing to eliminate funding for the Research Initiation
Grants to Broaden Participation in Biology program (RIG) because ``the
number of proposals from underrepresented groups did not increase.'' Is
this the same case for other broadening participation programs within
the Foundation? What evidence do we have that these programs are
achieving the desired results? Why do we need yet another new $20
million ``Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM (TBPS)
program?
A13. After the introduction of the Research Initiation Grants to
Broaden Participation in Biology program, the number of Biology
principal investigators from under-represented groups did not increase.
Consequently, the Biological Sciences Directorate is evaluating its
strategy for broadening participation and discussing a different model
to reach the goal of increasing competitive regular research proposals
from underrepresented groups. Every NSF Directorate goes through a
similar analytical process with respect to its programs, and NSF's
Priority Goal for STEM workforce development focuses on establishing
evaluation that will inform program improvement for more strategic
impact. NSF's Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM
program would take advantage of new possible emphases and partnerships,
based on continued understanding of best practices and needs. At the
undergraduate level, recruitment and retention of students from groups
traditionally underrepresented in STEM is an especially serious
challenge. TBPS would invest in strategies to place exciting and
substantial access to cutting-edge science at the center of efforts to
recruit and retain students; none of the current HRD programs at the
undergraduate level has this particular focus as the main strategy.
Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer
NEON
Q14. Your FY 2012 budget request includes $224.7 million for the Major
Research Equipment & Facilities Construction program (MREFC), which is
an increase of nearly 92 percent over FY 2010 levels. A large chunk of
this funding would be applied to the second year construction of the
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), which will collect data
across the U.S. on the impacts of climate change, land use change, and
invasive species. What assurances can you provide and what practices
and safeguards will be put in place in NEON to ensure that scientific
objectivity will not be compromised in favor of more agenda-driven
research practices?
A14. NSF-supported fundamental science assures an objective science
baseline upon which managers and public officials can make sound
decisions that impact the health and welfare of this country, and from
which the R&D enterprise can provide the innovations that drive U.S.
industry and business.
The NSF review processes both for MREFC project planning and
oversight and basic merit review for individual science projects are
highly structured with inherent safeguards. The MREFC process includes
``Guidelines and Design Review Processes'' that define the practices,
processes, and criteria for the design, construction, and operations of
all NSF Large Facilities. The MREFC process evaluates the scope,
scientific and technical requirements, cost, and schedule. Using expert
panels, Directorate evaluation, and the Directors Review Board, the
scientific conceptual design, project execution, management, and
operations plans are evaluated. This includes approval by numerous
external review panels (that include cost analysts and engineers),
internal review, and approval by the National Science Board. NEON has
been through all stages of these processes and has been certified at
all levels as a scientifically-sound and well engineered construction
project with carefully reviewed and certified cost and schedule.
Scientific objectivity has been at the center of the NEON design
and deployment at all stages of the project development. Infrastructure
will be deployed to advance our understanding of the biosphere at
regional to continental scales. The science requirements, the design
and construction plans and processes, and maintenance and operations
plans have been vetted by thousands of scientists and engineers.
Questions submitted by Representative Sandy Adams
STEM Education
Q15. As mentioned in the hearing, within the Education and Human
Resources Directorate, there is a Human Resource Development Division
that up until the FY 12 budget request was intended to ``play a central
role in increasing opportunities in STEM education for individuals from
historically underserved populations--minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities.'' The FY 12 budget request realigns the Division,
reducing funding for and shifting several programs to another Division.
Of the $160 million budget request for the Division ($20 million of
which is for a new broadening participation program), only $1.6 million
is available for ``increasing opportunities in STEM education'' for
women and zero is available for ``increasing opportunities in STEM
education'' for persons with disabilities. Can you please explain the
rationale for this and why this Division has become more narrowly
focused?
A15. The Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) within EHR is
described in the following link: http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/hrd/abouUsp,
HRD serves as a focal point for NSF's agency-wide commitment to
enhancing the quality and excellence of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and research through
broadening participation by underrepresented groups and institutions,
The Division's programs aim to increase the participation and
advancement of underrepresented minorities and minority-serving
institutions, women and girls, and persons with disabilities at every
level of the science and engineering enterprise, Programs within HRD
have a strong focus on partnerships and collaborations in order to
maximize the preparation of a well-trained scientific and instructional
workforce for the new millennium.
There has been no change in the division's commitment to broadening
participation for all groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM.
All HRO programs, including the Louis Stokes for Minority Participation
(LSAMP), the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate
Program (HBCU-UP), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
(TCUP) share the commitment to broadening participation for all,
including women and persons with disabilities, In fact, a number of
projects funded in these and other HRD programs have specific focus on
issues facing women and persons with disabilities, The proposed
administrative shift for the Research in Disabilities Education (ROE)
and the Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE) programs is
to improve program management, leverage resources, and build coherence
across all of EHR in the research domain, The two expert scientific
staff who manage these programs will remain members of the HRD staff,
and will continue to play key roles in ensuring that a full-scale view
of broadening participation for all groups is central in all HRO
investment areas and across EHR.
Broadening Participation
Q16. Also, per our hearing exchange, including the Human Resource
Development Division programs, would you please provide us with funding
and programmatic details on all programs within the Foundation that are
either specific to serving ``historically underserved populations--
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities'' or provide special
considerations for these populations?
A16. NSF has taken a variety of approaches to broaden participation
across its many programs. While broadening participation is included in
the NSF review criteria, some program announcements and solicitations
go beyond the standard criteria. They range from encouraging language
to specific requirements. The following table represents the set of
programs that have been historically tracked as Broadening
Participation for budget purposes. These programs support broadening
participation activities that serve historically underrepresented
populations minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
For a complete listing of NSF's Broadening Participation portfolio
please see the website http://www. nsf.gov/od/broadeninaparticipation/
bp--portfolio--dynamic.jsp.
Questions submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren
DUSEL
Q17. During this time in which the energy frontier and some of our
brightest minds have been shifting to Europe for the development,
operation, and promise of science from the Large Hadron Collider, the
U.S. must not cede our leadership in a future discovery frontier. A
robust national program in elementary particle physics is a central
component of both the NSF and DOE contributions to fundamental physics
research and it is required for the U.S. to remain competitive on the
international scale. Over the last decade, a series of reports outlined
compelling questions in modern science that can be answered only in a
deep underground environment. In response to this, the science
community has overwhelmingly supported the construction and operation
of a national underground laboratory. Research communities in physics,
geosciences, engineering, biology, and other fields have further
refined the questions and defined the critical experiments that would
require access to scientific facilities deep underground. As planning
continues for this project, early and formal continued participation by
the NSF is critical.Recognizing the importance of this facility, the
commitment of Fermilab in my district of Illinois, and the overwhelming
support of the scientific community, how does the National Science
Foundation, which supports research across science and engineering
fields, intend to continue to be formally involved in the development
of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL)
along with the Department of Energy?
A17. NSF will continue to consider grant proposals for future particle
physics research and other fields, including underground experiments
that might be conducted at Homestake, should DOE decide to support the
core infrastructure there, or at other existing sites in the United
States and around the world.
Q18. In addition, in this time of budgetary constraints, it is more
important than ever for the U.S. and NSF to be leveraging financial
commitments made by other partners and demonstrating a sustainable
development process to keep facilities costs down. Increasingly, the
construction of these large facilities not only requires non-federal
contributions but multi-agency collaboration within the federal
government.I was discouraged to see that the NSF has proposed zero
funding for DUSEL in FY 2012 after more than $250 million invested to
date from federal, state, and private sources and hundreds of jobs
already created.In the America COMPETES Act enacted in 2010, Congress
recognized the need for NSF ``in its planning for construction and
stewardship of large facilities, to coordinate and collaborate with
other Federal agencies, including the Department of Energy's Office of
Science, to ensure that joint investments may be made when
practicable.'' What is the current status of negotiations and
participation of NSF with the DOE in the 'future of the Long-Baseline
Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) and the development of an underground
laboratory?
A18. DOE has initiated a scientific assessment to determine the optimal
location for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) far detector
and the full suite of experiments in which their programs are highly
engaged, namely dark matter and double beta-decay. This assessment,
which will include Homestake and other possible sites, is expected to
conclude in time to inform preparation of DOE's FY 2013 budget request.
Pending a DOE decision on the location of the LBNE far detector,
NSF and DOE are working together to preserve the viability of the
Homestake site in FY 2011. NSF has agreed to provide $4.0 million
during the remainder of FY 2011 to sustain pumping operations at the
Homestake site. DOE has included $15.0 million in its FY 2012 budget
request, presently before Congress, to extend pumping operations
through FY 2012.
Q19. Will NSF complete its funding of the 15 awards it has made to
date to study initial experiments for early science which could be
conducted in such a unique underground laboratory environment?
A19. Yes. The final allotment (third year) of funding for the
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Physics Division
(MPS/PHY) component of the DUSEL Solicitation 4 (S4) awards are
included in the FY 2011 Budget Request. These nine continuing awards in
MPS/PHY will be made and the S4 commitments completed. The Directorate
for Geosciences intends to fund the final year of the seven DUSEL S4
awards that were co-funded with the Directorate for Engineering and
Directorate for Biological Sciences.
Q20. The implications of the future research at DUSEL go far beyond
the science discoveries themselves, as opportunities to attract
students at all ages have been built into the plan, with the potential
to redirect future scientists to the U.S. rather than our foreign
competitors. Most importantly, the impact this facility will have can
be seen from the impact it is already having. Summer scholarships,
intern programs for students in science to conduct research at DOE's
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, and a new
Master's degree and doctoral degree program in physics within the South
Dakota university system have all been developed as a result of the
future DUSEL facility. Is NSF working with the relevant partners to
identify ways to ensure that these activities and our nation's
commitment to science education continue while the federal agencies are
working on the appropriate stewardship model?
A20. NSF continues to be committed to workforce development in all
fields of science and engineering.
Q21. How is NSF prepared to work with the university community to
ensure that the research needs will still be met with any proposed
changes to the existing plans for DUSEL?
A21. The NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
Physics Division (MPS/PHY) is prepared to work with the nuclear and
particle physics university communities to pursue underground research
through the normal grant and proposal peer-review process.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Research Infrastructure
Q22. I'm greatly concerned that we are under-investing in research and
teaching laboratories, instrumentation, and shared-use facilities. I am
worried that not only will this make it difficult to compete for top
talent with countries like China, but that it will lead to the
inefficient use of limited research dollars. As a former Dean of
Engineering, what is your impression of the state of our nation's
academic research infrastructure? Is it limiting researchers or causing
problems recruiting or retaining top talent? I realize this might not
be such an issue at MIT, but I would like to know your perspective on
the country as a whole.
A22. NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES) collects data from academic institutions about the state of
their science and engineering (S&E) research facilities space,
Nationally representative data are not available specific to
instrumentation, and shared-use facilities, There are no comparable
international data on research infrastructure,
In FY 2007, the most recent year for which data are available,
there were 188 million net assignable square feet (NASF) of S&E
research space at academic institutions. Institutions rated 17 percent
of that space as requiring renovation and five percent of that space as
requiring replacement The condition of the space varies by S&E field
(see Table 5).
The federal government is a relatively small source of the total
funding used by academic institutions for repair and renovation or new
construction of S&E research space. Academic institutions reported that
the completion costs for repair, renovation, and new construction of
S&E research facilities begun during FY 2006 and FY 2007 were $3.362
billion and $5.924 billion, respectively. The federal government was
the source of $134 million (4 percent) and $361 million (6 percent) of
those funds, respectively.
Since the mid-1990s, the federal government's share of funding for
repair and renovation of academic S&E research space has fluctuated
between four percent and ten percent, and the share of funding for new
construction of academic S&E research space has fluctuated between four
percent and nine percent
In FY 2007, the estimated costs of deferred projects included in
academic institutional plans to repair or renovate S&E research space
was $5.154 billion; estimated costs of deferred projects included in
academic institutional plans to construct new S&E research space was
$10.423 billion. Consequently, in FY 2007 total estimated costs of
deferred projects were $15.577 billion. In FY 2005, total estimated
costs of deferred projects were $13.786 billion, In FY 2003, total
estimated costs of deferred projects were $12.781 billion.
Research infrastructure is essential to scientific discovery and a
strong U.S. scientific and engineering enterprise. In today's
environment, shared-use facilities which are accessed by the broader
U.S. scientific and engineering research community are encouraged and
supported by NSF. While access to high-quality, research infrastructure
is one factor that influences individual researchers' employment
decisions, and space and equipment packages routinely are part of new
recruitment and retention negotiations, data on the impact of the
current status of S&E research space on recruiting and retention are
scarce. A variety of other factors are as likely to influence
recruitment and retention decisions including--salary/compensation,
career advancement, access to research funding, the opportunity to work
with the best in a given field, and family considerations. The extent
to which the adequacy of research infrastructure is the determining
factor is not known and may be discipline dependent with some
disciplines having greater research infrastructure requirements than
others.
Data Notes:
Data are reported for academic institutions with $1.0
million or more in research and development (R&D) expenditures
(from all sources). The data are collected on the NCSES Survey
of Science and Engineering Research Facilities.
Research space is space where research activities
occur. For example, it includes laboratories used for research,
shared-use facilities, and space used to house fixed equipment
or equipment costing $1.0 million or more that is used for
research. It does not include teaching laboratory space.
Deferred projects are those that are (1) not funded
and (2) not yet scheduled to start in the next two years. They
do not include projects planned for developing new programs or
expanding current programs.
Institutional plans usually will include goals,
strategies, and budgets for fulfilling the institution's
mission during a specific time period.
According to the survey definitions, space requiring
renovation ``will no longer be suitable for current research
without undergoing major renovation within the next two
years.'' Space requiring replacement is defined as ``should
stop using space for current research within the next 2
years.''
According to the survey definitions, space in
superior condition is ``suitable for the most scientifically
competitive research over the next two years.'' Space in
satisfactory condition is ``suitable for continued use over the
next two years for most levels of research . . . but may
require minor repairs or renovation.''
Q23. In the Recovery Act, we spent about $200 million on
infrastructure through the NSF's ARI-R2 program. Based on that program,
do you have any insights into how much need there is out there, and
whether this kind of investment can help address it?
A23. The FY 2007 Survey of Science and Engineering Research Facilities,
the most recent year for which data are available, estimated that
academic institutions had at least $5.15 billion in deferred projects
to repair and renovate science and engineering research space and at
least $10.42 billion in deferred projects to construct new science and
engineering research space. Proposals totaling $1.02 billion were
submitted to the ARI-R2 program. Indirect cost recoveries through
federal grants may also be used by universities to offset costs
incurred for maintenance, repair, and upkeep of buildings or equipment.
Funding for academic research infrastructure also comes from other
federal agencies, industry, state governments, and private endowments.
In short, academic infrastructure needs are large and are best
addressed through these multiple funding streams.
Questions submitted by Representative Ben Ray Lujan
Broadening Participation
Q24. Dr. Suresh, thank you for your commitment to increasing minority
and women participation in STEM fields of study. Thank you also for
your request of $14.35 million for the Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program that will enhance STEM programs in tribal colleges across the
country. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act requires NSF to
support the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate
Program, the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program and Hispanic
Serving Institutions programs as separate programs. The FY 2012 budget
request funds HBCU-UP and TCUP separately; however, the budget request
does not include a ``Hispanic Serving Institutions Program.'' As you
noted in your written testimony, the National Science Foundation
requested $20 million for a new program called Transforming Broadening
Participation through STEM (TBPS). While it is clear that this program
will be available to HSls, it seems that it might be available to other
Minority Serving Institutions as well. Can you provide clarification on
TBPS, and the NSF's plans to comply with the requirement in COMPETES
that HSls are supported as a separate program?
A24. In FY 2008 and 2009, NSF initiated a series of listening sessions
with the Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) community to understand the
diverse needs and opportunities for broadening participation of
Hispanic students in STEM fields. From those sessions, NSF learned that
many of the challenges facing HSls in increasing participation are the
same challenges faced by other minority-serving institutions, and that
many of the strategies that have been most promising in engaging
Hispanic students in STEM show promise for engaging all students. NSF
continues to analyze, engage, and inform the higher education
communities' direction and approach to workforce development and
broadening participation in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM). NSF's ongoing study includes a thorough analysis of
underrepresented group STEM enrollment and graduation over time in
institutions of higher education in the United States.
As a result of this work. NSF will develop strategies for
strengthening STEM education at the undergraduate level in colleges and
universities throughout the Nation. Data about the particular needs and
contexts in the wide range of HSls across the Nation will be essential
in this future planning. NSF will also address these opportunities
through the proposed new Transforming Broadening Participation through
STEM (TBPS) program included in the FY 2012 Budget Request. This new
program will seek innovative solutions for broadening participation in
STEM at the undergraduate level in anticipation of tomorrow's changing
demographics including increased engagement with HSIs.
NSF continues to engage in planning across agencies. including with
the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. to
ensure that the multiple programmatic offerings across government that
serve Hispanic-serving institutions are well coordinated, and that the
NSF contribution is aligned with the unique role that the agency can
best play.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Ray Bowen, Chairman of the National Science Board
Question Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall
Q1. As you are well aware, the recently passed House Continuing
Resolution reduces funding for the MREFC account significantly. Should
that amount become law, please describe how NSF will distribute the
funding across current projects.
A1. The NSB invests substantial efforts to oversee the Foundation's
MREFC process. Projects are repeatedly assessed throughout the
planning, construction, and operations stages. The Board embraces NSF's
``no cost overrun'' policy, which requires that the project cost
estimate include adequate contingency funds to cover all foreseeable
risks, and that any cost increases not covered by contingency, be
accommodated by scope reduction.
The Board's Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF) is continually
assessing and prioritizing the research infrastructure supported by the
Foundation. Should the MREFC account face a dramatic reduction in
funding, NSB through the SCF, the Committee on Program and Plans, and
the Committee on Strategy and Budget, will work closely with NSF to
reassess the MREFC priorities. This process is ongoing.
Questions Submitted by Representative Mo Brooks
Q2. What role did the National Science Board play in establishing the
priorities for the Foundation in the FY 12 Budget Request? How does the
Board prioritize its funding decisions for the Foundation and what
criteria does it use in making these recommendations?
A2. The Board participates in the development of the agency's budget
priorities primarily through its Committee on Strategy and Budget,
which engages with NSF senior leadership from the initial planning
stage for the next budget through informal discussions, numerous
teleconferences, formal presentations, and final approval of the
submission to OMB. The prioritization process is very iterative; there
is no set formula. Considerations include the potential for impact, the
readiness of the community, and the ability of programs to leverage
activities with other resources.
In working with the agency on determining priorities, the Board
takes into account concerns of the Administration, Congress, and the
Nation's science and engineering community as a whole. In the end, the
Board believes that this continual assessment and reassessment of
research priorities brings the best budget forward for the Foundation
and for the Nation.
Q3. The Administration's Innovation Strategy details its efforts to
strengthen our nation's competitiveness and long-run economic growth.
What role does the Board play in measuring and evaluating the economic
impacts of basic research funding? What methods does the Federal
Government use to prioritize funding areas of basic research, both
within an area of science and across areas of science?
A3. The Board has statutory responsibility for generating the biennial
Science and Economic Indicators (SEI) report which provides
quantitative data trends of research areas. The report also provides
the quantitative data to assess the status of U.S. science and
engineering relative to other nations. The data from SEI is an
important resource for federal science and engineering policymakers,
including the Board, for use in determining funding priorities.
Q4. The NSF FY 12 Budget eliminates and reduces several programs
across the Directorates, but does not go nearly far enough in my
opinion. At the same time, several new programs are being created and
many directed programs are receiving increases. I am concerned that
while programs like the Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education and the
National STEM Distributed Learning Program are on your list because
evaluations have shown that they are not necessarily proven programs,
it seems that NSF is simply looking to shift those dollars (and more)
into new, unproven programs. Can you explain the decision-making
process for the terminations and reductions as well as the creation of
the new programs? Is the scientific community driving these decisions
or is the Administration?
A4. NSB regularly receives updates from the Foundation on the
development of new programs. For education programs, NSB's Committee on
Education and Human Resources works closely with NSF's Education
directorate to ensure decisions are based on the latest research in
learning and consistent with national recommendations on STEM
education. When determining priorities for the Foundation, the Board
takes into account a wide range of evaluations, ranging from concerns
of the Administration and Congress to the Nation's science and
engineering community as a whole. In the end, the Board believes that
this continual assessment and reassessment of priorities brings the
best budget forward for the Foundation and for the Nation.
Q5. The word ``new'' appeared 34 times in Dr. Suresh's testimony and
17 times in yours. Most of these references were to new programs or
initiatives. In light of our current economic reality when the American
people are begging us to change our spending habits and resources are
precious, why is it necessary to begin new programs? Can you provide a
better justification for the creation of these new programs mentioned
in your testimony, especially those that seem to duplicate existing
programs, such as Teacher Learning for the Future, and Transforming
Broadening Participation through STEM?
A5. NSB strongly believes that to maintain our Nation's competitive
edge, research must be nimble in its funding priorities as we
continuously evaluate the nation's research portfolio. NSF and the
Board continually evaluate and assess the agency's portfolio with input
from the research community, Congress, and the Administration, to
ensure that the taxpayers' investment yields maximal returns. This
evaluation fosters innovation in both well-established and novel areas.
The Board recognizes there are risks whenever a new program is created
or a well-established program is terminated. It is for this reason that
the agency engages in extensive deliberation-both internally and in
consultation with the external research community, the Administration,
and other Federal agencies-to ensure that any changes to NSF's
portfolio are based on the best possible information.
Q6. I understand and respect that, as you mentioned in hearing
testimony, ``neglecting scientific research and education now will have
serious consequences for the future of our country.'' However, Congress
is faced with many difficult funding decisions in our current economic
situation. Every Committee is hearing similar pleas from education to
transportation and from energy to defense. Federal funding cuts are a
likely reality over the next few years. How would you suggest we look
at reigning in government expenditures across the board? How do we
prioritize programmatic funding for the Foundation?
A6. With its oversight responsibilities for the Foundation, the Board
engages thoroughly with NSF management on determining the agency's
funding priorities. The budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 reflects
this collaboration. The investments outlined in NSF's Budget Request
support the areas of science and engineering research and education
that NSF, with NSB support, has identified as the Foundation's
priorities.
The Board believes it is critical to examine programs under the
lens of long-term success and benefits to our country and its citizens.
Though it might be tempting to forego long-term investments in the face
of current economic challenges, neglecting scientific research,
engineering and education now, we believe, will have long-term negative
consequences on our country's future. As noted in the Board's report
``Globalization of Science and Engineering Research: A Companion to
Science and Engineering Indicators 2010,'' other countries now actively
seek to emulate our success by building their own innovation
infrastructures, we must be ever vigilant to enhance our own innovative
capacity.
Q7. Scattered throughout the entire federal budget request are
dramatic increases in spending on ``clean technologies.'' At the
Department of Energy alone, there are enormous spending increases for
clean tech through ARPA-E, EERE, the Office of Science, the Loan
Guarantee Program, and Energy Innovation Hubs, to name just a few.
Similar programs are proposed throughout the government, including
NSF's ``Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)''
portfolio intended to ``spark innovations for tomorrow's clean energy
sources with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science.''
The FY 12 budget request is $998 million for this effort. This is a 51
percent increase over the FY I 0 amount and reflects 13 percent of the
entire NSF budget. What role did the National Science Board play in
determining these specific priorities for the Foundation?
A7. The Board participates in the development of the budget primarily
through its Committee on Strategy and Budget, which engages with NSF
senior leadership from the initial planning stage for the next budget
through informal discussions, numerous teleconferences, and final
approval of the submission to OMB. In working with the agency on
determining priorities, the Board takes into account the priorities of
the Administration and Congress. The Board also brings, through its
members who are selected to represent the leadership of U.S. science
and engineering, expertise concerning the needs and strengths of the
Nation's science and engineering community as a whole.
Q8. You identify NSF as the ``only federal agency dedicated to the
support of basic research and education in all fields of science and
engineering.'' Are the more applied areas of research identified in the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, coupled with many Administration
applied priorities for NSF in the FY 12 budget request diluting the
funding for basic, fundamental research?
A8. NSB recognizes basic research as the underpinning of the scientific
enterprise. But its benefits will be achieved only in connection with
other parts of the nation's scientific and technological enterprise,
including applied research, education, technology transfer and
development, innovation, and manufacturing. As a non-mission agency,
NSF's extensive activities in basic research complement investments in
other areas essential to the health of the scientific enterprise, as
recognized by the COMPETES reauthorization. The Board fully supports
the FY 2012 budget request as meeting the needs to achieve the mission
of the National Science Foundation.
Q9. The Administration plans to invest $3.4 billion across the federal
government for STEM education, including many new initiatives primarily
at the Department of Education. While the Department of Education
should certainly take a more active role in STEM, do you know what the
rationale is for shifting this support from NSF to Education? How
actively involved can NSF be in decisions being made at the Department
of Education on STEM-related issues? What steps are being taken to
ensure that these new activities are research-based and will have input
from not only the education community but also the scientific
community?
A9. The Board and NSF management will continue to work in collaboration
to ensure the agency's activities are grounded in solid research
results. For education activities, the Board's Committee on Education
and Human Resources (CEH) provides input and guidance regarding the
agency's efforts in STEM education research. The agency's directorate
of Education and Human Resources has built a productive relationship
with the Department of Education over the past several years, and
reports on these interagency efforts regularly to CEH. In 2007, NSB's
report ``A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of
the United States STEM Education System'' recommended the Office of
Science and Technology Policy create a standing committee on STEM
education within the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
That recommendation has been implemented and will provide additional
support for interagency education activities.
Q10. Everyone touts the importance of America COMPETES and the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act, but rather than sticking to funding
proven and established programs at NSF like Noyce Scholarships and the
Math and Science Partnership (MSP), the FY 12 budget request reduces
their funding by $20 million in order to create a new teacher
development program. The Noyce program was expanded in the original
COMPETES Act to include a new program called 10,000 Teachers, 10
Million Minds. The FY 12 budget is now calling for a NEW 100,000 STEM
teachers program with the same hoped for end result. Other than focus
being at the Department of Education versus NSF, do you have any idea
how this new program will be different? Is there a problem with the
program currently in place at NSF?
A10. The Board believes that continual evolution of research and
education programs is a positive element of the Foundation's programs.
The continual assessment and reassessment of programs allows the agency
to deliver high quality efforts in all of its activities.
For your questions regarding the specific differences between the
existing program and this new program and problems with the current NSF
program, the Board defers to the National Science Foundation's answer
on these matters.
Q11. A few weeks ago, the new National Science and Technology Council
STEM Education Committee convened. Please describe the role NSF will
play in this Committee. Do you think it will be able to effectively
identify duplicative and ineffective STEM programs across the federal
government? And if so, how and what actions can be taken to save the
American taxpayer from continuing to support these programs?
A11. In 2007 the NSB released A National Action Plan for Addressing the
Critical Needs of the United States STEM Education System. In the
report the board recommended the OSTP create a standing committee on
STEM education within the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). The first meeting of the new Science, Technology, Engineering
and Math committee was held on March 4th. The committee includes 11
federal agencies that play a role in STEM education and is co-chaired
by Associate Director of Science Carl Wieman and NSF Director Subra
Suresh.
In the first meeting the group discussed how to create a detailed
inventory of Stem Ed programs and a five year strategic plan for STEM
education as require in the America COMPETES Act. Members also
discussed how assessments can be used to ensure the quality and cost
effectiveness of STEM programs. We are confident that the NSTC
committee will develop an appropriate response to addressing issues of
ineffective and duplicative Federal programs for STEM education.
Q12. NSF is proposing to eliminate funding for the Research Initiation
Grants to Broaden Participation in Biology program (RIG) because ``the
number of proposals from underrepresented groups did not increase.'' Is
this the same case for other broadening participation programs within
the Foundation? What evidence do we have that these programs are
achieving the desired results? Why do we need yet another new $20
million ``Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM (TBPS)
program? How involved is the Board in decisions such as this?
A12. Through its oversight capacity, the Board ensures that its policy
guidance to the NSF is addressed. Broadening participation efforts for
the STEM enterprise has been a continual emphasis for the Board as
reflected in several of our reports. Ensuring that all citizens are
represented in the STEM community strengthens the research community as
a whole. With regard to decisions based on the performance of specific
programs, the Board defers to the Foundation management.
Question Submitted by Representative Sandy Adams
Q13. As mentioned in the hearing, within the Education and Human
Resources Directorate, there is a Human Resource Development Division
that up until the FY 12 budget request was intended to ``play a central
role in increasing opportunities in STEM education for individuals from
historically underserved populations -minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities.'' The FY 12 budget request realigns the Division,
reducing funding for and shifting several programs to another Division.
Of the $160 million budget request for the Division ($20 million of
which is for a new broadening participation program), only $1.6 million
is available for ``increasing opportunities in STEM education'' for
women and zero is available for ``increasing opportunities in STEM
education'' for persons with disabilities. What role does the National
Science Board play in decisions like this or other decisions that alter
the focus or scope of a particular program, Division or Directorate?
A13. Through its oversight capacity, the Board ensures that its policy
guidance to the Foundation is addressed, including a strong focus on
broadening participation in science and engineering by underrepresented
groups, including women, specific ethnic groups, and persons with
disabilities. The Board ensures that NSF sets priorities, makes hard
programmatic budget decisions and, as a result, obtains the greatest
benefit from the funds provided to implement the NSF mission in this
area.
Question Submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren
Q14. Given the size and commitment increasingly required for cutting-
edge science to be successful and the complexity of the federal
planning, review, and approval processes, the U.S. must be able to
demonstrate its ability to construct large scale science facilities
which will define the future of specific fields. Moreover, our nation's
ability to deliver on these facilities portends important implications
for multi-lateral international scientific collaborations on projects
such as DUSEL and future projects around the globe.In December, the
National Science Board made a decision to not provide any additional
funding for DUSEL beyond the Preliminary Design Review, and despite
support from the National Science Foundation and commitments made to
the project and this Congress.How will the NSB work with NSF, DOE, and
Congress, to ensure that predictable steady forward movement continues
avoiding preventable increases in long term expenses and significant
setbacks to the scope of the scientific discoveries and to the future
of large interagency collaborations?
A14. The NSB is committed to fostering the Nation's leadership in
science, engineering, mathematics and education. The Board recognizes
the potential for significant and fundamental discoveries in physics
that could result from experiments conducted in a deep underground
research laboratory. The NSB will continue to work with the Director of
NSF as NSF, the Department of Energy and the White House explore
options for advancing deep underground science.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology and Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology
Questions Submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall
Q1. How do NIST's extramural programs--the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), the
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP), and the proposed
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia Program (AMTech)--support
NIST's underlying mission? I have always supported the MEP program and
know what a difference it has made to Texas, so that is the easiest of
the three programs for me to justify funding in these difficult fiscal
times. But for the record, why should the federal government provide
these services, which directly support for-profit entities? What if, if
any, duplication exists among these programs?
A1. NIST's core mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. NIST extramural programs and the proposed AMTech
program are vital to NIST's technology mission and critical to
strengthening U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. Each
program addresses unique critical needs and gaps spanning the entire
innovation and technology development cycle. From incentivizing and
supporting long-term industry-led directed basic research to
accelerating technology deployment and adoption by America's
manufacturers, the NIST extramural programs along with the NIST
laboratories, provide a critical infrastructure that supports the type
of high-tech innovation, development, and manufacturing that is
critical for our nation's long-term sustainable economic growth and job
creation.
AMTech will collapse the timescale of technological
innovation by including partners that span the innovation
lifecycle from idea to discovery, from invention to
commercialization. Through cost-sharing and a common research
agenda, these consortia would support the development of
innovative new technologies directed at creating high-wage jobs
and economic growth across the industry sector. These consortia
will develop road-maps of critical long-term industrial
research needs and provide support for research and equipment
at leading universities and government laboratories directed at
meeting these needs. This approach deepens industrial
involvement in determining how to best leverage government
resources to promote technological innovation.
TIP funds small companies and consortia of small
companies and universities to support high-risk
transformational Research and Development. The cost-share
provisions of TIP enable TIP to leverage significant non-
federal investment for high-risk, cutting edge technologies,
and serves as an important source of funding when no other
sources are reasonably available.
MEP helps small and medium-manufacturers strengthen
their competitive positions by accelerating the adoption of
technological innovations, facilitating the adoption of
environmentally sustainable business practices, promoting
renewable energy initiatives, fostering market diversification,
and connecting domestic suppliers to manufacturers to assist
manufacturers in successfully competing over the long term in
today's complex global manufacturing environment.
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program improves
the performance of U.S. organizations by: raising awareness
about the importance of performance excellence to economic
competitiveness, providing organizational assessment tools and
criteria, educating leaders about the practices of best-in-
class organizations, and recognizing national role models and
honoring them with the only Presidential Award for performance
excellence.
Q2. The Technology Innovation Program (TIP), created in 2007 by the
original America COMPETES Act, updated the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) by changing the program and adding some very challenging new
goals. The TIP is directed to provide grants for cutting edge research
that meets critical national needs, in areas in which no one else is
working. That means the TIP-funded work must be very narrow and in
extremely challenging areas. How many awards were distributed since the
program has started? How can a program, funded currently at about $70
million, achieve those goals? In your testimony you mentioned NIST will
make at least one award in the next year; at that rate, how successful
can this program be?
A2. The Technology Innovation Program addresses challenges that justify
government attention in areas of critical national need by supporting
innovative high-risk, high-reward research. The program supports small
and medium-sized businesses, institutions of higher education, national
labs, nonprofit research institutions and other organizations, where
government attention is justified because the magnitude of the problem
is large and no other sources of funding are reasonably available.
Since its authorization, the program has awarded 38 grants during
the period FY 2008-2010, representing a TIP investment of approximately
$-136 million, for a total investment of about $ 280 million in new
high-risk, high-reward research:
In 2008, $-42.5 million from TIP funds supported nine
projects in advanced sensor technologies for civil
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and water systems, for a
total of $ 88.2 million in new research (TIP + awardee cost
share).
In 2009, TIP funded twenty projects at $-71 M, for a
total potential new research investment of $-145.6 M, to
address critical national needs in manufacturing and civil
infrastructure.
In 2010, TIP provided more than $-22.2 million for
nine projects for advanced manufacturing research in
electronics, biotechnology and nanotechnology, for a total of
$45.9 million in new research.
Off the 38 awardees, 35 are either small-business, single company
projects, or include a small business as a member of the research joint
venture.
The cost-share provisions of TIP enable TIP to leverage significant
non-federal investment for high-risk, cutting edge technologies. Thus,
a relatively small investment for TIP can still have a significant
impact. Despite being a young program, results from the R&D are already
being shared and tested, which is indicative of the impact of the
program. Technologies in civil infrastructure have been tested in state
highway facilities and several of the projects have agreements with
state transportation authorities (e.g. California, Michigan, and
Massachusetts) to serve as test beds for this next generation of
technologies. The scientific findings from these projects are also
being actively shared within the scientific community, enabling these
efforts to benefit R&D in areas beyond the organizations partnering
with TIP. In March 2011, organizations working with TIP in the 17 civil
infrastructure projects presented 47 research papers at a smart
structures conference hosted by SPIE, the international society for
optics and photonics. This interaction across scientific disciplines
allows TIP participants to share important R&D findings that can
subsequently be used by other researchers. These early research results
and strong partnering relationships suggest the research currently
underway has laid the foundation for transforming today's research into
tomorrow's solutions.
With regard to 2012, NIST expects to hold a funding competition in
one or more of the following research areas: advanced robotics and
intelligent automation, health care, water, civil infrastructure
technologies, and manufacturing. Proposals received in response to the
open competition will be subject to peer review, and multiple awards
will be made based on the results of the competition.
Q3. You have discussed that the decrease in funding for the Baldrige
Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) reflects the Administration's
goal of transitioning the program out of federal funding. Could you
please describe the purposes of the program, and why thy government has
identified this as an area for which NIST should examine additional
private sector means of support?
A3. Purpose of the program: The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program
exists to improve the competitiveness and performance of all U.S.
organizations. It does this in three ways: by (i) defining performance
excellence, with the highly-regarded and adopted Criteria for
Performance Excellence--which reflect the leading edge of validated
management practice and have resulted in 2.5 million page views in 2010
alone; (ii) recognizing performance excellence, with an annual
Presidential Award for national role model organizations that
successfully implement the Criteria to achieve world class operations
and results; and, (iii) performance excellence education and promotion
(for example, the recent Quest for Excellence conference in Washington,
DC. at which almost 900 attendees learned best performance management
practices from current and former Baldrige winning organizations from
all sectors of the U.S. economy).
Examining private sector support: The Baldrige Program already
enjoys a public-private partnership with the Baldrige Foundation and
through in-kind contributions from Award winning organizations, as well
as the very substantial volunteer efforts of the Board of Overseers,
Panel of Judges, and Board of Examiners. More than 35 states operate
Baldrige-based programs to assist industry across the United States on
a local level with using the Baldrige Criteria and process to improve
their operations. Around 2,270 State Baldrige-based examiners
volunteered an estimated $29.5 million in services to evaluate 1,350
organizations at the state level in 2010. In 2010, 578 dedicated
professionals volunteered as national Baldrige examiners and
contributed roughly $8.8 million in services; the Baldrige public-
private partnership enables this volunteer network. Given the Program's
22-year history of leveraging partners in industry and the states, the
Administration believes this program could be best sustained as a
private sector led and funded activity.
Questions Submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. As you mention in your testimony, the budget request includes
funding to continue NIST's work to accelerate the development of
standards for electric health records and health information
technology. At the same time, the Office of the National Coordinator
for Health IT (ONC) at the Department of Health and Human Services is
continuing its work under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to
identify and adopt standards, specifications, and certification
criteria for health information technology. To what extent are NIST and
ONC collaborating on health IT standards to ensure that each agency's
efforts are coordinated and not duplicative, and that NIST's expertise
in information technology standards is being fully utilized?
A1. Since 2004, NIST has worked closely with the Department of Health
and Human Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology (HHS/ONC). Central to this close collaboration
and ongoing dialogue is ensuring that Health IT initiatives and
outcomes are complimentary and in line with Federal mandates. For
example, in response to the Health Information Technology for Economic
and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) Act, NIST is responsible for pilot
testing of standards and implementation specifications and coordinates
closely with ONC to assure the efficient implementation and use of such
standards. Leveraging NIST expertise is also central to our close
collaboration. For instance, NIST, with a proven track record and
expertise in the establishment of conformance testing programs, is
responsible for establishment of a conformance testing infrastructure
and technical test beds for Health IT products--critical to ensuring
the interoperability of electronic health records.
HHS/ONC is responsible for facilitating the development of
standards and implementation specifications that will ensure
interoperability of electronic health records. As part of the strategy,
HHS/ONC will be identifying product neutral test conditions to verify
conformance of health IT products. NIST is collaborating with HHS/ONC
to implement the test conditions in technical test bed infrastructure
that can be used to test products. NIST's experience in the
establishment of pilot test infrastructure will be central to HHS/ONC
development and implementation of the certification and testing program
for all health IT products and will ensure the interoperability of
electronic health systems.
Q2. A significant amount of attention has been paid in recent years to
the need to improve the quality of health care and reduce health care
costs in this country. One way to do this is to strengthen our ability
to detect and treat diseases or other medical conditions quickly,
cheaply, and effectively. Many have argued that NIST has a critically
important foundational role to play in this area.
Aside from NIST's important work in the area of
health information technology, how is NIST's role in health
care-related research reflected in the FY 2012 budget?
A2. Health care-related measurement technologies and standards are an
important focus of NIST resources across a range of specific
application areas.
In the FY 2012 budget, a new initiative,
``Measurement Science and Standards to Support
Biomanufacturing,'' (+ $9.5 million) is intended to support the
creation of agile processes required for next generation
biotechnology medicines. NIST will work with the FDA and
industry to develop innovative solutions to existing technical
issues and help achieve consensus in standards development
related to biomanufacturing.
Funds allocated to NIST laboratories in the FY 2012
budget will support ongoing efforts in health care-related
areas of medical imaging and clinical diagnostics, including:
The optical medical imaging program at NIST, whose
goal is to develop standards and measurement quality assurance
to improve surgical and clinical lighting.
New bioimaging methods and materials to improve the
characterization of cells and tissues, leading to more
efficient and accurate clinical diagnoses of cancer and other
diseases, helping to advance personalized medicine.
Body Area Network technology tools that analyze and
help mitigate potential interference from wireless medical
devices, such as wearable or implantable medical sensors that
continuously monitor blood pressure or deliver insulin to a
diabetic.
Q3. How does NIST decide where it is going to make specific health
care-related investments? Are those decisions driven by any sort of
overarching strategic plan on the research that is needed in this area,
or are NIST's investments merely responsive to the immediate needs of
other Federal agencies?
A3. Activities in health care-related measurement and standards
development support the NIST mission to strengthen U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness, and must be grounded in the needs of the
industrial community as well as other Federal agencies. Accurate and
comparable measurement science and standards will underpin quality
health care.
Following on a NIST workshop with the broad
bioscience community, in July 2009 NIST produced ``Measurement
Challenges to Innovation in the Biosciences: Critical Roles for
NIST,'' which outlines high level application areas and
priority measurement needs that should be addressed by NIST to
realize the potential economic and societal benefits of
advances in health care.
In light of the reorganization this past October,
NIST continues to refine its bioscience portfolio. Continuous
efforts to engage with the health care community (e.g.,
businesses, other Federal agencies, and advocacy groups) via
partnerships and workshops help NIST to identify and
authenticate un-met measurement needs to inform the NIST
strategy in this area.
Interactions with other Federal agencies are
important to leverage NIST's capabilities in order to address
national needs. For example, meetings with representatives from
the Food and Drug Administration's Critical Path Initiative
identify research and development opportunities for NIST to
contribute to efforts to transform the development, evaluation,
and manufacture of FDA-regulated products. Similarly,
collaborations between NIST laboratories and the National
Cancer Institute (National Institutes of Health) facilitate
targeted measurement science in the area of cancer research.
Questions Submitted by Representative Ben Quayle
Q1. The Department of Commerce intends to codify a National Program
Office for NSTIC headed by NIST, and the FY 12 request includes $25
million to fund the establishment of the office and a new grant program
related to this work. What will this office do, and why is it at NIST?
Who will be eligible to receive the pilot grants, what is the purpose
behind them, and how large will the awards be? How has industry been
involved in the National Strategy? Would it be more appropriate for the
private sector to figure out the solutions to these problems without
the government being involved?
What will this office do, and why is it at NIST?
A1. The National Program Office (NPO) for the National Strategy for
Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) will be responsible for
coordinating the processes and activities of organizations that will
implement the Strategy. NIST--with its long history of working
collaboratively with the private sector to develop standards and best
practices for cybersecurity and identity management--is uniquely suited
to work with the private sector to bring the collective expertise of
the nation to bear in implementing the Strategy. The NPO will formally
coordinate the work NIST has been doing for several years in our
existing cybersecurity and identity management programs and ensure that
the portions of this work relevant to NSTIC are properly aligned. The
NPO will lead the day-to-day coordination of NSTIC activities, working
closely with the Cybersecurity Coordinator in the White House. The
National Program Office will:
Promote private-sector involvement and engagement;
Support interagency collaboration and coordinate
interagency efforts associated with achieving programmatic
goals;
Build consensus on policy frameworks necessary to
achieve the vision;
Identify areas for the government to lead by example
in developing and supporting the Identity Ecosystem,
particularly in the Executive Branch's role as a provider and
validator of key credentials;
Actively participate within and across relevant
public--and private-sector forums; and
Assess progress against the goals, objectives, and
milestones of the Strategy and the associated implementation
activities.
Who will be eligible to receive the pilot grants, what is the purpose
behind them, and how large will the awards be?
Identification of pilot awardees will use well-established Federal
Government outreach processes to include requests for information and
proposals. Criteria for pilots will be based on the Strategy's four
guiding principles--that identity solutions should be (1) privacy-
enhancing and voluntary, (2) secure and resilient, (3) interoperable,
and (4) cost-effective and easy to use. Proposals will be evaluated
competitively before making awards. Pilots are necessary for most new
technical solutions and can help test feasibility of different
architectures, policies, use cases, and technologies. They are key to
identifying and overcoming technical or policy barriers to adoption.
And they can bring different sectors together to demonstrate key NSTIC
concepts and refine the model. The value of the individual awards will
vary depending on the pilot criteria and current expectations include
at least three pilots in FY 12.
How has industry been involved in the National Strategy?
Many stakeholders provided input as the draft Strategy was refined,
particularly after an early draft of NSTIC was publicly released in
June 2010. Organizations representing 18 different business and
infrastructure sectors and 70 different nonprofit and federal advisory
groups were consulted in developing the Strategy.
Would it be more appropriate for the private sector to figure out the
solutions to these problems without the government being involved?
One reason leading private sector groups like TechAmerica and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce have supported NSTIC is a recognition that the
government has an important role to play. The private sector has been
working for years on solutions to identity and security challenges, but
by its own admission has struggled with finding consensus on issues
such as standards for interoperability and privacy. A joint letter sent
February 17, 2011 from TechAmerica, the Information Technology Industry
Council and the Business Software Alliance advocated: "We need a
partner in government to help us move trusted identities into the 21st
century. We need the government's involvement to: examine and align
governments activities with industry; build consensus on the legal and
policy frameworks to enhance privacy, free expression, and open
markets; work with industry to identify new standards; support and
coordinate interagency collaboration as well as international
collaboration; and promote pilot projects and other implementations.''
Q2. What is the status of development for standards for
interoperability in Health Information Technology? When will the job be
``completed''?
A2. Much work has been done to date by NIST and others in developing
interoperability standards for Health Information Technology, and NIST
will continue to work with Standards Development Organizations and
industry stakeholders, both directly and in collaboration with of the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology (HHS/ONC). The HHS/ONC
has requested that NIST develop a laboratory accreditation program
(LAP) for organizations to be accredited to test health information
technology (HIT) for purposes of the permanent certification program.
Based on NIST's technical expertise and the strong relationship formed
between the ONC and NIST during the successful implementation of a
temporary certification program, the use of the National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) is expected to enhance testing
under the permanent certification program.
Questions Submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer
Q1. Dr. Gallagher, what type of opportunities does NIST provide to
leverage resources in coordination with educational institutions for
activities such as cooperative research opportunities and partnerships?
A1. NIST provides various opportunities to leverage resources in
coordination with educational institutions, including the following:
NIST has numerous strong partnerships with
educational institutions of mutual benefit, and these programs
encourage student interest and participation in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs.
Through a variety of programs, we bring high-school students
through post-doctoral fellows, and middle school teachers to
our campuses for unique programs that have a direct impact on
STEM education. We also support faculty researchers and
students through a variety of competitive grants programs.
Programs include:
NIST's Postdoctoral Program supports a nationwide
competitive postdoctoral program administered in cooperation
with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council,
NSF-funded Summer Undergraduate Research
Fellowships,
The NIST Summer Institute for Middle School Science
Teachers,
The NIST Research Experience for Teachers Program,
and
The NIST Measurement, Science, and Engineering
Grant Program.
NIST operates research organizations in four
locations, in conjunction with leading academic institutions to
promote cross-disciplinary collaborations that accelerate
research results:
JILA, a world class physics research institute
operated jointly with the University of Colorado, Boulder,
The Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology
Research, a partnership with the University of Maryland
Biotechnology Institute,
The Joint Quantum Institute for advancing quantum
physics research, operated jointly with the University of
Maryland, and
The Hollings Marine Laboratory, in Charleston, SC,
a national center for coastal ocean science, in which NIST is
one of five federal, state, and university partners.
NIST hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users
who work with about 2,900 NIST staff members at two main
campuses in Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo. Most of these
associates are affiliated with universities.
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech),
a new public-private partnership, will develop roadmaps of
critical long-term industrial research needs as well as fund
facilities, equipment, and research at leading universities and
government laboratories.
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program has been
expanded to include educational institutions.
NIST has also facilitated the development of unique
research facilities in educational institutions throughout the
country with support from the NIST Construction Grants Program,
and American Recovery and Re-investment Act (ARRA) funds.
Examples include a state-of-the-art research facility for
fundamental and applied physics at Rice University partially
funded by $11.1 million in ARRA grant money, and $9.5 million
for the Center of Excellence in Nano Mechanical Science and
Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, which
will facilitate research at the intersection of mechanical
engineering and nanometer-scale science and technology.
Q2. Your budget request includes a proposal to allocate $500 million
to NIST from an estimated $27 billion in revenues from the FCC's
proposed spectrum auctions. These funds, under your proposal, would be
used for the operation of the Public Safety Innovation Fund. How would
this program operate if the assumptions about funding levels from the
proposed spectrum auctions do not come to fruition?
A2. The advent of broadband technologies and the Administration's
proposal to allocate an additional 10 MHz to public safety create a new
opportunity to build from the ground up a robust, reliable, secure and
scalable communications network for addressing public safety needs. The
Administration has proposed $ 100 million annually through fiscal year
2016 for NIST to partner with industry and public safety organizations
on research, development, and demonstration activities aimed at new
standards, technologies, and applications to advance public-safety
communications.
If no funding is available for this activity, NIST will continue to
research and test broadband public safety communications systems and
participate in the standards process, though at a much reduced level.
NIST's 700MHz Demonstration Network project is the only network in the
country that is testing how equipment operates in the public safety
700MHz band in a vendor-neutral environment. If funding is limited or
unavailable, many of the project's goals and planned deliverables will
take much more time and may not come to fruition, including the
delivery of objective technology evaluations; test reports that public
safety can use in development of requests for proposals; technical
recommendations to standards development organizations; recommendations
that public safety organizations can use to create public safety Long
Term Evolution (LTE) profiles; and technical information delivered to
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to inform policy
development.
Questions Submitted by Representative David Wu
Q1. With respect to earthquake resiliency, how do building codes and
construction practices in the United States compare to building codes
and construction practices in Japan? How do they compare to those in
Chile?
A1. The recent earthquake damage in Japan was limited, partly because
the epicenter was almost 100 km (60 miles) from shore, but mostly due
to the building codes that Japan has in force. Japanese building codes
are more stringent than those in the United States. They call for
building designs that are stronger and consequently more expensive.
Note that the majority of the damage in Japan was caused by the
tsunami.
An example of a different building code is that Japan
has gone further than the United States in outfitting new
buildings with advanced devices called base isolation pads and
energy dissipation units to dampen the effect of the ground's
shaking during an earthquake. These units, built into the
internal structural skeleton of the buildings, comprise of
hydraulic cylinders that contract and elongate when the
building sways, absorbing the energy of the motion. Buildings
built to these codes were able to withstand the tremors from
the Japan earthquake without collapsing.
The Chilean building code has adopted by reference key aspects of
U.S. model building codes (with some Chilean exceptions). Examples of
differences include:
U.S., but not Chilean, codes contain special
provisions that are triggered by building irregularities in
plan or elevation views. There are numerous damaged buildings
in Chile having significant irregularities (such as narrowing
of walls near the base of the building) attributable to the
lack of these special provisions.
Some Chilean detailing practices (e.g., numerous thin
and relatively lightly reinforced structural walls) differ from
U.S. practice. Some of the buildings that appear to have been
designed and detailed to the Chilean code provisions did not
perform as expected, and were extensively damaged.
The major Chilean earthquake in 2011 has provided a valuable
opportunity to evaluate the performance of structures built in a manner
similar to those in the United States. Under the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), agencies are working to document
findings and translate them into lessons for the United States.
Questions Submitted by Representative Donna Edwards
Q1. The budget request for FY 2012 includes funding for NIST to
continue its work on smart grid standards, as mandated by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Can you give us a brief update
on where we are on smart grid standards and what additional work NIST
is expecting to carry out in FY 2012?
A1. NIST has made a significant progress in its role to coordinate the
development of Smart Grid interoperability standards. Noteworthy
milestones include:
Identified initial set of Smart Grid standards for
consideration by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) - October 2010
NIST identified five foundational families of international
standards as ready for consideration by FERC. These standards,
developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC), are essential to uniform and interoperable
communications systems throughout the grid and will accommodate
the evolution of the grid and integration of new technologies.
Published Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security9
September 2010
This three-volume set of guidelines, prepared by the 450-
member Cyber Security Working Group (CSWG), provide the
technical background and details that inform organizations'
efforts to securely implement Smart Grid technologies.
Established Smart Grid Federal Advisory Committee
(SGFAC)- September 2010
The Committee provides input to NIST on the Smart Grid
standards, priorities and gaps, and on the overall direction,
status and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart
Grid industry including identification of issues and needs.
Input to NIST will be used to help guide Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel activities and also assist NIST in
directing research and standards activities.
Published first release of the NIST Framework and
Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability (SGIP)9 January 2010
NIST released an initial list of 75 interoperability standards
with applicability to the Smart Grid, a preliminary cyber
security strategy, a Smart Grid conceptual reference model, and
priority action plans that address areas where there are
critical gaps in Smart Grid standards.
Launched Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP)9
November 2009
NIST established the SGIP as a public-private partnership to
provide technical support to NIST as it coordinates the
development of interoperability standards. The SGIP currently
includes over 600 member organizations and 1700 participants
from 23 Smart Grid-related stakeholder groups.
In FY 2012, NIST plans to publish an update to the NIST
Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability, continue
support of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, develop a
testing and certification framework for Smart Grid systems and
devices, and build the necessary measurement science to support
the development of new Smart Grid technologies.
Q2. It is our understanding that the funding levels proposed for NIST
in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution that recently passed
House would mean that NIST would be unable to continue the contract for
the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, which would severely degrade and
perhaps even halt altogether NIST's smart grid standards work. Is that
true? What would that proposed CR mean for NIST's smart grid standards
effort?
A2. The Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, established by NIST in 2009,
is a public-private partnership made up of over 600 member
organizations that supports NIST in its role to coordinate the
development of Smart Grid interoperability standards. The current $5
million contract for the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP),
which was initiated with funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, ends this August, and a Request for Proposals
for a new contract must be issued by April to prevent the suspension of
SGIP activities. NIST is looking at funding options to ensure some
level of SGIP support in order to prevent having to suspend the SGIP's
technical functions.
Appendix II:
----------
Additional Member Statements
Submitted Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the National
Science Foundation's (NSF's) and the National Institutes of Standards
and Technology's (NIST's) budget requests for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12).
First, NSF requests $7.7 billion in FY 12, a 13 percent increase in
funding. This funding level steps back from the administration's
commitment to double funding for NSF within ten years. It is my hope
that as our economy continues to recover, the administration will
recognize the importance of making up these losses in future budgets.
NSF plays a critical role in funding basic science research at labs and
universities around the country, and I have seen its benefits first-
hand in my district. In the last five years, NSF has provided $19.5
million in research funding to Southern Illinois University Carbondale
in my district and $3.7 million to Southern Illinois University just
outside my district.
As a member of the Congressional Manufacturing Caucus, I strongly
support NSF's investment of $190 million for Advanced Manufacturing
Research. This research will ensure we remain the most innovative,
efficient, and skilled manufacturing sector in the world and that our
facilities use the most advanced technology.
In addition, I am pleased the President's overall budget makes a
strong commitment to improving Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) Education funding across the federal government. The
FY 12 budget requests $3.4 billion, including $100 million to recruit
10,000 new STEM teachers this year and 100,000 teachers over the next
ten years. While this expansion will encourage more students to enter
STEM and become educators, the budget shifts STEM funding away from NSF
and to the U.S. Department of Education. These two agencies should work
together to ensure we invest in the most productive, efficient STEM
programs.
Second, NIST requests $1 billion in FY 12, a 16.9 percent increase
above the FY 10 funding levels. In particular the budget makes two key
investments to improve manufacturing in the U.S. and ensure we use
federal research funding to create jobs and maintain a competitive
workforce.
NIST requests $142.6 million, a 14 percent increase, for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to expand their programs to
provide technical support and links to community colleges and other
partners for small and medium-sized manufacturers. There are great
benefits to our communities where strong MEPs exist, like in my
district. Companies that work with the Illinois Manufacturing Extension
Center (IMEC) see, on average, 22 new or retained jobs and $100 in
sales and productivity gains for every $1 they invest in IMEC, which
strengthens the economy.
Finally, the FY 12 budget also establishes an Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTC) within NIST to build
partnerships with NSF, industry, and colleges and universities around
the country. These investments will allow NIST to promote manufacturing
innovation, build partnerships between researchers and industry, ensure
our manufacturing workforce is prepared for future opportunities and
challenges, and increase U.S. exports.
I welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.