    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        A REVIEW OF THE NETWORKING AND
                        INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
                        AND DEVELOPMENT (NITRD) PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                October 28, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-46

                                   __________

     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 PUBLISHING OFFICE

     97-765PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          PAUL TONKO, New York
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             MARK TAKANO, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                     HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    GARY PALMER, Alabama                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                                October 28, 2015

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    10
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    13
        Written Statement............................................    15

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    18
        Written Statement............................................    20

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    24

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Keith Marzullo, Director, National Coordination Office, The
      Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
      Program
        Oral Statement...............................................    26
        Written Statement............................................    29

    Dr. Gregory D. Hager, Mandell Bellmore Professor, Department of
      Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University; Co-Chair, NITRD
      Working Group, The President's Council of Advisors on Science
      and Technology
        Oral Statement...............................................    41
        Written Statement............................................    44

    Dr. Edward Seidel, Director, National Center for Supercomputing
      Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
        Oral Statement...............................................    54
        Written Statement............................................    56
    Discussion.......................................................    65

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Keith Marzullo, Director, National Coordination Office, The
      Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
      Program........................................................    78

    Dr. Gregory D. Hager, Mandell Bellmore Professor, Department of
      Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University; Co-Chair, NITRD
      Working Group, The President's Council of Advisors on Science
      and Technology.................................................   102

    Dr. Edward Seidel, Director, National Center for Supercomputing
      Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.......   116

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Statement submitted by Dr. Kenneth Ball, Dean, Volgenau School of
      Engineering, George Mason University...........................   132

                           A REVIEW OF THE NETWORKING

                           AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                    RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (NITRD) PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015

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

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara
    Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. The Subcommittee on Research and
    Technology will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``A Review of the
    Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
    (NITRD) Program.'' I now recognize myself for five minutes for
    an opening statement.
         I want to welcome everyone here today. The topic of this
    morning's hearing, ``A Review of the Networking and Information
    Technology Research and Development Program'', is important to
    our national security, global competitiveness, and
    technological innovation. This hearing will provide us with an
    updated overview of the program, and it will discuss the recent
    President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
    report, also known as the PCAST report, on the NITRD Program
    published in August of 2015.
        The NITRD Program was originally authorized in 1991 in the
    High Performance Computing Act. It provides the primary
    mechanism by which the federal government coordinates this
    nation's almost $4 billion of research and development on
    advanced information technologies in computing, networking, and
    software. Agencies who participate in the program include DHS,
    NASA, NIH, NIST, EPA, and the Department of Energy.
        Information technology is all around us in our day-to-day
    lives: on our smartphones, in our cars, and in our kitchens. It
    improves our way of life, even in ways that are not always as
    visible to us. As noted in the PCAST report, ``information
    technology empowers scientific inquiry, space and Earth
    exploration, teaching and learning, consumer buying and
    selling, informed decision-making, national security,
    transportation, and advanced manufacturing.''
        R&D in information technology provides a greater
    understanding of how to protect essential systems and networks
    that support fundamental sectors of our economy, from emergency
    communications and power grids to air-traffic control networks
    and national defense systems. This kind of R&D works to prevent
    or minimize disruptions to critical information infrastructure,
    to protect public and private services, to detect and respond
    to threats while mitigating the severity of and assisting in
    the recovery from those threats in an effort to support a more
    stable and secure nation.
        As technology rapidly advances, the need for research and
    development continues to evolve. NITRD works to prevent
    duplicative and overlapping R&D efforts, thereby enabling more
    efficient use of government resources and taxpayer dollars.
        Executive Order 13539 assigned the President's Council of
    Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST, to periodically
    review the NITRD Program. PCAST's most recent assessment, which
    was published this past August, includes a number of
    recommendations. Those recommendations focus on eight specific
    R&D areas including, but not limited to: cybersecurity, IT and
    health, big data and data-intensive computing, and foundational
    computing research.
        Considering the significant increase in global
    interconnectedness enabled by the internet, and with it,
    increased cybersecurity attacks, I was glad to see that the
    PCAST report included recommendations of how to improve the
    foundations of our cybersecurity.For example, one
    recommendation included in the report calls on the National
    Science Foundation to sponsor broad foundational research on
    methods to facilitate end-to-end construction of trustworthy
    systems, particularly for emerging application domains, and on
    ways to anticipate and defend against attacks.
        I look forward to today's hearing, and I hope we are able
    to learn more about the current status of the NITRD Program and
    how we can continue improving the program. I am also looking
    forward to learning how industry is engaged in this program. As
    noted in the PCAST report, ``today's advances rest on a strong
    base of research and development created over many years of
    government and private investment. Because of these
    investments, the United States has a vibrant academia-industry-
    government ecosystem to support research and innovation in IT
    and to bring the results into practical use.''
        It is clear that focusing our investments on information
    technology research and development is important to our nation
    for a variety of reasons, including economic prosperity,
    national security, competitiveness, and quality of life.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. And now I thank all witnesses for
    being here, and I will turn over the microphone and recognize
    my Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you and
    Chairman Smith for holding this hearing.
        I am certainly pleased that we're once again planning to
    take up reauthorization legislation for the Networking and
    Information Technology R&D Program known as NITRD. The House,
    through this committee, has successfully passed a bipartisan
    reauthorization of the program in each of the past three
    Congresses, and each time the Senate has failed to follow suit.
    If we are going to move a bill to the President's desk, each of
    us in this room will need to work harder on the necessary
    outreach to gather support. It's been too long since the
    original High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 has been
    updated with the current state of science and technology in the
    field, as well as the current operational and management needs
    of the program.
        Networking and information technology is changing more
    rapidly than any of us could have dreamed in 1991. Mosaic, the
    World Wide Web browser that first made the internet user-
    friendly, was created at the National Center for Supercomputing
    Applications at the University Of Illinois in 1993 under a
    project funded thanks in large part to the HPC Act. Netscape
    founder Marc Andreessen, who was a leader of the Illinois team
    before launching his company, was quoted as saying, ``if it had
    been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened, at
    least not until years later.'' Dr. Andreessen's statement is as
    relevant today as ever. Without question, the 1991 Act set the
    stage for a coordinated federal R&D strategy that has
    underpinned the U.S. leadership in NIT for the past 25 years.
        One reason, I believe, that we are having trouble getting
    an update through the Senate is that the private sector has not
    weighed in on the importance of NITRD. I understand that in the
    process of planning this hearing there was some difficulty
    identifying experts in industry at sufficiently high level with
    knowledge of the NITRD Program. Even the experts that were
    consulted had a hard time coming up with more names to reach
    out to. Given that federal investments in stet have
    applications across all sectors of our economy and at the
    ground level, NITRD involves many public-private partnerships,
    I find this troubling that we have not been able to get the
    private sector engaged here.
        The NITRD Program is a $4 billion investment covering every
    aspect of networking and information technology R&D, in
    addition to the computing infrastructure required to support
    R&D in every field of science and engineering. Four billion
    dollars is a large sum by any measure. However, NITRD covers so
    many areas of R&D, as the Chairwoman noted, and includes so
    much expensive but essential infrastructure, I fear we may be
    under-investing in many critical areas such as cybersecurity.
        I want to thank the witnesses for submitting detailed
    written testimony, and I will highlight just a few topics that
    I hope we can discuss this morning. In his testimony, Dr.
    Seidel, the current Director of NCSA, discusses the need for
    more coherence and coordination around computing research
    infrastructure. When we talk about computing research
    infrastructure, we mean not just high-performance computing
    facilities such as Blue Waters, but also big data
    infrastructure, networking testbeds, observation systems, and
    more. I'd like to understand better how infrastructure is
    planned, coordinated, and categorized under the NITRD Program,
    and how the new National Strategic Computing Initiative fits
    in.
        On the topic of education and workforce, we have heard from
    countless experts that our IT workforce pipeline is not keeping
    up with the demand. When it comes to education and training,
    the federal role may be small compared to the state and private
    sector's. However, PCAST made some specific recommendations for
    federal agencies that we may be able to take up in the NITRD
    legislation, so I hope we have the opportunity to discuss those
    recommendations further.
        I look forward to hearing from this morning's expert panel.
    And with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
        I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
    Smith.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me say that
    I appreciate both your and the Ranking Member's thoughtful
    comments today.
        Madam Chair, the Networking and Information Technology
    Research and Development program that we review today,
    otherwise known as NITRD, oversees federal investment in
    fundamental research areas such as supercomputing,
    cybersecurity, big data, and cyber-physical systems.
        These research priorities help spur technologies that
    protect our country and grow our economy. For example, a
    cybersecurity attack is one of the greatest security challenges
    that America faces today. It threatens all of our federal
    agencies and even our private computer systems. This is just
    one area of federal R&D that the NITRD Program addresses.
        In the digital age, threats to our country's computer
    networking systems constantly evolve. We must effectively
    coordinate R&D efforts in order to protect and improve cyber
    and data security nationwide. Better network security promotes
    U.S. competitiveness, enhances national security, and creates
    high-tech jobs.
        In fact, the most recent President's Council of Advisors on
    Science and Technology report predicts that more than half of
    all new science, technology, engineering, and mathematics jobs
    will be related to information technology.
        A healthy and viable workforce, literate in all STEM
    subjects including computer science, is critical to American
    industries. Today, a variety of jobs in industries from banking
    to engineering to medicine require a familiarity with computer
    science. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, computing
    and mathematics will be one of the top ten fastest-growing
    major occupational groups from 2010 to 2020, with a growth rate
    of four percent annually compared to one percent for all other
    industries.
        Encouraging innovation and technological advancements is a
    priority of the Science Committee and is important to high-tech
    communities across our country, including those in my district.
        The NITRD program focuses on research and development of
    new technologies that create more high-tech jobs in STEM
    fields. Technological innovation is what drives America's
    economy and success. Since the invention of the world's first
    supercomputer 50 years ago, the United States has held a
    competitive advantage in the field of supercomputing.
        In fact, in Austin, Texas, we have seen great achievements
    in supercomputing. The Stampede supercomputer at the Texas
    Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas in Austin
    is the number one open-access supercomputer in the country.
    Stampede will be used by more than 1,000 scientists from the
    United States and around the world to solve problems that
    affect our daily lives. This is a tremendous accomplishment not
    only for the innovators at the University of Texas in Austin
    but also for all Americans.
        But to maintain this competitive advantage, we must
    continue to support the fundamental research and development
    that encourages innovation, particularly the creation and
    design of supercomputers and the applications those computers
    support.
        It has been two years since this Committee last reviewed
    the NITRD Program and passed our Committee's bill to
    reauthorize the program. The Advanced--the Advancing America's
    Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
    Act of 2013 provided for the coordinated R&D efforts necessary
    to improve cyber and data security nationwide. Our legislation
    also authorized the participating agencies to support large-
    scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research. Unfortunately,
    that legislation stalled in the Senate.
        I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on the
    NITRD program and appreciate their testimony on the current
    state of the program, recommendations for how to improve the
    program, and future R&D priorities.
        And I will yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee
    for a statement, Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I want to thank you,
    Chairwoman Comstock, for holding this important hearing.
        The Science, Space, and Technology Committee played a
    central role in the development of the High-Performance
    Computing Act of 1991, the bill that set the stage for 25 years
    of scientific and technological progress under the Networking
    and Information Technology Research and Development, or NITRD.
        Advances in networking and information technology are a key
    driver of our economy, our national security, and our well-
    being. NITRD contributes to increased productivity in existing
    industries and opens the door for information of new ones.
    We've all heard how Google grew out of a basic research project
    funded by the National Science Foundation. NITRD protects our
    brave men and women in the military by improving intelligence
    gathering and sharing and providing them with more effective
    and safer equipment. NITRD has improved healthcare and saved
    countless lives by contributing to advanced diagnostic and
    surgical tools, distance medicine, and improved medical
    research.
        NIT is truly pervasive in our society. Even those of us who
    lived most of our lives before the advent of wireless
    technology don't know how we would live today without the
    devices we carry around in our pockets.
        In their 2015 review of the NITRD Program, the President's
    Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, expressed
    concern that researchers today face difficulty getting funded
    for riskier, more speculative long-term investigations.
    According to the PCAST report, funding pressures are pushing
    scientists to choose more short-term problem-solving research.
    I worry deeply about the impact of that and declining budgets
    across our science and technology enterprise. I hope that any
    budget deal being worked out now and in the future will allow
    for increased investments in all fields of science and
    engineering. That was just one of many recommendations from
    PCAST and other experts.
        Today's hearing is an important opportunity for committee
    members to hear from experts about key issues in NITRD
    reauthorization. Our committee has tried several times to
    update and reauthorize NITRD legislation so that it continues
    to push the boundaries of information technology, science and
    technology, and maximizes opportunities for coordination,
    collaboration, and strategic planning among the many NITRD
    member agencies.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
    of the aisle to develop a good bill and move it through the
    House. Perhaps we will have more success this time around in
    the Senate.
        And I want to thank the excellent panel for being here
    today, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        Now, let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness
    today is Dr. Keith Marzullo. Dr. Marzullo currently serves as
    the Director of the Federal Networking and Information
    Technology Research and Development National Coordination
    Office. He also serves as the Co-Chair of NITRD Subcommittee of
    the National Science and Technology Council Committee on
    Technology, where he oversees the operations and activities of
    the NITRD program.
        Dr. Marzullo earned his bachelor's degree in physics at
    Occidental College, his master's degree in applied physics at
    Stanford University, and received his Ph.D. in electrical
    engineering from Stanford University, where he developed the
    Xerox Research Internet Clock Synchronization protocol, one of
    the first practical fault-tolerant protocols for keeping widely
    distributed clocks synchronized with each other. Wow.
        Dr. Gregory Hager is the Mandell Bellmore Professor of
    Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University. He joined the
    Department of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins in 1999 and has
    served as the Deputy Director of the NSF Engineering Research
    Center for Surgical Systems and Technology, and as Chair of
    Computer Science from 2010 to 2015.
         Dr. Hager earned his bachelor's degree in mathematics and
    computer science at Luther College, and his master's degree and
    Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Pennsylvania.
        Dr. Edward Seidel, our third and final witness, is the
    Director of the National Center for Supercomputing
    Applications. In addition to leading the National Center for
    Supercomputing Applications, he is a founder Professor in the
    University of Illinois Department of Physics and a Professor in
    the Department of Astronomy.
        Dr. Seidel earned his bachelor's in mathematics and physics
    at the College of William and Mary, his master's degree in
    physics at the University of Pennsylvania, and his doctorate in
    relativistic astrophysics at Yale University.
        I now recognize Dr. Marzullo for five minutes to present
    his testimony.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. KEITH MARZULLO,

                DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE,

               THE NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                    RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

        Dr. Marzullo. Thank you and good morning. I would like to
    express my appreciation to Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member
    Lipinski, Chair Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson, and the
    whole committee for this opportunity to come before you today
    to discuss the Networking and Information Technology Research
    and Development Program, the National Coordination Office, and
    this year's review of the NITRD Program by the President's
    Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. I will use the
    corresponding acronyms--NITRD, NCO, and PCAST--throughout the
    rest of my comments in the interest of brevity.
        The NITRD Program provides for the coordination of research
    and development in networking and information technology across
    21 federal agencies and many other partners, which collectively
    represent the federal government's primary investments in
    research and development for IT-related technologies. The NCO
    supports coordination activities of the NITRD Program.
        In my oral comments today, I would like to talk a bit about
    current and future research directions. NITRD currently focuses
    on several areas, including big data; cloud computing;
    cybersecurity; Internet of Things; health IT; high-end
    computing; software-defined networking; and the social,
    economic, and workforce implications of IT and IT workforce
    development.
        My written testimony gives several examples of recent
    accomplishments by NITRD groups, including strategic plans,
    interagency solicitations, and joint workshops, and how they
    promoted R&D in their related research areas.
        Looking forward, the recommendations of PCAST identified a
    key set of R&D areas that with sustained support from Congress
    and across agencies will lead to significant progress in
    addressing national priorities. Some of the suggested R&D areas
    like cybersecurity have been important for some time and still
    critically need cross-agency coordination.
        There are three areas that PCAST identified, though, that
    I'd like to call out: first, big data and data-intensive
    computing. We recognized some time ago that scientific
    breakthroughs are increasingly powered by advanced computing
    capabilities that help researchers manipulate and explore
    massive data sets. Breakthroughs are now possible in education;
    city and community services; healthcare; and disaster
    preparedness prevention, response, and recovery.
        However, big data raises important issues with respect to
    storage and curation, as well as to privacy. A continued cross-
    agency focus will accelerate our progress, advancing both the
    foundations and applications of data science and engineering.
        Second: high-capacity computing for discovery, security,
    and commerce. Here, I would like to note the National Strategic
    Computing Initiative established by executive order earlier
    this year. Previous investments in high-performance computing
    have contributed substantially to national economic prosperity
    and have rapidly accelerated scientific discovery, but the path
    for continued progress is steep. We need fundamentally new
    approaches.
        Delivering exascale computing presents hard technical
    challenges and further progress will require us to overcome the
    physical limitations imposed by current semiconductor
    technology. Addressing these challenges requires a whole-
    government approach in which NITRD is positioned to play a key
    coordinating role.
        Third: cyber human systems. The role of people in
    networking and information technology and vice versa are both
    increasingly important. Robotics is moving from closed
    environments like factory floors to open environments like
    people's homes. The devices that communicate with each other in
    the Internet of Things are increasingly doing so as part of
    systems that fundamentally involve people, such as in
    automobile traffic management, environmental monitoring, and
    aging-in-place support. Cross-agency collaboration is required
    to make progress in computing-enabled human interaction,
    communication, and augmentation that can enhance human
    capabilities and improve learning, education, and training in
    all fields.
        Let me close by noting that for decades the investments of
    the federal government in basic IT research have helped the
    nation make good progress on grand-challenge problems and
    address national priorities. Basic IT research has led to
    significant innovations, to new startups and small businesses,
    to birth of entirely new industries, and sometimes to
    disruptive technological change. The NITRD Program is
    completely involved in this exciting and rapidly changing
    research and innovation ecosystem through the program's
    mechanisms that facilitate interagency coordination and
    collaboration on federally funded research and development
    activities.
        I thank you for your interest in the NITRD Program and the
    opportunity to appear before you today. The NITRD community
    looks forward to working with you to further the value of
    interagency cooperation in Networking and Information
    Technology Research and Development.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Marzullo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        And I now recognize Dr. Hager for five minutes to present
    his testimony.

                   TESTIMONY OF DR. GREGORY D. HAGER,

                      MANDELL BELLMORE PROFESSOR,

                    DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE,

                       JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY;

                     CO-CHAIR, NITRD WORKING GROUP,

                  THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS

                       ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        Dr. Hager. Thank you and good morning. I would like to
    express my appreciation as well to Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking
    Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson,
    and the other members of the Subcommittee on Research and
    Technology for this opportunity to present my perspectives on
    the NITRD Program.
        As you are aware, by executive order the PCAST is charged
    with periodically reviewing the NITRD Program and has delivered
    reports previously in 2010 and 2013. To perform this most
    recent review, PCAST convened a working group consisting of
    seven experts from academia and industry. I co-chaired this
    group, together with Dr. Susan Graham, a PCAST member and
    professor emerita at the University of California Berkeley. I
    am pleased to be able to share with you a summary of some of
    the findings and recommendations of the report. My written
    testimony has a more complete overview of the report.
        In the report, we note that when the High Performance
    Computing Act was introduced in 1991, much of computing
    research, particularly at the high end, focused on advances in
    computing systems themselves. As already noted in other opening
    remarks, today's picture is far broader. Computing empowers
    scientific inquiry, exploration, teaching and learning, and
    consumer buying and selling. Nearly every device, be it a car,
    a kitchen appliance, equipment on the manufacturing floor, or a
    child's toy is enhanced by information technology.
        As already noted the National Bureau of Labor Statistics
    projects that more than half of all new jobs in STEM will be
    related to information technology.
        These incredible advances in computing are reshaping the
    field of computing itself, creating an expanding research
    agenda that is increasingly driven by interactions among
    computing devices, people, and the physical world they inhabit,
    and which it is also increasingly important to many national
    priorities.
        In preparing this most recent review, the PCAST NITRD
    working group consulted previous NITRD reviews, interviewed
    experts in a variety of areas, and ultimately chose eight key
    areas upon which to present findings and recommendations. Two
    national priorities, cybersecurity and health are highlighted.
    With respect to cybersecurity, the report calls out the need to
    support continued research on the development of secure
    systems, research on the management of imperfect systems and
    human fallibility, and mechanisms to translate new solutions
    into practice.
        With respect to health, the report notes a growing
    community of technology researchers working in this space and
    highlights the need to empower this community through open
    interfaces, standards, and mechanisms for accelerating the
    deployment of solutions into practice.
        The report highlights two areas: cyber human systems and
    privacy where there are strong cross-disciplinary ties with the
    social and behavioral sciences and with the policy community.
    Cyber human systems are computational systems that support
    communication and coordination of individuals, groups, and
    organizations.
        As noted by Dr. Marzullo, advances in understanding of
    cyber human systems, will rely on fundamental research to
    understand the interplay of people and computing in
    coordination with mission-focused research and important
    societal needs such as education and health.
        The report finds that privacy is increasingly threatened by
    the growth of online activity. Advances in privacy research
    will require deep collaboration among computer scientists,
    legal scholars, and behavioral and social scientists to inform
    both the design of computing systems and the drafting of
    policies and regulations.
        Two areas where past investments are beginning to pay off
    for NITRD: IT-based interaction with the physical world and
    data-intensive computing. Recommendations for both of these
    areas call out the need for additional basic research but also
    highlight the need for coordination with mission agencies to
    advance applications of this work.
        Finally, two areas in the technology base are reviewed.
    First, high-capability computing continues to be essential to
    our nation. The National Strategic Computing Initiative is an
    opportunity to implement a sustained program of long-term
    fundamental research on architectures, algorithms and software
    to ensure continued advances for both data-intensive and
    computing-intensive applications.
        And last but most importantly, many of the advances we
    enjoy today grew from decades of foundational research. The
    report emphasizes that continued support for foundational
    research is essential to provide the basis for future
    innovations and disruptive advances in the use of IT.
        Noting the anticipated growth in IT-related jobs, the
    report discusses the educational needs of the nation and
    recommends that the NITRD Subcommittee work in partnership with
    NSF and the Department of Education to develop educational and
    training opportunities in IT at all levels.
        Finally, the report reviews the current organization of the
    NITRD Program and makes several recommendations to ensure the
    NITRD Program keeps pace with the continuing evolution of the
    computing field.
        I will close by reiterating the findings our working
    committee affirmed that the NITRD Program continues to play an
    important role in guiding effective investments in computing
    research. I would like to again thank the Committee for this
    opportunity to discuss the findings of the NITRD working group,
    and I stand ready to help the Committee to advance its efforts
    in advancing computing research.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hager follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Dr. Hager.
        I now recognize Dr. Seidel.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD SEIDEL, DIRECTOR,

            NATIONAL CENTER FOR SUPERCOMPUTING APPLICATIONS,

               UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

        Dr. Seidel. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Comstock,
    Ranking Member Lipinski, Mand embers of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for the chance to participate in this important discussion.
        I am Professor Ed Seidel, the Director of NCSA at the
    University of Illinois. I previously served at the National
    Science Foundation as the Assistant Director for the
    Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences and also as
    the Director of the Office of Cyber Infrastructure. In those
    capacities I also co-chaired subcommittees under OSTP's
    Committees on Science and on Technology. I'm also very familiar
    with the importance to the nation of networking information
    technology, or NIT, across all areas of research and with the
    National Strategic Computing Initiative, or NSCI, and its
    importance in maintaining American competitiveness and research
    and in economic development. Indeed, I can think of no other
    single initiative that has as much potential to support and
    maintain U.S. leadership in research and innovation.
        I would first like to outline some critical trends in
    science, engineering and industrial research that must guide
    federal investments in NIT. First, as more complex problems in
    science and society are addressed, R&D is increasingly
    collaborative and interdisciplinary. How do drugs interact with
    a virus? How can jet engines be made more efficient? Answers
    will require integration of expertise from many areas of
    science and engineering and from big data and from multiple
    instruments and big computing. All are needed, and such
    problems do not respect disciplinary, nor agency boundaries.
        Second, complex problems are increasingly computational and
    data-intensive requiring integration of large-scale computing
    facilities and data from many observation systems and
    instruments. Without this, many problems are beyond the reach
    of the nation's current capabilities.
        Activities at the center that I direct, NCSA, beautifully
    illustrate these trends. Funded by many agencies, NCSA leads
    the two largest single computing investments from the NSF
    accounting for over half-a-billion dollars. The Blue Waters
    supercomputer, the most powerful in the academic world,
    provides unique science capabilities to over a thousand
    researchers across the nation. And I have a book here just hot
    off the presses that has dozens and dozens of projects that are
    being done on machines like Blue Waters and others that can't
    be done in any other way.
        The XSEDE project also provides advanced digital services
    for resources at many other national computing and data sites.
    Together, these highly oversubscribed facilities support over a
    billion dollars worth of externally funded research projects,
    only about half of which come from the National Science
    Foundation with the remainder coming from NIH, DOE, NASA, and
    others.
        NCSA is also building data services for the Large Synoptic
    Survey Telescope funded jointly by the NSF and the DOE at close
    to a billion dollars. This revolutionary telescope will produce
    data at rates never before seen in the history of astronomy,
    and NCSA will play the primary role in hosting, processing, and
    serving data to the nation's science communities.
        Such 21st century investments--in this case, a telescope--
    are huge data-generators and they need huge computers. They are
    merely peripherals to the computing infrastructure needed for
    science. Costing upwards of a billion dollars each, such
    instruments are more silicon than they are steel, and they need
    to be a part of the overall ecosystem of national information
    technology investments.
        Underlying all of this in this era of big data and
    computing, in order to maintain U.S. competitiveness in
    research and innovation, the NSCI is desperately needed. A
    whole-of-government effort is required with deep coordination
    across the spectrum of agencies, their communities, and digital
    methodologies. The NSCI rightly singled out NSF in a key
    integrative role in this broad ecosystem.
        In August, PCAST made recommendations regarding NITRD and
    NCO that I agree with, and I am confident that the current
    leadership will do an outstanding job acting on these
    recommendations, enabling them to play a major role in
    coordinating federal NIT investments.
        Beyond the PCAST recommendations, however, I would urge the
    Committee to consider three points: First, highly compute- and
    data-intensive instruments should be a part of the overall
    portfolio of NIT coordination. Each such instrument is
    typically more expensive than the largest single computing
    facilities with computing, networking, and data investments
    comparable to those of the largest HPC centers, yet they are
    often not coordinated with the rest of the system and they need
    to be.
        Two, being science-driven, coordinating federal investment
    in NIT should involve organizations beyond NITRD, including
    groups under the Committee on Science. These science
    communities cut across all disciplines, they are funded by many
    agencies, and they are driving the integration of computing,
    data, and networking, and they need to be deeply involved.
        And finally, new funding vehicles for large NIT investments
    that are designed to be more coordinated may also be needed.
    For example, NSF's MREFC vehicle for funding large facilities
    and DOE's CD process are used successfully to fund major
    instruments. One should examine whether such vehicles could be
    adapted for multiagency coordination.
        Thank you for giving me the chance to testify. I hope that
    I can help realize the great vision of research and innovation
    vital to the nation that I think we all share.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Seidel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you so much. Thank all of you.
    It is fascinating work that you all do, so I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss it this morning with you.
        And without objection, we have the statement of Dr. Kenneth
    Ball from George Mason University, which will also be included
    in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Ball appears in Appendix II]
        Chairwoman Comstock. So I now recognize myself for five
    minutes for questions, and we'll proceed with our others here.
        I want to ask all of you to tell us how we can have more
    interface between academia, industry, and government. What is
    the ecosystem here and how do we sort of get more bang for our
    buck? It's all being utilized in a more efficient way but, how
    are we getting all of these things on a faster track. Do you
    have any thoughts on how we might better get industry
    engagement?
        Dr. Marzullo. I'll start. I do want to note that in NITRD
    we actually have a fairly broad reach into industry, and we do
    it in a few ways. One is through workshops. For example, in the
    wireless area, wireless spectrum research and development,
    they've been running a series of workshops, seven of them,
    which have been looking at all the issues dealing with the
    access of this limited resource, this spectrum sharing. And
    these workshops are attended by people from industry,
    academics, and government people. So in these workshops, for
    example, we've got people from T-Mobile, Microsoft, Agilent,
    Vanu, Comsearch, Qualcomm. So we have a reach into that.
        Similarly, in our Cyber Physical Systems Senior Steering
    Group, one of the efforts being run by NIST, the Global City
    Teams Challenge, has been forming partnerships of industry,
    academics, and communities to look at cyber-physical smart
    cities, smart communities. And through the CPS Senior Steering
    Group, because of the coordination we do, NSF jumped in to help
    participate in those efforts. And so that's another path in.
        We also have a couple of groups, the Joint Engineering
    Team, which looks at information sharing among federal agencies
    in scientific networking. We have another one called MAGIC,
    which is our Middleware and Grid, and these also involve
    industry. They come and talk with us. Microsoft, Verizon, and
    Cisco have been members.
        So I think we are reaching out. We can do more but I think
    we are reaching out.
        Chairwoman Comstock. All right. Thank you. And, Dr. Hager?
        Dr. Hager. So I was thinking about, you know, the different
    perspectives on industry, academic, government interaction, and
    perhaps I can give you a couple of different views of that. So,
    as you know the IT industry is tremendously impetuous almost in
    its development of new technologies. And so the topics and the
    directions change quickly.
        That being said, there's a tremendous interaction at the
    grassroots level among academic researchers and industry. And
    that's really through students moving back and forth with
    industry, as well as some collaborative projects with industry.
    You have to understand many companies do not have industrial
    research labs anymore in the IT industry, and so it really is
    very much a grassroots level interaction.
        I will, however, highlight--picking up on Dr. Marzullo's
    response that several venues where we do bring together
    government, industry, and academic researchers. So I also chair
    the Computing Community Consortium. And in the--that consortium
    we hold visioning workshops where we talk about new topics in
    computing, and we always have representation from industry,
    government, and academic researchers. So there is a
    conversation and there is a connection even if it may not be
    immediately visible from the highest levels.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Okay.
        Dr. Seidel. Yes, thanks for the question.
        I can give you a couple of different answers. So from my
    present post as the Director of NCSA, I can say we have many,
    many deep interactions with companies. We have a private sector
    program that has over two dozen companies that actually pay to
    be members of our consortium, and we work very deeply with
    them. Some of them--Caterpillar has been there for over 30
    years. And when the original NSF supercomputing program started
    in 1985-86 in that period, the NCSA leadership at the time took
    out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal and said we are
    open for business. And that led to a lot of industrial
    relationships with the University of Illinois and has actually
    led to an entire industrial park that is now just south of
    campus. And those relationships continue.
        In the present day when the National Strategic Computing
    Initiative was announced, I was invited to the Eisenhower
    Executive Office Building for a little discussion on that, and
    I would say over half of the participants in the room were from
    industry. And some of the most passionate members of that panel
    talked about the need, for example, to have large-scale
    computing investments at the federal level so that they would
    be able to do things that they can't do otherwise.
        For example, jet engine development, a mere one percent
    increase in the efficiency, which would require supercomputing
    at the level of, say, 10 to 100 times what we have now in order
    to really do that sort of work well, would allow tens of
    billions of dollars in savings in the airline industry for fuel
    costs, for example. So there are lots of examples where we work
    together with industry.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I think any time and
    any place you can help us assist with telling that story, so
    people really understand the multiplier effect of all the
    research that is going on and how it's integrated into
    everything that we see. So thank you very much.
        And I yield five minutes to Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I just want to follow up on a
    couple things there. And, Dr. Seidel, I've been to U of I and
    seen what you've done there by having these industries come in.
    And it's great to see and it's great to hear all these examples
    of how industry has really benefitted. So as we move forward, I
    think we'll have to have further discussions on how we can make
    sure that we get them involved in making sure that this NITRD
    works as well as it can.
        But I wanted to ask Dr. Marzullo, you had talked about
    this--mentioned this at least in your answer to the
    Chairwoman's question, but I wanted to get a little bit--talk a
    little bit more about the smart cities and connected
    communities, multiagency framework. Can you tell us more about
    this and how are the private sector and city governments
    themselves involved in this?
        Dr. Marzullo. Mr. Lipinski, thank you for the question. The
    Global Cities Team Challenge was an effort that was started by
    NIST, and it happened at about the same time that the National
    Science Foundation was looking at ways to frame their efforts
    in cyber-physical systems. Cyber-physical systems are these
    complex systems that are--involve the physical world, people,
    and computation. And a natural partnership grew out between the
    two. The NIST has been working on a framework for cyber-
    physical systems and NSF has been looking at the foundational
    aspects.
        So there was a partnership that sprung up being led by
    NIST, Chris Greer, to build these kinds of projects that tied
    together communities like Montgomery County, researchers, and
    companies small and large in developing innovative approaches
    to smart city problems. And then the National Science
    Foundation used its own ability to reach into its own
    researchers to help motivate them into moving into this.
        NSF thought this was a great idea because this also helped
    form a bridge between the research that was going on to
    industry in terms of applications.
        Mr. Lipinski. Very good. I want to turn in my remaining
    time to computing infrastructure. We know that big data and
    data science broadly speaking is becoming a larger part of
    scientific research with every passing year. But at the same
    time, research infrastructure in this space, including HPCs
    like Blue Waters but also testbeds and storage for large
    datasets is increasingly expensive. So how do we weigh the
    benefits of improving our computing infrastructure against the
    other research priorities for the purposes of the NITRD
    Program? So whoever wants to--would like to jump in here. Dr.
    Seidel?
        Dr. Seidel. Yes, thank you. There are--it's clear that
    investments in computing impact all areas of science and
    engineering. So the Blue Waters facility is supporting areas
    from every single directorate at NSF. It's very interesting to
    note that even in the social sciences, which you wouldn't think
    of as being highly computational, they're using as much------
        Mr. Lipinski. Oh, I understand they're highly
    computational.
        Dr. Seidel. They're using--I know you--that's correct. But
    many of them are using--that community--that directorate is
    using as much computing time as the Math and Physical Sciences
    Directorate did just ten years ago. So it's in every single
    area. And so the point is that investments in these areas can
    really impact all other areas, and they're fundamental to them.
    They can't do their work without them. So I think that's one of
    the issues to be thinking about when you're thinking about how
    to distribute budgets.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Dr. Hager?
        Dr. Hager. So I guess I would echo Dr. Seidel's remarks. As
    we see the field evolving, we're seeing that data is playing a
    larger and larger role across many, many areas, and it's
    clearly going to continue along those lines. I would note that,
    you know, other nations--for example, Japan--has a much more
    advanced capability broadly in data-intensive computing and
    high-performance computing than the United States currently
    does. And clearly, they see a value in investing in that area.
        So it is an important area. I agree the investments have to
    be weighed against the impact that they are making in these
    other areas, but they are the infrastructure upon which many,
    many areas build.
        Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Marzullo, do you have anything to add?
        Dr. Marzullo. I'll just add a brief note here in my time
    that the groups within NITRD often talk about infrastructure
    investments, and they find ways to try to help increase the
    sharing of them. We have a wonderful taxonomy of wireless
    testbeds, for example, available on our website.
        Mr. Lipinski. Good. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        And I now recognize Mr. LaHood for five minutes.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the
    witnesses for your testimony today and for your commitment and
    dedication to what you do.
        Dr. Seidel, we appreciate you being here, and thank you for
    the work you do at University of Illinois with our program
    there. And I wanted to just follow up a little bit on your
    reference to the private sector partner program. You referenced
    Caterpillar and some of the other companies that you work with.
        In terms of kind of the real-world effects of that in terms
    of product design, competitiveness, and the iForge project, can
    you talk a little bit more about that? And I guess as a follow-
    up, do you think we're doing enough to highlight what we do in
    the private sector in making people aware of that, and is there
    room to grow there?
        Dr. Seidel. So thank you for the question.
        Just a little bit of background, as I mentioned, we have
    many private sector partners that are focused on using
    computing to advance their business, and we have a specifically
    dedicated computing system called iForge that is just for
    industrial use. So they really use that facility in the way
    that they want to. So we operate it for them. They're members
    of our program, and so they not only use the facility but they
    use the staff and the expertise, just as important or more
    important than the facility because computers come and go in
    fairly short timescales. It's the incredible scientific and
    computing expert staff that we maintain. And all the centers,
    I'm sure, would say the same thing. That's the most important
    aspect.
        So they are--and part of the teams that work with industry
    and industry then provides problems for us to work on, whether
    it's scaling their codes or doing things like engine design or,
    you know, pharmaceutical design and so on, we help them scale
    their codes up to larger and larger processer accounts. And so
    if they want to graduate, say, from the iForge machine, which
    is much smaller, to a Blue Waters machine, which allows them to
    do things that they couldn't do anywhere else, including in
    their own homegrown computing facilities where they just don't
    have facilities like that--the Blue Waters machine is a $200
    million facility--then we help them make that scaling--make
    that jump.
        Another thing that we're doing, though, we're seeing
    increasingly that there is the concern about big data, and
    they're very, very focused on big data. And so there's a new
    NSF program called the Big Data Hub, which I'm the PI for the
    so-called Midwest Big Data Hub--it'll be announced next week--
    and it is about private-public partnerships. And we have many,
    many companies, state organizations, cities, as well as
    academic organizations all working together on this.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
        Dr. Hager, I wanted to--you referenced earlier, I guess, in
    the last set of questions about Japan. In terms of U.S.
    leadership and where we are with competitiveness in the world
    when it comes to supercomputing, can you talk a little bit
    about how we rank worldwide and where we're at in terms of our
    competitiveness and looking to the future a little bit and what
    we need to do to stay where we're at or to improve?
        Dr. Hager. Thank you for the question.
        So as I'm sure you know, we no longer nationally have the
    fastest supercomputer in the world. That happens to be in China
    right now. And as I said, there are other nations investing in
    greater computing capacity. So I think it is an important area
    for the field broadly to invest in not just because of what it
    enables in science but also what it enables in technology
    research. So many of the advances that we see in the broader
    computing field often start in the high-performance computing
    field and trickle down.
        The other opportunity I'd like to highlight is that, as we
    develop more and more advanced machines, often the challenge is
    to actually achieve the highest possible performance on those
    machines. And there are some very interesting and very
    fundamental computing research problems simply to take
    advantage of the resources we have, as well as building greater
    resources.
        Mr. LaHood. And I guess is there--in terms of being--you
    know, continuing on the path we're on or moving up to compete
    with China, I mean is that strictly a resource issue or is
    that--are there other factors that relate to that?
        Dr. Hager. Well, certainly, you know, resources are
    important. We can't succeed without applying substantial
    resources.
        The technical issues involved in developing the next
    generation of computing, however, are really quite amazing when
    you start to think about, for example, what it would take to
    build a so-called exascale computing engine. There are
    fundamental physical limitations that we're running up against.
    There are architectural limitations that we run up against.
    It's not clear that the current technologies that we have--or
    in fact it is clear the current technologies we have simply
    won't scale. And so it's a matter of resources but resources
    applied broadly to achieve breakthroughs in several areas in
    order to advance computing to the next level.
        Mr. LaHood. And, last question, do you think we're prepared
    to go to that next level currently?
        Dr. Hager. Certainly, we have I think nationally the
    capability to go to that level, the people-resources capability
    to go to that level. I think it's a matter of investment,
    focus, and strategic planning to achieve that next set of
    performance levels.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
    Hultgren for five minutes.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all for being here. This is an important subject
    and really appreciate the work that you're all doing. I think
    the NITRD Program is important and gives federal agencies the
    ability to better work together in multidisciplinary fashion to
    tackle the big scientific and technological challenges we are
    beginning to face.
        Dr. Seidel, it's very good to see you again. It was so good
    to be at your amazing, literally amazing facility back in
    April. I still talk about that often, and I've visited quite a
    few different wonderful sites in Illinois. We do have a proud
    depth of scientific ecosystem in Illinois. But one of the most
    impressive was being there at Blue Waters. So I just want to
    thank you for your work and encourage my colleagues whenever
    you get the chance to come to Champaign-Urbana to be able to
    see a phenomenal facility that is absolutely having a big
    impact. So thank you for your work.
        In your written testimony, Dr. Seidel, you mentioned that
    NCSA is deeply engaged in numerous big data projects. I also
    appreciate your discussing the LSST project. I think it's
    important for my colleagues to know that this was the number-
    one on-the-ground priority in the last Planetary Science
    Decadal Survey. So the work you are doing primarily with NSF
    funding really enables all of our other scientific fields.
        With our computational capabilities being what they are
    today, how does the government need to account for what many
    are calling more of a data-management problem than a computing
    problem, and would you agree with that assessment?
        Dr. Seidel. Thank you very much for all those remarks.
        There are major challenges in data management. That's for
    sure. I would call it an expanding universe that is growing
    beyond the traditional HPC investments and so on. So it's a
    much bigger set of problems, and we're still grappling with
    them. There are many aspects of this from what you do with all
    the data. So whether it's data that are collected from
    telescopes or from accelerators or from light sources and so
    on, or the output from supercomputers--you have to figure out
    what to do with all of that--the data are scientifically
    valuable, and they also have economic value as well.
        And in fact, the entire Materials Genome Initiative that
    was announced 4 or five years ago--when I was at the NSF, I
    played a role in that--was a lot about making data computing,
    theory, and experiment all integral to an approach to materials
    that was really an economic development initiative because it
    was aimed at industrial competitiveness and making new
    materials at a much cheaper cost in half the time. And it was
    all largely seen as data being the integrator. And so creating
    services that make data that are collected from scientific
    activities, making them available to other researchers helps to
    ensure the reproducibility of the science, it helps others to
    take advantage of it more quickly, and it makes it directly
    available to industry so that they can take it up more quickly
    and then begin to make things. And that was what the Materials
    Genome was about.
        So there are many, many issues, and I'd say the data issues
    are growing rapidly, just as are the computing ones. We can't
    forget about them. They go together.
        Mr. Hultgren. For years, industry and governments alike
    have used FLOPS as the benchmark standard for our fastest
    computers. I think this is a certainly valuable measure, which
    should not be abandoned, but what other ways do we need to be
    looking at our computational abilities to make sure that we
    have the most capable machines? Dr. Seidel?
        Dr. Seidel. We have a lot of work to do, and every aspect,
    as we heard on the technologies themselves, on the expertise of
    the scientific communities to take advantage of these machines
    that are getting harder to process or to program. If you have a
    million processors--the Blue Waters computer has close to a
    million processors, think about how you would program such a
    machine to do a problem in astrophysics or in biology. So we
    have to invest a lot in the training of the next generation of
    researchers. That's really, really critical.
        And in fact, I had the privilege to meet with about 60
    students from the XSEDE project who were at a conference in St.
    Louis this summer, I queried them and they all said that they
    were not learning what they needed in their university
    curriculum; they were learning it in these workshops that we
    were holding. So there's a lot that needs to be done in every
    aspect of this.
        Mr. Hultgren. You also discussed the Strategic Computing
    Initiative, and I've been in touch with Dr. Blazey, you know,
    at NIU who was encouraging this kind of initiative when he was
    OSTP. Earlier this year and in the previous Congress the House
    passed my legislation, the American Supercomputing Leadership
    Act, which would create a dedicated exascale program and ensure
    a more open facility to research the research community.
        I agree with the three leadership agencies in the
    initiative, and I think it's important to stress to my
    colleagues the national defense needs, mainly in workforce
    development, that are developed first outside of DOD with
    students and researchers at NSF and DOE.
        Quickly--and I'm just about out of time--but how should we
    improve our interagency working groups at NITRD to better serve
    our research capabilities and connect the core capabilities
    certain agencies have? And also if--maybe we can follow up in
    writing, too, if you have further comment on PCAST review. That
    may be helpful as well.
        Mr. Seidel. I would just make a quick answer to that. I
    think the recommendations actually were excellent. I think they
    need to be acted on, and I'm very confident that they will be.
    I'd like to see a broader set of activities, though, that also
    really deeply engages the science communities. The NITRD
    Program does focus naturally on the technologies and so--but
    the science communities and the engineering communities are the
    ones driving this so they need to be engaged.
        Mr. Hultgren. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
    Palmer for five minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Dr. Hager, in the past, NITRD Program has had problems with
    the way in which participating agencies categorized their NITRD
    budgets. Is that still a problem?
        Dr. Hager. So thank you for the question.
        Certainly, in the past there have been issues related to
    the question of what goes into the program component areas, the
    PCAs, which are the budget categories by which one measures the
    investments in the NITRD Program. I think that part of those
    issues had to do with the fact that the PCAs historically were
    quite outdated, as I have already noted. They're over 20 years
    old. They in many cases no longer naturally fit the activities
    within the computing research field. And that's in fact why we
    spent a great deal of effort in our working group attempting to
    understand first how one would go about changing the PCAs and
    also suggested a process by which they could be continually
    renewed so that there is a natural mapping between the PCAs and
    areas of interest within computing research.
        To give one simple example, we have the National Robotics
    Initiative but we don't have a natural way to measure
    investment in robotics. So where would robotics go in the
    existing PCAs?
        Mr. Palmer. Do you--does NITRD, which is a--is the main
    source of federally funded information technology. Is there
    anything being done to ensure that there's no duplicate
    research that's being done in the agencies? Would you like to
    respond to that, Dr. Marzullo?
        Dr. Marzullo. Thank you for the question. The way NITRD
    works is we have several groups where we have representatives
    from the agencies discuss their portfolios and review what is
    being funded. The details of this are published every year in
    our supplement, and much of the work in there is not only to
    avoid duplication but to find ways we can work with each other,
    which is I think even more important. I'd like to say the
    secret sauce of NITRD is collaboration.
        Mr. Palmer. That's right. Thanks.
        Dr. Hager, your testimony mentions the tension between
    purchasing the long-term foundational research and short-term
    problem-solving research. How is NITRD approaching that
    problem?
        Dr. Hager. So thank you for the question.
        I think it's important to understand that NITRD represents
    an extremely broad collection of agencies, including NSF, which
    of course is the center of foundational research and computing
    and extending through mission agencies, including DARPA, NIST,
    Department of Education, and so forth.
        So NITRD in many ways is really, I believe a convening
    ground where there is the opportunity to have exactly the
    discussions of the balance between basic research and more
    applied mission-focused research. And my understanding, through
    discussions with NITRD, is that there are a variety of
    conversations that take place among those agencies to achieve
    that balance.
        I will say the remarks were also directed to the fact that
    as we were saying, computing research funding is sometimes
    challenging to come by, so one is, as a young faculty member,
    very tempted to focus on concrete and short-term problems
    simply because one can get funding from the broadest set of
    agencies in that case. And that is the sort of thing that will
    advance your career, to show those immediate results.
        Mr. Palmer. And this question can apply to all of you, but
    in terms of the short-term problem-solving research, is that
    something that the private sector could play a greater role in
    and leave the longer-term stuff to the federal government?
        Dr. Hager. So one of the interesting evolutions in
    computing research that I alluded to earlier is that relatively
    few companies now have industrial research groups within them.
    So Microsoft is a perfect example of a company that still does
    have a research group, and it's possible to use that group as a
    buffer between short-term and long-term research.
        I think at this point, because of where the industry is, it
    really is becoming more incumbent on academia, we're finding,
    to really have that ecosystem of both short-term and long-term
    research. I think we would welcome the opportunity to better
    support some of the shorter-term research through other
    mechanisms if they were available, but at this point we don't
    see those mechanisms. And so you're seeing the community really
    fill that gap that has been created by the lack of industrial
    research groups.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, this is fascinating and necessary work,
    and I want to thank you for being here today. And one of the
    more polite groups of witnesses we've had. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize Mr. Abraham for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the
    doctors for being here, too.
        Dr. Marzullo, is there any way the National Coordination
    Office itself can be improved, enhanced to support NITRD?
        Dr. Marzullo. First, I'm going to give a shout-out to the
    National Coordination Office crew. Some of them are sitting
    behind me and they're a fantastic group of people, I must say.
        I think the improvements we've been looking at are better
    ways to manage the NITRD Program, so how we can have better
    group structure, how we can get information more quickly.
        So--and I actually support all of the recommendations that
    PCAST made. I think that was a wonderful set of groups, and we
    are acting on them.
        But the National Coordination Office itself, they're a
    great group of people. I couldn't want a better staff.
        Mr. Abraham. All right. Dr. Hager, how often is the NITRD
    Program reviewed, and how often would you want it--to review
    it?
        Dr. Hager. Well, thank you for the question.
        So the current practice is to review every two years, and
    as you see, we did 2010, 2013, 2015, so we're almost managing
    every two years. I would say two years, I believe, is too
    often. It's very difficult to really perform a meaningful
    review just two years after the previous review happened.
    There's really not a lot of time to react.
        Mr. Abraham. What would you say would be the ideal number?
        Dr. Hager. So I would say in the three- to five-year time
    frame would be------
        Mr. Abraham. Okay.
        Dr. Hager. --a more meaningful time to do a NITRD review.
        Mr. Abraham. Now, in your report you made several
    recommendations to NITRD. The stakeholders themselves, how are
    they receiving those? Are they a positive response, pushback?
    What's their take on the recs you made?
        Dr. Hager. So I have to say that, personally, I have only
    heard positive responses from the individuals with whom I've
    interacted. And I'd like to compliment Dr. Marzullo. I know
    that he has already within his office been reacting to many of
    the recommendations and, you know, he may have additional
    comments in terms of how those changes have been filtering
    through the NITRD Program.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay. And this is for any or all of you. I
    know the DOE is not part of the NITRD right now. Would that be
    a good thing, the Department of Education?
        Dr. Marzullo. Department of Education is a participating
    agency, so we have had representatives come to talk about STEM,
    and we always welcome them more.
        Mr. Abraham. But they're not a--just a steadfast member?
    They do bring people in, though?
        Dr. Marzullo. They do bring people in. They do work with
    us, yes.
        Mr. Abraham. And you think that's good enough? I mean
    you're getting enough input from that aspect to do some good
    things with them?
        Dr. Marzullo. I would always welcome more contact from----
    --
        Mr. Abraham. Education.
        Dr. Marzullo. I'm sorry, education. They're a strong
    agency.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. Actually, I will take the
    prerogative of one more question picking up on talking about
    the workshops that were often more helpful for the students
    than the classrooms. I was wondering if all of you might
    address a little bit about how we need to change education for
    dealing with the rapid changes that are going on in this whole
    industry. I think of a friend of mine, his son who's a
    brilliant student, went to Stanford, and then came to him after
    the first semester and said, you know, Dad, I'm dropping out of
    school. You know, as the Dad, you're kind of like oh, no, and
    he said, no, it's good. Like I'm going to work because if I
    don't go out and work in this field, I'm going to get behind by
    being in the classroom. So he was taking his classes while he's
    working and doing this because he was worried kind of about
    what you said.
        So how can we change that education framework and dynamic
    and really have a--I mean he's making money now while he's
    taking his classes, too. And I've seen in my district we have a
    cybersecurity high school program. So how can we push this down
    to high school, too, where these kids are getting trained to go
    into the cybersecurity field out of high school and they are
    being recruited out of high school into really good-paying
    jobs, and then having those employers pay for them to get
    college credits as they move forward? So they basically have a
    free college degree waiting for them when they get out of this
    program. So how we can really modernize our education system to
    deal with this quickly adapting industry?
        Dr. Seidel. I'll make a couple quick comments on that and
    then let the others comment. When I was meeting with those
    students, I was really astounded to hear that they're basically
    still being trained in 17th century methods in physics, which
    is learning calculus, but not in 21st century, even 20th
    century methods in the classroom. So this is largely due to the
    fact that professors are teaching the time-honored tradition
    and so on. And so they need a little bit of a kick, I think,
    often. And so I think agencies can help them move forward
    faster by incentivizing changes and providing programs to tell
    them what they expect from their research activities and so on.
    So that's one way this can be done.
        My son also was recruited out of college and decided to
    stay in. It was largely because I think he thought the longer-
    term prospects for him would be good there, but he did really
    think about the same exact thing.
        Dr. Hager. So let me just first just say on a personal
    level I understand completely how challenging it can be to
    advance teaching in the classroom. In my area, computer vision,
    there--I often come into a lecture and say ten years ago we
    didn't even know how to begin to solve this problem. We now
    consider it a solved problem. We're actually building on top of
    it. So the field really does evolve quite rapidly.
        One of the challenges I'd really like to highlight that the
    stress that the education--computing education is under these
    days. In my department, the number of majors has between
    tripled and quadrupled over the last few years, which creates
    enormous challenges in the classroom. I think the notion of
    looking for opportunities to bring experiential learning into
    the classroom. And I would actually highlight I think this is a
    place where industry could play a strong role. If we had
    representatives from industry coming into the classroom and
    teaching, it would both address the capacity needs within our
    department, as well as providing, I think, a very sorely needed
    perspective on where the computing industry is today.
        Chairwoman Comstock. That's a great idea, yes.
        Dr. Marzullo. Part of the problem you've already mentioned
    is the rapidly changing field of information technology and
    trying to even get the teachers up to speed on what's going on,
    get the material into their hands. Sometimes we seem to think
    that MOOCs are going to solve everything, and they will to a
    small degree, but training the teachers, getting information,
    developing material is a priority.
        I also think there are some very good programs out there
    for cybersecurity, the Scholarship for Service program, the
    Cyber Challenge Program of DHS. More will be done in that. I
    personally am interested to see when such programs will start
    springing up in the area of data analytics. That is clearly the
    next wave, and there's going to be a huge demand for this, and
    I think we're unprepared for that wave.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Well, thank you. I really appreciate
    all of our--actually, Mr. Lipinski, did you want--okay.
        Well, thank you for your expertise and for your enthusiasm
    for your work. And I'd like to thank all of your colleagues
    that came with you today. This is an exciting area that we
    certainly always have to get caught up on. If it's hard for
    these brilliant students to keep up on it, you can imagine how
    challenging it is for all of us.
        So we appreciate your thoughts and ideas, and any time you
    can give us more information on how we might better assist in
    what you're doing, it would be most appreciated. So thank you
    for the opportunity to visit with you today.
        And the Committee is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Keith Marzullo

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Gregory D. Hager

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Edward Seidel

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                    Statement submitted by Dr. Kenneth Ball

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]