    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL
                               SCIENCE FOUNDATION
                        FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 8, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-15

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-254PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, po@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                    HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    BEN McADAMS, Utah                    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  May 8, 2019

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........     8
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    15
        Written statement............................................    17

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    19
        Written statement............................................    20

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation
        Oral Statement...............................................    22
        Written Statement............................................    25

    Dr. Diane Souvaine, Chair, National Science Board
        Oral Statement...............................................    35
        Written Statement............................................    37

    Discussion.......................................................    48

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation........    66

    Dr. Diane Souvaine, Chair, National Science Board................    81

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Additional response submitted by Dr. France Cordova, Director,
      National Science Foundation....................................    90

                            A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL
                               SCIENCE FOUNDATION
                        FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019

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

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
    Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
    any time.
        Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing to review the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
    Request. Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine, thank you for being
    here.
        The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in
    advancing the U.S. scientific enterprise. NSF funding has
    enabled the inventions of things that have become commonplace
    in our lives: the first formal dictionary for American Sign
    Language, the development of barcodes, and the invention of the
    internet. I would like to congratulate both of our witnesses on
    the National Science Foundation's most recent breakthrough: the
    first image of a black hole.
        As the only Federal science agency that supports basic
    research across all fields of science and engineering, NSF
    provides about one-fourth of all Federal support for basic
    research conducted at colleges and universities. For
    researchers in certain fields like computer science, biology,
    and social science, NSF is the primary source of Federal
    funding. NSF is also the principal source of Federal support
    for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
    education at all levels and in all settings, from pre-
    kindergarten through career development. This work enables the
    United States to lead the world in science and innovation,
    compete in the global economy, and protect the health and
    security of our citizens.
        Funding for the NSF has steadily increased in recent years
    thanks to Congress rejecting repeated proposals for cuts from
    the current Administration. The agency's budget exceeded $8
    billion for the first time in Fiscal Year 2019.
        I will start with good news. I applaud the agency for
    sustaining its commitment to the 10 Big Ideas. I am also glad
    to see full funding for the construction of major research
    facilities like the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization
    Project and Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. Cutting-edge
    equipment and facilities are essential for researchers to push
    the boundaries of knowledge and for training the next
    generation of top scientists.
        I also appreciate the prioritization of artificial
    intelligence, the future of work, and quantum science, two
    areas which will be critical for U.S. economic and national
    security. It is also safe to say that the world is waiting and
    eager for our leadership in these areas. I'm happy to see the
    increases in some areas--the budget increases, that is--for
    these two important focuses on research in the Fiscal Year 2020
    budget proposal.
        Unfortunately, though, we continue to see a concerning lack
    of understanding around the importance of science and yet again
    another round of drastic cuts in funding for scientific
    research proposed by the current Administration. The Fiscal
    Year 2020 request proposes to cut a full $1 billion from the
    National Science Foundation budget.
        Henceforth, the role of Congress shall be exercised. We are
    here today to evaluate the merits of these cuts, and, as Chair
    of this Subcommittee on Research and Technology with oversight
    of the NSF, I can unequivocally say that such a cut would
    threaten our Nation's leadership in science and technology
    across all fields of science and engineering. Despite some of
    the interagency increases in AI and Quantum, making this a
    zero-sum game by cutting other fields of science and
    engineering and eroding the foundational backbone of all
    emerging technologies is unwise at best.
        The Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal would also slow
    progress in STEM education, including efforts to increase
    diversity in our STEM workforce, the topic of a Full Committee
    hearing led by our fabulous Full Committee Chair Eddie Bernice
    Johnson that we are having later this week.
        We are seeing a surge in demand for workers with STEM
    skills across all sectors, and educators are struggling to keep
    up. Within months of releasing its 5-year strategic plan in
    STEM education, the current Administration put forward a
    proposal to gut STEM education programs governmentwide. It
    worries me that we are eager to talk about science and
    scientific innovation in platitudes, and yet we fail to put
    forward a strategic investment plan that would enable us to
    compete and win in global marketplaces. The current proposal
    represents a vision for science that, if realized, would be
    disastrous for our Nation's long-term welfare, security, and
    competitiveness.
        Dr. Cordova, I appreciate the leadership and background and
    experience that you and Dr. Souvaine bring to this agency. I
    look forward to a discussion with both of you today on the
    value of the National Science Foundation as a national asset
    and the potential impacts of these cuts.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. Now, I would like to recognize our
    Ranking Member, Mr. Baird, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and thank you for
    convening today's hearing for this Fiscal Year 2020 budget
    request for the National Science Foundation. And I really want
    to thank our witnesses for being here today as well. I
    appreciate that. I am looking forward to this opportunity to
    learn more about the National Science Foundation and its
    mission to promote the progress of science.
        The NSF is the only Federal agency that supports basic
    research across all scientific fields from biology to physics.
    As a trained Ph.D. scientist, I know that basic research is the
    seed that grows into the products and solutions that drive our
    economy and improve our lives. The NSF plays a critical role in
    helping educate and train the next generation of STEM workers,
    and we need to invest in young people who will go into fields
    where there is a national need and good-paying jobs.
        Earlier this year, I joined Chairwoman Stevens in
    introducing the Building Blocks of STEM Act. I look forward to
    moving the bill forward and working with NSF to make sure we're
    giving young students a foundation to continue in the STEM
    studies. For the United States to remain competitive, we must
    ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to
    participate in STEM fields and build valuable, fulfilling
    careers.
        In my district, I am proud to represent Purdue University,
    Indiana's Land Grant University, as Dr. Cordova well knows. NSF
    funded nearly $68 million in groundbreaking research at Purdue
    last year. To share just one example, NSF funded an engineering
    research center at Purdue, which is developing new technologies
    to produce fuels from U.S. shale-gas deposits that could inject
    $20 billion annually into our economy. This is an example of
    the potential impact of NSF-funded research.
        As we've heard, the President's budget request for NSF is
    just over $7 billion, a 12.5 percent decrease from last year's
    enacted funding. Like all other agencies and departments, NSF
    was forced to take and make tough decision and choices. The
    budget request reflects an attempt to set priorities in a
    constrained budgetary environment. The budget request
    prioritizes funding for critical areas like artificial
    intelligence, quantum technology, and advanced manufacturing. I
    look forward to hearing about these new investments in today's
    testimony.
        But the President's budget proposal is just that. It's just
    a budget proposal. It's ultimately up to Congress to decide at
    what level NSF is funded. We have a constitutional obligation
    and a responsibility to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is
    used as effectively and efficiently as possible. I appreciate
    that today's hearing gives us the opportunity to fulfill that
    duty.
        And I thank the witnesses for being here today and yield
    back my balance of time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time the Chair now recognizes
    the Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an
    opening statement.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
    Stevens and Ranking Member Dr. Baird, for holding this hearing
    to review the National Science Foundation budget request for
    Fiscal Year 2020. And thank you, Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine,
    for being here this morning. It is good to have both of you
    again.
        The National Science Foundation, during its nearly 70-year
    history, has played a critical role in promoting our economic
    prosperity, national security, and the health and well-being of
    our population. It should come as no surprise that nations
    around the world, including some of our rivals, have attempted
    to replicate NSF in their own governments. This is why I'm
    dismayed that the budget that has been sent over by the White
    House proposes to cut NSF by a $1 billion. A cut like that
    would keep us from funding excellent research and slow progress
    in critical areas of technology development.
        Unfortunately, this is a pattern that we've seen from this
    White House over the past three budget cycles. To make matters
    worse, the recent shut down of much of our government for 35
    days, including the National Science Foundation, resulted in
    delays for 2,000 grant applications. While there may seem to be
    minor to some, delays in grant funding derail academic careers,
    sometimes permanently.
        Increasingly, U.S. students and early career researchers
    are packing up for better opportunities abroad or leaving STEM
    altogether. I have no doubt that we have the brainpower in this
    country to continue to lead but not if we chase away our own
    best and brightest and close our doors to the best and
    brightest from around the world. I'm an optimist, but I also
    recognize the sobering realities of increasing competition, a
    growing skills gap, and crumbling research infrastructure.
        We also gain from international collaboration, and other
    countries investing more in R&D is overall a good thing.
    However, we must maintain our investments to reap the benefits
    of collaboration and protect our economic and national security
    interests.
        Some of my colleagues will say this is just a proposal, and
    Congress has the final say in the budget. However, until
    Congress acts, the agency and researchers can only plan
    according to what's in the Administration's proposal.
        Moreover, Congress itself has become too comfortable with
    passing one short-term continuing resolutions one after another
    that has done harm as well. Tomorrow morning, this Committee
    will hold its first hearing since 2010 assessing the state of
    diversity in STEM.
        The NSF budget proposal includes $168 million in cuts to
    NSF investment in broadening participation. The Administration
    proposes to eliminate the STEM Partnerships Program and
    significantly cut the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. These
    proposed cuts are included, despite this Administration
    prioritizing diversity in its recent governmentwide STEM
    strategic plan. A commitment to addressing our Nation's
    challenges must involve more than just words.
        Dr. Cordova, I do not question your commitment, nor the
    commitment of the talented, hardworking staff around the--
    across the National Science Foundation. I know you did your
    best with a very challenging top line. But we cannot just keep
    pretending year after year that everything is going to be OK
    because Congress will restore the National Science Foundation's
    funding.
        As the months tick by between now and then, more students
    and researchers across our Nation will lose hope that the
    United States is still the best country in the world to be a
    scientist. Our Nation's leadership, on both sides of the aisle,
    must provide the support our students and researchers need to
    apply their knowledge and talents to the betterment of our
    society. I truly hope, going forward, we can do better than we
    have been.
        I look forward to the testimony and discussion, and I yield
    back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time, the Chair now recognizes
    the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an
    opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member
    Baird, for holding this hearing to review the National Science
    Foundation's priorities for the year 2020.
        Since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation
    has played a critical role in advancing science for America's
    national defense and economic security. Basic research
    supported by NSF forms the foundation of discoveries that fuels
    private-sector development. It also provides a training ground
    for our Nation's scientists, engineers, and other STEM workers.
        We've heard concerns about some of the proposed cuts
    included in the Administration's request. I would remind my
    colleagues that the President's budget request is just a
    starting point for our discussions, as have all previous
    Presidents' budgets been. We're here today to learn more about
    how best to prioritize NSF's resources. It is also important to
    note that in recent years Congress has decided to fund NSF at a
    higher rate than the President's budget request.
        I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to
    prioritize basic research and development. This Committee has
    demonstrated a long history of bipartisan support for the work
    of the National Science Foundation. As the Ranking Member, I am
    committed to working with Chairwoman Johnson and the
    appropriators to continue that support. However, as I said at a
    hearing earlier this year on American Competitiveness in
    Science and Technology, we need to collectively do a better job
    of explaining why science matters to all Americans.
        NSF has a great story to tell. NSF-funded research is
    helping address some of the Nation's most critical needs from
    treating opioid addiction to bringing high-speed broadband to
    rural areas across the country. In my home State of Oklahoma,
    NSF invests $25 million a year in research and STEM education.
    NSF is working with the University of Oklahoma on improving
    forecasting of supercell thunderstorms. At Oklahoma State, NSF
    is funding a program to give scientists the skills to be
    entrepreneurs and start new small businesses.
        At townhalls throughout my district in Oklahoma, I talk to
    my constituents not just about the work that NSF and our other
    science agencies are doing, but, more importantly, why it
    matters to them. I'm sure my colleagues here do the same. And
    NSF can do even more to help create a culture that both values
    and prioritizes R&D.
        I look forward to working with the leadership of the
    National Science Foundation and the National Science Board to
    meet this challenge and ensure America continues to lead in
    technological advancement.
        Thank you to witnesses Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine for
    your leadership and being here today to testify, and I yield
    back, Madam Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time I'd like to introduce our
    witnesses, and if you're looking for two inspiring, strong
    women in the field of science, look no further than our expert
    witnesses here before us today. Our first witness is Dr. France
    Cordova. Dr. Cordova was confirmed as the 14th Director of the
    National Science Foundation in 2014. Dr. Cordova is President
    Emerita of Purdue University and Chancellor Emerita of the
    University of California Riverside. Previously, she was Chief
    Scientist at NASA, and Dr. Cordova received her bachelor of
    arts degree from Stanford University and her doctorate in
    physics from the California Institute of Technology.
        Our next witness is Dr. Diane Souvaine. Dr. Souvaine is
    currently the Chair of the National Science Board, the NSB, a
    position that she has held since 2018. She is also a Professor
    of Computer Science and an Adjunct Professor of Mathematics at
    Tufts University. She was previously Vice Chair from 2016 to
    2018 of the NSB and has chaired the NSB's Committee on Strategy
    and Budget, its Committee on Programs and Plans, and has served
    on its Committee on Audit and Oversight. Dr. Souvaine received
    her master's and doctorate degrees in computer science from
    Princeton University.
        As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
    for your spoken testimony.
        And, well, let me actually run back here, too, because we
    jumped over with our opening statements, and I do want to make
    a mention that if any other Members who wish to submit opening
    statements, additional opening statements, they could either be
    submitted at this point or into the record, so we're--you know,
    if people want to do that, that's great.
        As we jump to our witness testimony, though, you'll have
    the 5 minutes. When you've completed your spoken testimony, we
    will begin with questions, and each Member on the Subcommittee
    will have 5 minutes to question you.
        And so, right now, we will start with Dr. Cordova.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCE CORDOVA,

                  DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member
    Dr. Baird, and Members of the Subcommittee, Chairwoman Johnson,
    Ranking Member Lucas. It's a pleasure to be with you today and
    thank you for your stirring, inspiring words.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for the
    National Science Foundation is $7.1 billion. This request makes
    targeted investments in basic research within the constrained
    budget environment. My written testimony contains the details
    of the Fiscal Year 2020 request. I'd like to take the next few
    minutes to focus on the importance of NSF's mission and our
    Fiscal Year 2020 investments.
        Last month, NSF and the Event Horizon Telescope team
    brought the world the first-ever image of a black hole. This
    amazing feat of global cooperation and ingenuity in science and
    engineering underscores NSF's unique and incredibly valuable
    mission. We fund the most promising basic research in all
    disciplines of science and engineering, and every major
    newspaper of the world had that image on it. It was absolutely
    amazing. Talk about bringing science to people--very inspiring.
        Our track record of making wise investments is strong.
    Since its creation in 1950, NSF has supported 236 Nobel Prize
    winners at some point in their careers. Over the past 70 years,
    NSF's mission has contributed greatly to our country's economic
    prosperity, our national security, our health, and our global
    leadership in innovation.
        Basic research lays the foundation upon which progress is
    built. Without it, we would not have many of the modern-day
    technologies and advancements that are so ubiquitous in our
    lives. For example, NSF played a critical role in additive
    manufacturing, which has revolutionized the way we conceive of
    and build everything from electronic devices to artificial
    organs. NSF has also given early support to visionary
    entrepreneurs that have developed major companies like
    Qualcomm, Symantec, and Google. Google alone has seen a
    200,000fold return on NSF's original investment.
        From the discovery of a microbe's enzyme in the Hot Springs
    of Yellowstone National Park that makes modern DNA
    fingerprinting possible to computer devices that help
    elementary school students learn, NSF supports the discoveries
    and the discoverers that keep the United States at the leading
    edge of innovation. Paul Romer, co-winner of the 2018 Nobel
    Prize for Economics, has emphasized that human capital,
    innovation, and knowledge are vital contributions to economic
    growth.
        The Fiscal Year 2020 budget request contains two
    cornerstones of NSF's vision for the future: the 10 Big Ideas
    and the Convergence Accelerator. NSF's 10 Big Ideas define a
    set of cutting-edge research agendas that are uniquely suited
    for its broad portfolio of investments and will require
    collaborations with industry, academia, and others. Each of the
    10 Big Ideas was chosen to be a catalyst for fundamental
    research that will expand the boundaries of our knowledge from
    the cellular level to the cosmos. For instance, understanding
    how new technologies are shaping the lives of workers and how
    people in turn can shape those technologies, that's the focus
    of NSF's Big Idea on The Future of Work.
        Also important is the Convergence Accelerator, which will
    be focused on high-risk, high-reward innovative thinking to
    accelerate discovery and innovation and achieve rapid lab-to-
    market outcomes.
        We're also making significant investments to continue U.S.
    leadership in artificial intelligence, quantum information
    science, and advanced manufacturing. Public-private
    partnerships have long been one of NSF's core strategies. As we
    look to the future in these and other areas, they'll be even
    more important.
        We continue to invest in large-scale research facilities
    that keep the United States at the forefront of discovery--
    deploying a new supercomputer at the University of Texas,
    completing the construction of the solar telescope DKIST and
    the optical observatory LSST, and modernizing the Antarctic
    facilities of which NSF is the steward for the Nation.
        NSF is also proposing dedicated funding for the scientific
    infrastructure that falls between our smaller programs and
    large construction projects. The need for mid-scale funding has
    been called out by Congress, the National Academies, and the
    National Science Board.
        Perhaps most importantly, we continue to invest in people.
    Discoveries don't happen without discoverers. We must continue
    to light the imagination of the next generation and support and
    nurture their curiosity. Thus, NSF is focused on advancing
    excellence in STEM education at all levels and in all settings
    to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared
    workforce.
        NSF's Advanced Technological Education program involves
    partnerships between academic institutions and industries to
    prepare science and engineering technicians in the industries
    of the future. The vast majority of those projects are situated
    in community colleges.
        I'd be remiss not to also thank Congress for the strong
    support provided for NSF's mission, especially in Fiscal Year
    2019. With that funding, we're making investments that keep the
    United States at the cutting edge of scientific discovery and
    Americans leading the world in scientific achievement.
        Thank you for your time today and for your continued strong
    support of NSF and our mission.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Cordova follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. And at this time, we will now
    recognize Dr. Souvaine for 5 minutes.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. DIANE SOUVAINE,

                      CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

        Dr. Souvaine. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird,
    Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for
    this opportunity to be with you here today.
        Let me say first that I greatly appreciate the longstanding
    bipartisan support Congress and this Committee in particular
    has shown for NSF. We thank you for our Fiscal Year 2019
    appropriation, which exceeds $8 billion for the first time.
        The Federal Government is uniquely able to invest in
    fundamental research that drives innovation, impacting
    everything from national security to economic growth to
    education. The wisdom of Congress to sustain NSF funding levels
    despite competing priorities has helped ensure America has the
    new discoveries and technologies necessary for our security and
    prosperity.
        I am confident that NSF will continue to manage its
    portfolio and do great things at the $7.1 billion level of the
    Fiscal Year 2020 request, and yet the NSB sees vastly more
    potential. In my written testimony I note that in Fiscal Year
    2017 NSF could not fund $1.6 billion worth of outstanding
    merit-review proposals. Are we already losing out on the next
    Google, the next LIGO, or the next Kevlar? How many budding
    researchers might see a foreign talent program as the only
    option for pursuing the research that they love? I think all of
    us would rather see these discoveries blossom into new
    innovations here in the United States.
        Last year, my predecessor testified that China is
    overtaking us in R&D investments. While science is the endless
    frontier, we are not the only explorers. If the United States
    is to maintain its standing as a global leader in science and
    engineering, we need a renewed national commitment to
    fundamental research.
        I believe that this must include four components: First,
    money. After more than a decade on the board, I believe that
    NSF's budget needs an out-of-cycle adjustment. In this century
    it has not kept up with economic growth even as the economy has
    become more dependent on knowledge and technology-intensive
    industries. The proposed budget is a $1 billion cut. This would
    meet even more great ideas left on the table for others to find
    and make it increasingly hard for American scientists and
    engineers to be the vanguard of science and engineering
    infrastructure.
        Dr. Cordova and her team have done an exceptional job of
    preserving balance and continuing to chart a course for
    impactful science that serves this country. But my 30 years of
    experience as a computer scientist and more than a decade on
    the board has left me with one conclusion. We are eating our
    seed corn.
        Second, we need a long-term strategy. OSTP Director Kelvin
    Droegemeier has called for a holistic assessment of the
    Nation's science and engineering enterprise to help match our
    strategic priorities with our investments. I think this is a
    good idea, and I hope that will jumpstart a broader
    conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing our
    country in science and engineering.
        For its part, NSF has already started to think in new ways.
    Under the leadership of Doctor Cordova, NSF has identified 10
    Big Ideas, including preparing the future of work in a world
    with AI. Harnessing the data revolution is equally important.
    The board agrees that gathering researchers from across
    disciplines to tackle timely challenges will ensure that the
    agency's impact exceeds the sum of its parts.
        Our strategy must include a commitment to ensuring that
    America has a STEM-capable workforce. We need to draw on the
    abilities and creativity of all of our citizens. This means
    improving and broadening STEM education and providing the
    problem-solving skills required in a job market often driven by
    advances in science and engineering.
        Third, values. To remain a leader, global leader in S&E, we
    need to recognize that America has not led with dollars alone.
    We also lead by showing the world what a healthy research
    environment looks like. We should embrace American traditions
    of exploration, risk-taking, openness, and transparency. We
    should have no tolerance for sexual harassment or fraud. We
    should aspire to remain the shining beacon on the hill that
    invites the best minds from around the world to come here and
    perform research and innovate.
        This does not mean naivete. We must protect our national
    security. NSB applauds efforts taken and steps taken by NSF and
    others to ensure and enforce existing conflict policies and
    enhance awareness of security concerns at universities. But our
    national security depends strongly on our leadership in science
    and engineering, which in turn is built on fundamental research
    and the free exchange of ideas.
        Fourth, inspiration. We need the support of many leaders,
    including you, to inspire the next generation to be curious and
    to build the future. My generation was inspired by President
    Kennedy's call to explore the next frontier. Now excitement
    arises from new technologies and competition everywhere we
    look. It is on us to convey our appreciation and our
    understanding of the opportunities in science and engineering
    to back up that voice with a strategy and a sustained
    commitment to say to our citizens and to the world great ideas
    are born here.
        I thank you for your time and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Souvaine follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. At this time we will begin
    the questions, and the Chair will recognize herself for 5
    minutes.
        Dr. Souvaine, in 2017, the National Science Board created a
    Task Force on the Skilled Technical Workforce charged with
    making policy recommendations to support workers that use STEM
    knowledge and skills on the job without the need for a
    bachelor's degree if I have that right. Can you update us on
    the activities undertaken by the task force, and could you also
    expound on when we can expect to find a summary of its findings
    and recommendations?
        Dr. Souvaine. Yes. The task force will be reporting out to
    the board in our board meeting next week and sharing a draft of
    the proposal--the proposed findings. We expect that the final
    report, with luck, is released at the end of June, and we would
    be happy to share those results earlier.
        Our work is comprised of multiple components. We've had
    listening sessions around the country to listen to students,
    faculty, members of industry, members of administrations of
    community colleges over the course of the 18 months we've been
    working on this. We've also been doing a lot of data gathering,
    working with NCSES, so there are multiple facets to this.
        Chairwoman Stevens. And I applaud both your efforts to push
    the boundaries of scientific discovery through the Big Ideas
    and Convergence Accelerator. Dedicating funds for these efforts
    is clearly important, and it also certainly means tradeoffs
    with other programs supported by NSF, including core research
    programs and potentially, you know, troubling support for
    graduate and undergraduate education and training through the
    Graduate Research Fellowship Program and Research Experiences
    for Undergraduates, which NSF administers. Both programs would
    see a substantial cut if the current budget were enacted.
        I'd like you both to address two questions. One, how does
    the agency balance support for convergent research with support
    for the core research programs; and, two, how important is it
    to provide research experiences to undergraduates and dedicated
    support to graduate students? How will the Big Ideas and other
    convergence efforts support education and training for these
    students?
        Dr. Cordova. I'll start. Thank you for the question. The
    Big Ideas grew out of a desire to give a more strategic
    framework to NSF's ideas for what requires future investment.
    They all grew out of the core, and they'll eventually go back
    into the core.
        For example, take the Quantum Leap. NSF has been funding
    quantum research for the past three decades, and in fact 31
    Nobel Prize winners for their quantum research achievements
    have been funded by the National Science Foundation over the
    past 30 years. And so it's not new.
        What is new is the emphasis on how important quantum,
    especially its marriage with information sciences, is to the
    future of the country to get going fast and to accelerate it.
    And this acceleration depends on a convergent approach, that we
    need the computational scientists, we need the physical
    scientists, we need the engineers all coming together in order
    to make progress even faster along this trajectory.
        And you can take any of the Big Ideas--Rules of Life, for
    example, is integrated into all of the biological sciences.
    It's really what they're looking for. So how do you get from
    the genome and its environment to phenotype? And that's
    important for agriculture; it's important for all the science
    we do.
        So in all of the Big Ideas we are clearly funding faculty
    and researchers and their students, and, yes, it is involving
    the young people who will be the leaders of the future in these
    big, strategically important areas for the country.
        It's interesting to me that exactly 3 years ago we
    introduced the Big Ideas to the National Science Board, which
    said, ``have Big Ideas.'' The board has embraced them and, in
    the meantime, we had a transition in administration. The new
    administration has taken them on with a passion: Artificial
    intelligence, quantum information science, advanced
    manufacturing, and the future of work. So it seems that NSF was
    prescient in taking those ideas out of the core and giving them
    much more significance because that's where our country is
    headed, and frankly, it's where the whole world is headed.
    There's some fierce competition in this idea space.
        Dr. Souvaine. Briefly, we need to find the best ideas
    wherever they arise and be able to be driven bottom up. At the
    same time we need to foster great opportunities of both
    convergence across areas but strategic areas that are timely,
    so this is--I concur with what Dr. Cordova just said. I also
    think that we need--and we'll come back to this, I'm sure--a
    broader pipeline of people going into science and engineering
    at all different levels.
        So for me the funding of undergraduate research is
    critical. This is what does the inspiring I was talking about
    and gets undergraduates to move forward. We need to be funding
    more graduate students from all backgrounds from across the
    country who want to come and study, and the fellowships are
    critical.
        Chairwoman Stevens. Well, we want to certainly continue to
    make sure that those opportunities and onramps for those
    opportunities are taking place here in the United States.
        I'm over time, so with that, I'd like to recognize our
    Ranking Member, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Cordova, in December the President signed into law the
    National Quantum Initiative Act, and as you know from your
    tenure at Purdue University, it was one of the first
    institutions to establish a quantum research center and it's
    well-positioned to help advance these new initiatives. Could
    you update us on how NSF is responding to the new law and what
    opportunities will be there for institutions like Purdue to
    participate?
        Dr. Cordova. Certainly, thank you. So a number of the
    agencies have been funding--especially NSF and NIST--quantum
    research for a long time. Other agencies are revving up like
    the Department of Energy. They're funding as well. We all came
    together with the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
    produce a strategic plan for quantum information sciences in
    particular, which has terrific opportunities in the area of
    computing, which will be a gamechanger for how we do anything
    that involves computations.
        Congress, at the same time, passed this initiative so all
    of this was rolled out at the same time. The White House had a
    summit at which agency heads like myself spoke, and we gathered
    researchers from Purdue and many universities around the
    country to talk about their efforts. We fund a number of
    centers, NSF does, around the country in quantum research in
    general, and we all talked about how to accelerate those
    efforts because it's so important and so competitive globally
    that we do so.
        As far as the law goes, OSTP is coordinating this effort
    with all the agencies. There's a coordinating group that's been
    set up under the leadership of Jake Taylor. We are all coming
    together periodically to share what we're doing and to
    coordinate those efforts around the country.
        NSF is funding a lot of new efforts and centers and
    activity. For example, one is a collection of about 15
    universities to build the first fully functional quantum
    computer. There's just a lot of energy around this, and we're
    really glad that Congress is so enthusiastic about positioning
    the United States to be the global leader in this area.
        Mr. Baird. I have another question, and maybe both of you
    can respond to this as well. Last week this Committee held a
    roundtable with Federal agencies focused on artificial
    intelligence and research, including NSF. Can you discuss what
    type of strategy you think is needed to maintain the U.S.
    leadership in the AI field?
        Dr. Cordova. Our artificial intelligence, like quantum
    research, is just an extremely productive, vigorous area of
    research in all kinds of ways in the United States and
    globally.
        I co-chair an entity called the Select Committee on
    Artificial Intelligence, together with the head of DARPA, for
    the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Again, it's a
    collection of agencies that come to discuss what we are doing
    and what we can do together to further position the United
    States.
        The National Science Foundation is spending in this Fiscal
    Year 2020 budget alone about $492 million on artificial
    intelligence writ broadly, and that's a big investment for the
    size of our budget. We are collaborating with industry and
    foundations and others in several very important partnerships,
    for example, on the ethics, fairness, and bias in everything
    that surrounds AI to make sure we do it in the right way. We
    have a collaboration with a group called the Partnership in
    AI--which is about 50 industries and others that we're working
    with--and we are asking for proposals, and we will co-fund
    those proposals.
        We're also working with Amazon. It's our first such
    partnership in which Amazon is providing $10 million and NSF
    $10 million over the next 3 years to ask for proposals from the
    scientific community writ broadly to deal with issues around
    artificial intelligence. As my colleague Dr. Souvaine said, our
    Future of Work Big Idea is really being done within the
    framework of how artificial intelligence will affect the future
    of work. That's not just the future of work in the factory.
    That's the future of work in the classroom for teachers ad how
    it will help them. It's the future of work in assisted living
    and in all places where people conduct their work.
        Dr. Souvaine. I think that our funding and investment in
    artificial intelligence needs to be commensurate with our
    national goals and aspirations, and we need to think about that
    as we go forward.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. And, Dr. Souvaine, I noticed your
    analogy about eating our seed corn, and I'm out of time but
    maybe I'll have a chance to ask that question, what you meant
    by eating our seed corn. I think I understand. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. At this time I'd like to
    recognize my colleague Ms. Sherrill for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you both for coming here today.
    I'd like to applaud the historical bipartisan support for the
    NSF of this Committee. But I couldn't agree more with Ranking
    Member Lucas that we need to do more to educate the American
    people on the benefits of research and the need for good
    research to keep our economy ahead.
        But talking a bit about what you said, Dr. Souvaine, you
    kind of touched on this. Often, the transfer of knowledge and
    technology between countries can be mutually beneficial.
    Historically, we benefited even from scientific cooperation
    with our geopolitical adversaries. Our economic competitiveness
    and national security are threatened, however, when our Federal
    investments in R&D, especially in emerging technologies, are
    transferred to another country through coercion, theft, or
    espionage. The Inspector General recently highlighted the
    agency's response to the national security threat of foreign
    talent as an emerging management challenge.
        What steps is NSF taking to ensure its research investments
    are protected from these threats? And you both--if you could
    both answer that.
        Dr. Souvaine. I'll defer very soon to Dr. Cordova on that,
    but I think that we want to be good partners with all countries
    where we're good partners, and that requires some of the values
    that I was referring to earlier. Clearly, this country benefits
    substantively from all of the people from around the world who
    come here to do great science. We benefit from the great
    partnerships with scientists across the world. Fundamental
    research requires transparency and engagement, exchange of
    ideas, which then can blossom. We do have to protect things.
        And as I referred to in my opening remarks, I think NSF is
    working hard with universities, and our board statement
    reiterated that universities must be on top of their conflict-
    of-interest and conflict-of-commitment policies and we need to
    be working harder to make sure those are always honored.
        Dr. Cordova?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, Congresswoman, one of the crucial issues
    of our time is this balance between openness that has brought
    us so far intellectually as a country and given us so much and
    protecting research in the research environment.
        I'll just mention four steps that the National Science
    Foundation is doing. About a year ago we changed the
    requirement for rotators. We have close to 200 rotators who
    come in from universities, and they're in positions from
    Program Officers to Assistant Directors. They provide great
    value. We changed the requirement to be consistent with the
    Federal requirement that they be U.S. citizens or applying for
    U.S. citizenship. We didn't have that requirement before.
    That's one thing.
        Since 1978, we've required complete disclosure forms from
    all our applicants for research grants. We haven't been so good
    about the requirements for what those disclosure forms should
    look like or monitoring, assessing, and auditing them. So we
    are tightening up our disclosure forms.
        We're establishing an easily computer-read disclosure form.
    We call it a bio-bib because it has the bibliography and
    biography. It has all forms of support that the researcher
    could get either from here or from anywhere else--in a very
    clear format. It would be uniform so a person only has to do it
    once and then update it. Machines could easily read it and look
    for whatever was of interest there. So we think this will go a
    long way to streamlining and enhancing what we know about other
    forms of support that proposers can have.
        We are asking an expert committee called the Jasons to do a
    risk assessment on research protection because we need to know.
    As we take more steps to protect the integrity of research, we
    need to be careful that we don't overdo something or underdo
    it. You really have to understand what the risks are out there,
    and these are all people with top security clearances. We'll
    have that piece of work done hopefully this summer.
        And then finally, we're working with the National Academies
    of course, which has a lot of expert people on it. We'll have a
    meeting this Friday at the National Academies, an entire half-
    day on this subject and see where to go from here and talk
    about what is needed.
        The important thing is 85 percent of our clients--our
    grantees--are universities. It's important that we engage the
    leadership of universities so that they are very aware of
    what's going on and that they're very much partners with us.
    And many universities--we mentioned Purdue earlier is an
    example of one that has really taken this very seriously--have
    security people there. But not all universities do, and so
    we're trying--we're working on that front as well.
        Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you. My time is expired, but I
    hope you are--conversely, you know, also worried about
    overprotection, and it sounds like you're very aware of that as
    well. Thank you so much.
        Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. At this time we'd like to
    recognize Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chair. I couldn't help but, as Dr.
    Baird was pursuing his line of inquiry, think about, Dr.
    Cordova, one of those areas that I have great interest in,
    which of course is the National Science Foundation's
    Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR
    affectionately known to all of us, which aims to assist States
    and universities in rural areas, underserved areas. It was
    updated by Congress 2 years ago based on outside panel
    recommendations. Could you visit for a moment about how NSF is
    implementing these changes and making sure the program is best
    serving rural States, yes, like Oklahoma, too?
        Dr. Cordova. We are very, very proud of the EPSCoR
    program--very pleased with its results. As you know, there have
    been graduates from the program, so it has done what it
    intended to do. There have been several of those States that
    have achieved more capacity to do more research, and so that's
    great. We are constantly reviewing the program, tooling it up
    for more and better collaborations.
        What I've seen over the last few years is that we've
    reached out to assimilate other NSF programs within the EPSCoR
    program, for example, artificial intelligence or quantum or
    STEM education, and made sure that the EPSCoR proposers had the
    opportunities to be in those areas as well. I think things are
    going very well in the EPSCoR program, and we certainly would
    like the feedback of any members.
        I go out a lot to EPSCoR States and I just see the kinds of
    things they're achieving, and again, I'm very proud that
    Congress stood up that program.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Dr. Cordova, I share Chairwoman
    Johnson's concerns about a STEM-ready workforce, and it appears
    that many American companies are in desperate need of those
    kind of individuals, STEM-ready. You recently worked with the
    Administration on a new 5-year strategy for STEM education
    across the Federal Government. How will this plan help address
    those industry needs?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, in early December the White House office
    of OSTP rolled out the STEM education plan, and agencies all
    had a lot of fingerprints on it. I think it's just a great
    plan. It actually speaks to, among other things, the need for a
    diverse and inclusive workforce. There's a lot of emphasis on
    programs like our INCLUDES programs that is broadening
    participation that will help get us there.
        And at the time of the rollout of the STEM education plan,
    we were pleased to report that five other agencies of the
    Federal Government, including NIH and NASA, NIST, USGS, were
    joining the INCLUDES program to broaden participation. I think
    STEM education is, of course, a great way to do that.
        Other elements of the plan really articulate the need for a
    skilled technical workforce. As was mentioned in the earlier
    conversation, the Board and NSF are working very hard to
    increase the attention on the need for a skilled technical
    workforce.
        I did mention in my opening remarks the Advanced
    Technological Education program, which we've had for 25-plus
    years at NSF. That is mostly in community colleges, and its
    whole focus is on skilling the workforce. The President has a
    special committee on the American worker, and that is very,
    very focused on reskilling and upskilling the workforce for the
    technical jobs of the future.
        So I've seen in just the last few years a tremendous
    emphasis in that direction. I think our National Science Board
    has rightly pointed out that we should increase and even
    accelerate those efforts. In fact, one other thing I'd like to
    mention is we have a statistical agency at NSF called NCSES,
    the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
    They have taken on a new effort to assess what is the current
    situation for skilled workers, how many do we have, where are
    they located, what do industries need for the future? Where are
    the gaps and all? So I think we're going to see a lot more
    emphasis on this as we go forward.
        Mr. Lucas. Dr. Souvaine, could you share for just a moment
    the board's perspective on this, too?
        Dr. Souvaine. Certainly. I think that since September 2018
    when we started our skilled technical workforce task force, I
    think we've been looking very hard at the issue of the needs of
    skilled technical workers across all levels. I can think of one
    of the listening sessions we did at Macomb Community College in
    Michigan where there were members of industry that were there
    that had many, many jobs available open at the EDK level or
    higher but didn't have the right applicants to be able to fill
    them.
        And this partnership, which came through an ATE program
    funded by NSF together with the local industry, together with
    the local community colleges, more than just Macomb, were doing
    something about drawing students in and trying to partner with
    them and have them learn the skills that they need with 2 years
    of training to be able to go on and enter these important jobs,
    maybe then going on later to a 4-year college or graduate
    school or something else, but entering the workforce and
    addressing this critical need.
        Certainly, when we visited LIGO in Louisiana, we had the
    privilege of talking with David Barker there, who was
    responsible for the two-story HVAC system. And without this
    system, which is far more technically complex than an HVAC
    system was 10 years ago or 20 years ago, certainly the Nobel
    Prize winners would not have been able to get the Nobel Prize
    without that. There's a real--there is a real need there.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd like to now recognize
    Dr. Bill Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
    witnesses.
        I'd like to speak a little bit about the issue with the
    Jasons that I believe you're familiar with. And for those of my
    colleagues who may not be, from I guess since the 1960s, the
    Jasons have been a group of very accomplished Nobel prize-
    winning-level scientists, mainly physicists, who provided
    confidential advice to the government, often very classified,
    very classified, so with everything from, you know, modern
    concerns like pit lifetimes or electronic warfare to I think
    back in the earlier years they provided an estimate or a second
    opinion to an Administration on whether or not it was a good
    idea to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, which apparently the
    Administration at the time needed advice on.
        And so it was a sort of shock to the scientific community a
    few weeks ago to learn that the Department of Defense had
    actually canceled the umbrella contract for the Jasons. And so
    this is a real source of concern because, you know, it's very
    often that those at agencies don't have the technical expertise
    particularly about speculative future technologies and need to
    be able to quietly ask a question that, you know, is this a
    concern, what are the possible things, you know, without having
    that, you know, become a source of, you know, public
    embarrassment if it turns out the question they're asking is--
    you know, sounds--could be made to sound, you know, not too
    sophisticated. And so, you know, I think the scientific
    community really values this as a communication channel.
        And it's my understanding also that the National Science
    Foundation was specifically looking at contracting with the
    Jasons to deal with this very tough problem that you're facing
    that, although the NSF has historically done non-classified
    research and published the results in the open literature, so
    many of the technologies now are dual use, you know, everything
    from biotech to artificial intelligence, you name it.
        And so, first off, it's my understanding that there is a
    temporary fix to this, that instead of the Department of
    Defense canceling the budget, that it has been at least for
    this Fiscal Year transferred to the Department of Energy and
    NSA to keep the umbrella contract alive? Is that also----
        Dr. Cordova. Our understanding is the Department of Energy,
    specifically NNSA, is looking to have a 9-month contract, that
    it is not fully completed yet. They're still in discussion. But
    we expect that that will happen, and that will get them through
    their summer studies. As you know, that's when they do their
    work because they have day jobs at universities.
        And we had proposed a summer study on research protection
    on assessing the risk in this current climate of trying to make
    sure that our research has integrity and looking at the
    situation vis-a-vis other countries and seeing what steps the
    National Science Foundation should be taking in order to make
    sure the research is secure.
        Mr. Foster. So at present you view at least the short term
    fix as adequate? Because, you know, one of the things that I
    think we're going to have to be working on in Congress is to
    make sure there's a long-term home for the funding here, that
    this is not something that gets, you know, jerked around and
    canceled and uncanceled continuously because the cancellation
    was only weeks before you had your kickoff with--my
    understanding, the kickoff meeting where these summer studies
    would have started.
        Dr. Cordova. It is true that the Jasons have done a study
    for us in the past, and we could all use expert advice.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. So if you see anything that changes where
    that is once again put at risk, please, you know, let Congress
    know quickly and make that request because this is important.
        Now, in terms of the gist of what you'd ask the Jason to
    look at, and, Dr. Souvaine, you were quoted at a recent Science
    magazine article as being concerned about, you know, the policy
    implications of the fact that there are countries now targeting
    the United States for, I don't know whether you'd call it
    technology transfer or theft or whatever, and that, because of
    the dual-use nature of many NSF-sponsored technologies, is
    there anything you can say about your thinking on how we should
    respond to that?
        Dr. Souvaine. I don't recall the exact reference you've
    raised, but certainly we are concerned about intellectual
    espionage, and NSF's OIG has found cases where this has
    happened. And--but as the board said in our formal statement
    last year, American technological preeminence is also critical
    for our economy and security, and we need to recognize that
    that's based on our leadership in fundamental research. And for
    that, creativity and collaboration and the free exchange of
    ideas are essential.
        To paraphrase President Reagan's National Security Decision
    Directive 189, it's important that fundamental research remain
    unrestricted the maximum extent possible. So how do you balance
    that? I think partly what Dr. Cordova was just talking about in
    terms of making sure that universities are putting the
    protections in place or reactivating them if they had slipped a
    little bit is important.
        And they've adjusted, as she said, the rules for IPOs. It's
    also true that NSF's current proposal guide now has some
    changes in it like one is if a proposal includes funding to be
    provided to an international branch of a U.S. institution of
    higher education, including through use of subawards and
    consultant arrangements, the proposer must explain the benefits
    to the project of the performance done at that international
    branch campus and justify why the project activities cannot be
    performed at the U.S. campus.
        So I think there's a real work in place at providing
    balance. I think, obviously, the Jason study is going to be
    very helpful in looking at next steps.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. No, this is a tough issue that we're going
    to be grappling with for a while.
        Dr. Cordova. For the record, I want to be sure just to
    clarify one thing. I think what Dr. Souvaine meant was that
    other agencies, specifically the NIH, have found instances of
    espionage. We have not at NSF. Definitely, we are working very
    closely with our Inspector General on this, and there are
    vulnerabilities, which is why we'd like to hire the Jasons to
    look at what are the risks, what are those vulnerabilities and
    understand them better.
        Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful,
    you know, work on this because it's a tough issue, and yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd like to recognize Mr.
    Marshall for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Marshall. Yes, think you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
        I'll start with Dr. Cordova. I'm a proud community college
    graduate, as well as a university undergraduate degree and a
    medical degree, so very proud of all those institutions in
    Kansas.
        I know recently Seward County Community College told me
    they were doing some research funded, I believe, through NSF.
    Just kind of tell me what your vision is, how it's going. Has
    this been going on a long time using NSF funding at community
    colleges or where do you think it's going?
        Dr. Cordova. We've been funding, for just over 25 years
    through our Advanced Technological Education program, community
    colleges. That's not the only program we have in community
    colleges of course. We are completely open to really good
    proposals and good ideas through our merit-review process. We
    then triage which are the best ideas, and we fund them. And
    they can come from wherever.
        But we have a specific community college program called
    ATE, Advanced Technological Education. This has proven just a
    great program for students who might not want to have a 4-year
    degree or become a Ph.D. but want to go into the skilled
    technical workforce.
        I've visited a couple of these, and I'm just so impressed
    by the facilities that they have and the enthusiasm of
    students, and they're getting a really, really fine education
    from the faculty. Faculty are just very, very committed to this
    kind of training.
        We also have programs in STEM education which give research
    experiences for community college students to come, say, for
    the summer and work at a 4-year college. So it makes the
    transition, should they wish to go from community college to a
    4-year institution, easier and smoother. They already know a
    laboratory and some faculty and so on.
        Mr. Marshall. If you had never done this before within your
    department, what branch carries this out? Who would they
    contact?
        Dr. Cordova. Oh, it's in Education and Human Resources,
    EHR.
        Mr. Marshall. Right.
        Dr. Cordova. They can contact me. That's what we have the
    forward button on our computers for.
        Mr. Marshall. Well, I understand.
        Dr. Cordova. I'll be happy to help.
        Mr. Marshall. OK. I want to talk a little bit about your
    interaction with the private sector. I'm always concerned that
    we're doing research just for the sake of research, and I also
    believe within a system or goal, it's either getting better or
    worse. What are we doing to improve relationship with private
    industry and helping promote sharing the knowledge that we have
    for innovators to keep innovating?
        Dr. Cordova. We have a lot of partnerships with industries
    at all levels. We have about 100 active partnerships and about
    another 100 under some form of discussion. Perhaps our biggest,
    most recent partnership, is with Boeing, and it's on two
    things. One is on upping online education in engineering. It's
    in the production realm, and it's how to increase access for
    people to get online education to up their engineering skills.
    Boeing is very interested in that, so they have given us $10
    million, which we've matched with $10 million.
        They gave us another $1 million for our INCLUDES program
    that I mentioned earlier, which is broadening participation.
    This is specifically for women to reenter the workforce after
    they've taken time off and they want to reenter the STEM
    engineering workforce.
        Another partnership is with Amazon. That is on artificial
    intelligence and it's a 3-year program. Again, $10 million from
    Amazon and $10 million from us. It's to invite proposals that
    look at the ethical framework for artificial intelligence to
    make sure that we have, as Dr. Souvaine talked about earlier,
    our American values as we construct the infrastructure for
    artificial intelligence.
        We have collaborations with Google, with all the big
    internet companies, and we have collaborations, of course,
    through our SBIR program, Small Business Innovative Research.
    We're funding a lot of really frontline research on all kinds
    of science and engineering projects.
        Mr. Marshall. I want to try to jump in and get one more
    quick question in. The cost to do research per unit certainly I
    think would vary from place to place. How do you factor that in
    or do you at all?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes. You mean when proposals come in?
        Mr. Marshall. Right. I would just assume that research per
    unit would be cheaper at a place where the labor costs are less
    and the----
        Dr. Cordova. Oh.
        Mr. Marshall [continuing]. Electricity is less and some of
    those things.
        Dr. Cordova. OK. I understand. So we have a merit-review
    system which is world-class. Other countries copy that. It has
    been refined over the 70 years that we've been around. That
    process looks at two things. It only looks at the budget later.
    It looks at intellectual merit, and it looks at broader impact.
    Then it gives a score for those two things and that's how we
    approve a proposal. Then we look at the budget and does it make
    sense. We review it in detail and we have lots of discussions
    with the proposers--can you do it for less or do you really
    think this is the right budget, and so forth. But it's only
    after considering those other aspects that we look at the
    budget.
        Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd--and thank you, Dr.
    Marshall.
        At this time we'd like to recognize Dr. Lipinski for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Cordova, Dr.
    Souvaine, thank you for your work. You both know how much I
    appreciate the NSF and the great work that the NSF does and the
    work that both of you do, so I've always been a very strong
    supporter of the NSF. And my questions are not going to be a
    surprise you what I'm going to ask about.
        And the first is about I-Corps because I've been a big
    champion of I-Corps, Innovation Corps, since the NSF started
    it. I think it's really important that we do what we can to
    help get the great work--you know, turn to the great work
    that's being done through the research at our universities and
    also our national labs into new products and services.
        So I'm pleased that the FY 2020 budget request indicates
    that NSF plans to expand I-Corps by increasing the number of
    sites and nodes, and fostering a national innovation network.
        So my question is--and I know the overall budget is very
    difficult, you know, the small increase for I-Corps, but I
    wanted to know how you're going to balance the--Dr. Cordova,
    how you're going to balance the number of entrepreneur teams
    funded with new I-Corps sites and nodes if there is not a
    substantial funding increase.
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you for your enthusiasm of our I-Corps.
    This is a program that's only about half a dozen years old, and
    it's already yielded over 500 new startup companies. And what
    it's really changed I think is the whole idea that faculty have
    that research can really be accelerated, and how do you do that
    acceleration? And so I think it's a culture changer, as well as
    given opportunities to new entrants to start their own
    businesses. When I've gone around universities, I've seen women
    and underrepresented minorities be some of the I-Corps
    participants who are then starting their own businesses. It's
    just a gamechanger.
        We will do the best that we can by I-Corps. You've noticed
    that we've held the budget relatively flat even though we have
    $1 billion less in this proposal than we presently have to work
    with. But I-Corps--because it's worked so well in such a short
    time--has also influenced the way we do a number of our other
    programs. For example, our Convergence Accelerator has an I-
    Corps component to it because it's all really about how do you
    get research to translate faster into public good. And I-Corps
    was a way that showed us how to do that.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I wanted to move on to AI. Let me
    just say I appreciate the fact, as I said, that the budget is
    tough and the fact that I-Corps gets a small increase relative
    to everything else. I appreciate that commitment from the NSF
    to I-Corps and hope that continues to have that strong
    commitment.
        I know that Ranking Member Baird talked a little bit about
    AI and asked a question about AI and social sciences. I have a
    bill right now that would coordinate AI R&D across agencies.
    And you know also the other thing I've been very focused on is
    social science research and the importance of social science
    research. I know you talked a little bit about that with regard
    to AI.
        But one other aspect of that is what about the societal
    impacts of AI-enabled devices? Is this something that is going
    to be a focus of NSF-funded research?
        Dr. Cordova. Absolutely. I mentioned a couple of new
    programs that we've offered or solicitations for proposals. One
    is the combination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic
    Sciences Directorate with our Computer and Information Science
    and Engineering Directorate and an entity called the
    Partnership for AI, which is 50 industries and others.
    Together, they've pooled resources to ask for proposals in
    doing just that--to look at the ethical framework and the
    impact of AI on society, anything to do with AI and people and
    how it's going to affect them, but making sure that we have
    unbiased, transparent, fair approaches to artificial
    intelligence.
        And one that's very similar is our collaboration with
    Amazon. This $20 million collaboration over the next 3 years
    where, again, it's the social and behavioral sciences and the
    computer and information sciences that are requesting proposals
    for ethical framework, impact framework for artificial
    intelligence. So I think we're going to see--we just welcome,
    as you know, all great proposals--and we'll see what we get.
    I'll be happy to report to you later what some of the more
    interesting proposals that we get along those lines.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And, very quickly, Dr. Souvaine,
    do you have anything to add on either of those? You don't have
    to. I just wanted to give you the opportunity.
        Dr. Souvaine. I think the board is very interested in
    looking at AI, and we had a plenary session last July about it.
    I think trustworthy AI is important, and we have to make sure
    that we're incorporating ethical and other kinds of social and
    behavioral questions into our development of AI.
        Mr. Lipinski. Great. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski. And now I'd
    like to recognize my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our
    witnesses not only for being here but for your incredible
    leadership in helping maintain our innovative edge in the
    United States.
        I've been clear on this Committee from day one that I
    believe basic research is critical to our economic future, and
    I look forward to continuing to support NSF and all the great
    work that you do.
        My biggest concern right now is that we're going to fund
    the programs--and I believe we will--but that we are still
    vulnerable to threats specifically from China. Just last month,
    FBI Director Christopher Wray pointed to the multilayered
    threat posed by China, went on to say that no country
    represents a more severe intelligence collection threat than
    China and that China has pioneered an approach to stealing our
    innovation from a wide array of businesses, universities, and
    organizations.
        Dr. Cordova, you mentioned that NSF has not found any
    violations yet. I'm concerned, frankly, that means that we
    haven't looked hard enough because I just don't believe that
    China had--I've heard anecdotal stories, but that they are not
    actively trying to take our innovation. Can you speak a little
    bit more to that? How confident are you that, even though you
    haven't found anything, that it's not occurring?
        Dr. Cordova. I'm not.
        Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
        Dr. Cordova. And you're absolutely right. We actually have
    a new research protection group within NSF that's chaired by
    one of the people in my office. It's people across the whole
    agency to look at ways that we can tighten our procedures in
    order to mitigate against that.
        We are working very closely with the Inspector General.
    They have their own people in charge in this area, and we're
    talking together about what we can do and how to approach this
    and where there might be vulnerabilities.
        I mentioned earlier one of them is in the whole disclosure
    business. We do have, in theory, if everybody were disclosing
    properly----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. All their relationships. Then we
    would know how to tighten those procedures, too. So, yes, we're
    really working on it. And I also mentioned we'll have this
    meeting at the National Academies. We attend many FBI and CIA
    meetings, so we're on it. We just want to be careful, as we
    talked about earlier.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Dr. Cordova.You just don't want to go overboard in one
    direction. You want to be sure that there's a balance there.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely.
        Dr. Cordova. Sure.
        Mr. Gonzalez. And thank you. I don't mean to be quick with
    it----
        Dr. Cordova. Sure.
        Mr. Gonzalez [continuing]. But I will say before I move on
    to my next question I look forward to working with everybody on
    the Committee and with both of you to make sure that we can
    strike that right balance. We can get this right, we absolutely
    can, and so I look forward to that.
        Now I want to shift briefly to talent specifically in AI. I
    ran a technology company at one point in my life, and the value
    of an A-plus engineer versus a B engineer is actually 10X, 15X.
    I'm seeing the heads nod, so agreement there. I guess my
    question would be from a talent-management standpoint in NSF
    when the Googles and Facebooks of the world can pay pretty
    crazy sums to our engineers, how are we competing for talent
    and making sure that our talent stays in the NSF or is working
    on the problems that we need them to work on specific to AI?
        Dr. Cordova. We have this rotator program that I
    mentioned----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Where we can bring people in. The
    majority of them come from universities. There's no reason why
    they can't come from industry as well and work with us and
    share. It is just an amazing program that we have with NSF.
        Mr. Gonzalez. To get it to industry, would that require a
    congressional fix or is that something within your purview to--
    --
        Dr. Cordova. No, it's within our purview.
        Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
        Dr. Cordova. We of course, you know, just do the conflict
    of interest----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Right.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. But, no, absolutely. And now,
    what we're seeing in universities is there's more churn there,
    too, with people coming from industry into universities,
    leaving for a while, teaching, et cetera, then going back to
    industry and so on. So I think the circulation of brain talent
    is going to happen more and more.
        Mr. Gonzalez. OK. Great. So the rotator program sounds like
    it'll be a big plus for us.
        And then, Dr. Souvaine, I want to shift to something that
    you said when you're talking about American leadership. And I
    don't want to necessarily prime you, but another priority of
    mine is to make sure that we're promoting STEM for women in
    STEM. And you made a specific comment about having no tolerance
    for harassment, completely, 1,000 percent agree. How can we do
    a better job of making sure that we are fostering an
    environment that is more conducive to women in STEM?
        Dr. Souvaine. It's complicated. I think we've been working
    at that for quite some time. I can think back to when I was a
    young researcher, coming to NSF was always wonderful because
    NSF got it early, and there were women in the building. In lots
    of places I went, there weren't any women in the building, so
    it was always pleasant to visit NSF.
        And I think if we look at some statistics, it looks like
    we're not making much advancement on having women in science
    and engineering. And yet if you look at the numbers, the
    numbers are going up. It's just that the growth of the
    workforce in science and engineering is going up faster than
    the number of women.
        I think we have to have a textured approach. I think we
    need to look at multi-facets. And part of that sometimes can
    also be looking at little things. I know this will sound maybe
    trivial, but I remember being on a faculty search committee and
    going to the first meeting where people said that they had
    already previewed the applications and they culled them down to
    just those that had the right number of publications in the top
    journals. I said that's wonderful. I'd love to redo the count.
    And they said, wait a minute, no, no, we know the top--I said
    you know the top journals but I'd like to do it by page count,
    not on numbers of papers. And they said it's the same thing,
    the journals published.
        I said no, it's not the same thing because often the woman
    or the person of color or the first-generation college goer
    will collate more results into one paper so that when they
    submit it, they have confidence it's going to be accepted, and
    they said I don't believe that, but we'll recount. We got back
    the next week, and there were five more women in the pool, one
    Native American and one African-American just by looking at the
    longer--and the journals aren't going to throw pages at
    somebody.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
        Dr. Souvaine. We may need to have the passion that NSF has
    had to understand it's important to take steps to do things
    within the foundation, but we need universities, we need
    industry people, we need everyone to try to look at different
    biases that could also feed into the AI question we had earlier
    that might be not recognizing the talents of people that we
    are--actually have.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Great. Well, thank you. My time is up, but
    again, I just want to thank you both for your leadership. And
    one final comment. The little things add up, right, that make a
    big difference, and so I appreciate your sentiments, and thank
    you both for everything.
        Chairwoman Stevens. We were delighted to give Mr. Gonzalez
    some extra time for that fabulous last question.
        And now I'd like to recognize my other colleague from Ohio,
    Mr. Balderson, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Cordova, thank you very much for being here this
    morning. And investing in basic research and education is
    crucial to ensuring America continues to be the world leader in
    scientific innovation, and the NSF plays a major role and
    central role in that.
        One of my passions in Congress is ensuring that our
    workforce is prepared. The Advanced Technology Education
    program at NSF has got my interest. Could you talk a little bit
    about how ATE is preparing students for the 21st century
    economy and what sets the program apart from other CTE
    initiatives?
        Dr. Cordova. CTE?
        Mr. Balderson. Career and technical education, thank you.
        Dr. Cordova. OK. Thank you. I'm very familiar with ATE and
    CTE caught me off guard. So the Advanced Technological
    Education program has been going on for over 25 years now. We
    love the program and so does Congress. It keeps increasing the
    budget for it. It is in many, many community colleges around
    the country, and it is giving students the opportunity to get
    training to be part of a skilled technical workforce. It
    doesn't require that they go on for a 4-year degree, and they
    are coming out with really great skills.
        I visited some of these community colleges and have seen
    the kind of facilities that they have to train the students,
    talked with the faculty who are very educated about the
    industries of the future and what they need. What is really of
    interest to me is that every ATE in each community college is
    different because they're really serving the community. So if
    you have one in Indiana, one in Ohio, there will be different
    depending on the industry base of the area. They're very much
    finely tuned so that people can get skills to go into those
    particular industries and more general skills as well.
        So it's a great program, and it's just had terrific
    results. It's not the only thing we do for the skilled
    technical workforce. Actually, we're spending--depending on how
    you count the dollars because of all our programs--hundreds of
    millions of dollars on the skilled technical workforce because
    we have a lot of other entry opportunities. But that one is a
    great one.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Are there any thoughts or
    insights or ideas on how we could expand some of this into a
    rural district or rural area that's out there?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes. We do have programs that are for more
    rural areas. They're usually in bigger collaborations where
    universities or community colleges want to penetrate those
    areas. We have programs for Native American communities that
    are generally in more rural areas. It kind of depends on what
    you mean by rural because we fund about 2,000 universities,
    colleges, and many other entities, and they can be in principle
    anywhere. So it really depends on exactly what the program is.
        I know some of our INCLUDES programs, which broaden
    participation specifically, are designed to go into rural areas
    to try to have more STEM initiatives. Young people having
    access to STEM, can be inspired and then go on to colleges and
    so forth. I hope that's helpful. And we can get you more detail
    on specific rural programs.
        Mr. Balderson. That was my next question if you could send
    that to me.
        Dr. Cordova. Yes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
        Madam Chair, I yield back my remaining time.
        Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. Well, I think it's fair to
    say that we are in very good hands at the NSF with this
    leadership and from today's very important hearing, reviewing
    the Fiscal Year 2020 budget.
        As the Representative from Michigan, I am delighted by the
    leadership from NSF in our State. Over $200 million of funding
    that our State has received, our top three research institutes,
    our universities, University of Michigan, Michigan State
    University, and Michigan Technological University receiving
    lots of support for basic research and efforts that have had
    profound implications for our State, particularly in STEM
    workforce training and supporting students and the next
    generation of discoverers.
        So before we bring this hearing to a close, I'd just like
    to thank our witnesses for testifying before us here today.
        The record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for
    additional statements from Members and any other questions that
    they might ask of you.
        And at this time, our witnesses are excused, and the
    hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]