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

                       REIMAGINING OUR INNOVATION FUTURE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 15, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-8

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-177PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                 April 15, 2021

                                                                       Page

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     8
        Written Statement............................................     9

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. Norm Augustine, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
      of Lockheed Martin
        Oral Statement...............................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    15

    Dr. Frances H. Arnold, Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical
      Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry, California
      Institute of Technology
        Oral Statement...............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    25

    The Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, President and Chief Executive
      Officer, Energy Futures Initiative and Former Secretary, U.S.
      Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    32
        Written Statement............................................    34

    Dr. Farnam Jahanian, President, Carnegie Mellon University
        Oral Statement...............................................    58
        Written Statement............................................    60

    Discussion.......................................................    74

                       REIMAGINING OUR INNOVATION FUTURE

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

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

         The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., via
    Zoom, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee]
    presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order, and
    without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
    any time. Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today the Committee
    meeting is virtual. I look forward to when we can all get back
    together.
         I want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members
    about the conduct of this remote hearing. First, Members should
    keep their video feed on as long as they are present in the
    hearing, and Members are responsible for their own microphones.
    Please also keep your microphones muted unless you are
    speaking, and finally, if Members have documents they wish to
    submit to the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk,
    whose email address has been circulated to all.
         Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing and welcome
    to our distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to
    hearing your expert insights on how we can ensure the continued
    United States leadership in science and technology (S&T), and
    harness our research enterprise, and all of our Nation's talent
    to develop solutions to our most pressing challenges.
         This morning, the Committee will discuss the current state
    of the American science and technology enterprise, the
    challenges posed by both increasing global competition and
    shortcomings in our own system, and the opportunities to
    reimagine and recommit to our innovation future. I understand
    the depth of the challenges we face, but I remain hopeful
    because I see the commitment, passion, and talent of our
    scientists, engineers, and especially our students and early
    career researchers. I am inspired to do everything I can to
    support them.
         For many decades, the United States was the unquestioned
    leader in science and technology. This premise was firmly
    established through a massive investment in the 1950's and
    1960's to build national laboratories and entire agencies like
    the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA (National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration), and to support
    unfettered research at U.S. universities. That commitment paid
    real dividends, allowing the government, the private sector,
    and indeed the world to reap the technological benefits.
         However, since that peak, our commitment to nondefense R&D
    (research and development) fell rapidly, then plateaued as a
    share of our discretionary budget. As a share of our GDP (gross
    domestic product), it has continued to decline. In the
    meantime, many other countries have increased their investments
    and built innovation systems based on our own successful
    models. One of those on the minds of many here today is China.
    China is already outspending us. It may only be a matter of
    time before they are out-innovating us, including in critical
    technologies that underpin our economic and national security.
         I agree that China's rise in science and technology
    creates real challenges for us. We have good reason to be
    worried about research integrity and how research will be used.
    However, we should not let those concerns misguide our thinking
    about how we will lead in the future. We will lead by doing our
    own best selves, not by emulating China.
         In a forthcoming issue of Issues in Science and
    Technology, a scholar of innovation policy writes,
    ``competitiveness is neither a necessary nor a sufficient basis
    for equity, sustainability, or security . . . China's
    industrial policy has improved neither equity nor
    sustainability. Russia's economic collapse has done little to
    erode its national security.'' I believe we can do both. We can
    compete globally, and we can inspire innovation that confronts
    long-standing societal challenges. We can build from the
    institutional foundations established decades ago and work
    together to re-envision a bold and more inclusive model for
    American innovation in the 21st century.
         There are a lot of big ideas to discuss, and I am sure
    that today's hearing will be valuable and a constructive
    conversation for all. In particular, we will be looking to the
    expertise on this panel as we continue to develop bipartisan
    science and innovation legislation in the coming weeks and
    months.
         [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. And welcome to
    our distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing
    your expert insights on how we can ensure continued United
    States leadership in science and technology and harness our
    research enterprise and all of our nation's talent to develop
    solutions to our most pressing challenges.
        This morning the Committee will discuss the current state
    of the American science and technology enterprise, the
    challenges posed by both increasing global competition and
    shortcomings in our own system, and the opportunities to
    reimagine and recommit to our innovation future. I understand
    the depth of the challenges we face. But I remain hopeful
    because I see the commitment, passion, and talent of our
    scientists and engineers, especially our students and early
    career researchers. I am inspired to do everything I can to
    support them.
        For many decades, the United States was the unquestioned
    leader in science and technology. This primacy was firmly
    established through a massive investment in the 1950s and 1960s
    to build national laboratories and entire agencies like the
    National Science Foundation and NASA, and to support unfettered
    research at U.S. universities. That commitment paid real
    dividends, allowing the government, the private sector, and
    indeed the world to reap the technological benefits. However,
    since that peak, our commitment to nondefense R&D fell rapidly,
    then plateaued as a share of our discretionary budget. As a
    share of our GDP, it has continued to decline.
        In the meantime, many other countries have increased their
    investments and built innovation systems based on our own
    successful models. One of those, on the minds of many here
    today, is China. China is already outspending us. It may only
    be a matter of time before they are out-innovating us,
    including in critical technologies that underpin our economic
    and national security.
        I agree that China's rise in science and technology creates
    real challenges for us. We have good reason to be worried about
    research integrity and how research will be used. However, we
    should not let those concerns misguide our thinking about how
    we will lead into the future. We will lead by being our own
    best selves, not by emulating China. In a forthcoming issue of
    Issues in Science and Technology, a scholar of innovation
    policy writes, ``competitiveness is neither a necessary nor a
    sufficient basis for equity, sustainability, or
    security.China's industrial policy has improved neither equity
    nor sustainability. Russia's economic collapse has done little
    to erode its national security.''
        I believe we can do both. We can compete globally, and we
    can inspire innovation that confronts long-standing societal
    challenges. We can build from the institutional foundations
    established decades ago and work together to re-envision a bold
    and more inclusive model for American innovation in the 21st
    century.
        There are a lot of big ideas to discuss, and I am sure that
    today's hearing will be a valuable and constructive
    conversation for all. In particular, we will be looking to the
    expertise on this panel as we continue to develop bipartisan
    science and innovation legislation in the coming weeks and
    months.
        With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Lucas for his
    opening statement.

         Chairwoman Johnson. And with that, I recognize our Ranking
    Member, the Honorable Mr. Lucas, for his opening statement.
         Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this
    hearing on the future of American innovation, and thank you for
    those wonderful thoughts you just offered.
         I believe this is one of the most essential concerns
    facing our Committee, because our commitment to America's
    scientific progress is what underpins every other issue that
    comes before us, from space exploration to clean energy
    development, and from the strength of our economy to our
    national security. Our investment in basic and early stage
    Federal research gives us lower food prices, better healthcare
    treatments, cleaner and cheaper energy, and widespread access
    to reliable broadband internet. It just hasn't come to my farm
    yet in western Oklahoma. Reliable, that is.
         In short, our investment in basic Federal research
    infrastructure and workforce development pays massive
    dividends. American companies use the knowledge and tools
    gained in our laboratories to commercialize innovations that
    improve our lives and our economy.
         Historically, the United States has been the world's
    largest investor in research and development. U.S. Government
    and industry spent a combined $511 billion on R&S in 2016,
    generating over $860 billion for our Nation's economy, while
    supporting over 8 million jobs. As numerous studies have
    concluded, as much as 85 percent of the long-term growth of the
    American economy comes from scientific and technology advances.
         But our research in science and technology is under
    threat. China has likely surpassed us in total R&D spending
    already. While they increased their research investment by 56
    percent between 2011 and 2016, ours fell by 12 percent. The
    Chinese Communist Party has an aggressive and strategic plan
    for their scientific development. They have been very clear
    that they intend to overtake us in critical technologies.
    Communist leadership in China hasn't been shy about how they
    plan to outpace us.
         In addition to outspending us, they're looking to acquire
    foreign research, attract premiere talent by building up world-
    class research infrastructure, and buildup their domestic STEM
    (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workforce.
    With our leadership in science and technology at risk, we need
    to reevaluate our commitment to the fundamentals we need to
    success. Basic research, cutting edge facilities, and a
    thriving STEM workforce.
         Chairwoman Johnson and I agree on the need to support
    Federal research. A few weeks ago, we introduced legislation to
    reauthorize the National Science Foundation, along with
    Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Stevens and
    Ranking Member Waltz, we put forth the NSF for the Future Act,
    which increases the funding to $13 billion over 5 years. It
    invests in industries of the future, works to expand STEM
    education, and develop our STEM workforce, and includes
    important provisions to secure our research from foreign theft.
    I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this
    legislation, and I look forward to working to move it forward.
         It dovetails nicely with the Securing American Leadership
    in Science and Technology Act, or SALSTA, as I like to call it,
    which is legislation I've introduced to double our funding in
    basic research and create a national strategy to focus our
    investment on critical technologies like artificial
    intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and quantum computing. SALSTA
    will invent in our research infrastructure so we have the
    facilities required to do groundbreaking research. It helps to
    grow a strong American STEM pool of talent through workforce
    development and STEM education programs, and it makes it easier
    to transfer technology breakthroughs from the lab to private
    industry through regulatory reform. Taken together, SALSTA is a
    comprehensive and strategic approach to investing in American
    science and technological development.
         We're still benefiting today from research investments
    made generations ago, and that begs the question, what
    investments are we making for our grandchildren and their
    grandchildren? Are we being strategic and forward thinking in
    our commitment to Federal research and development? We have a
    fantastic panel of witnesses here today, and I am looking
    forward to their insights into that question.
         As a wheat farmer, I am an internal optimist. I always
    plant seed in the ground. I'm optimistic I'm going to make a
    good crop every year. And I'm also optimistic that we can work
    together in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen our research
    industry and invest in the future of our scientific
    development.
         And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back and
    enthusiastically look forward to the rest of this hearing.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this hearing on
    the future of American innovation.
        I believe this is one of the most essential concerns facing
    our committee, because our commitment to America's scientific
    progress is what underpins every other issue that comes before
    us: from space exploration to clean energy development, and
    from the strength of our economy to our national security.
        Our investment in basic and early-stage federal research
    has given us lower food prices, better health care treatments,
    cleaner and cheaper energy, and widespread access to reliable
    broadband internet (just not yet on my farm in rural Oklahoma).
    In short, our investment in basic federal research,
    infrastructure, and workforce development pays massive
    dividends.
        American companies use the knowledge and tools gained in
    our labs to commercialize innovations that improve our lives
    and our economy. Historically, the United States has been the
    world's largest investor in research and development. U.S.
    government and industry spent a combined $511 billion on R&S in
    2016, generating over $860 billion for our nation's economy
    while supporting over 8 million jobs. And numerous studies have
    concluded that as much as 85 percent of the long-term growth in
    America's economy is from scientific and technological
    advances.
        But our leadership in science and technology is under
    threat. China has likely surpassed us in total R&D spending
    already. While they increased their research investment by 56%
    between 2011 and 2016, ours fell by 12%.
        The Chinese Communist Party has an aggressive and strategic
    plan for their scientific development. They've been very clear
    that they intend to overtake us in critical technologies.
    Communist leadership in China hasn't been shy about how they
    plan to outpace us. In addition to outspending us, they're
    looking to acquire foreign research, attract premier talent by
    building out world-class research infrastructure, and build up
    their domestic STEM workforce. With our leadership in science
    and technology at risk, we need to reevaluate our commitment to
    the fundamentals we need to succeed: basic research, cutting-
    edge facilities, and a thriving STEM workforce.
        Chairwoman Johnson and I agree on the need to support
    federal research. A few weeks ago we introduced legislation to
    reauthorize the National Science Foundation. Along with
    Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Stevens and
    Ranking Member Waltz, we put forth the NSF For the Future Act,
    which increases the funding to$13 billion over five years. It
    invests in industries of the future, works to expand STEM
    education and develop our STEM workforce, and includes
    important provisions to secure our research from foreign theft.
        I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this
    legislation, and I look forward to working to move it forward.
    It dovetails nicely with the Securing American Leadership in
    Science and Technology Act, or SALSTA, which is legislation
    I've introduced to double our funding in basic research and
    create a national strategy to focus our investment on critical
    technologies like Artificial Intelligence, cybersecurity, and
    quantum computing.
        SALSTA will invest in our research infrastructure so we
    have the facilities required to do groundbreaking research. It
    helps to grow a strong American STEM pool of talent through
    workforce development and STEM education programs. And it makes
    it easier to transfer technological breakthroughs from the lab
    to private industry through regulatory reform. Taken together,
    SALSTA is a comprehensive and strategic approach to investing
    in America's science and technological development.
        We're still benefiting today from research investments made
    generations ago. And that begs the question: What investments
    are we making for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren?
    Are we being strategic and forward-thinking in our commitment
    to federal research and development?
        We have a fantastic panel of witnesses here today, and I'm
    looking forward to their insights into that question. As a
    wheat farmer, I'm an eternal optimist- I plant seed in the
    ground and I'm optimistic that I'll have a good yield each
    season. And I'm optimistic that we can work together in a
    bipartisan fashion to strengthen our research industry and
    invest in the future of our scientific development.
        With that, I yield back.

         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
         If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
         And at this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
    Before I do so, I would just note that they all have such
    distinguished careers. I depend on their voices so much that I
    could spend 30 minutes just introducing them. I'll try not to
    do that, but I would encourage everyone to read their bios.
         Our first witness is Mr. Norm Augustine. Mr. Augustine was
    previously the chairman and CEO (chief executive officer) of
    Lockheed Martin, a position from which he retired in 1997.
    [inaudible] Secretary of the Army and Acting Secretary of the
    Army, among many other positions in his long and distinguished
    career, and a grade mark on where we are now and our future now
    in the scientific endeavors.
         Our next witness is Dr. Frances Arnold. Dr. Arnold is the
    Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical Engineering,
    Bioengineering, and Biochemistry at the California Institute of
    Technology. She pioneered directed enzyme evolution, for which
    she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018, becoming
    the first American woman to do so. Dr. Arnold has also co-
    founded three companies and served on several private and
    public company boards. Dr. Arnold was recently appointed as co-
    chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
    Technology.
         Our third witness, the Honorable Ernest Moniz. From 2013
    to 2017, Dr. Moniz served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy.
    As secretary, he advanced energy technology innovation, nuclear
    security and strategic stability, cutting edge capabilities for
    the American scientific research community, and environmental
    stewardship. He is currently the President and Chief Executive
    Officer of Energy Futures Initiative (EFI), and a professor
    emeritus and Special Advisor to the president of the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
         Our final witness, Dr. Farnam Jahanian. He is currently
    the tenth president of Carnegie Mellon University, where he
    previously served as provost and chief academic officer, as
    well as vice president for research. Prior to his service at
    Carnegie Mellon, he led the National Science Foundation
    Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
    Engineering from 2011 to 2014. He spent much of his career at
    the University of Michigan, during which time he co-founded an
    internet security company.
         As our witnesses should understand we will have five
    minutes of spoken testimony from each of you. Your written
    testimony will be included in the record for the hearing, and
    when all of you have completed your spoken testimony, we will
    begin a round of questions. Each Member will have five minutes
    to question the panel.
         So, now we will start with Mr. Augustine. You are
    recognized for your testimony.

            TESTIMONY OF MR. NORM AUGUSTINE, FORMER CHAIRMAN

             AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF LOCKHEED MARTIN

         Mr. Augustine. Well, good morning, Chairwoman Johnson,
    Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the invitation to appear today.
         My comments are going to draw heavily on a report, ``The
    Perils of Complacency'' which was produced by the American
    Academy of Arts and Sciences, an organization now almost 250
    years old, in conjunction with the Rice University Baker
    Institute of Public Policy.
         The thrust of the message is very straightforward. First,
    America's well-being depends heavily on having a strong
    economy. Second, having a strong economy depends heavily on
    advancements in science and technology. And third, America is
    on a path to lose its leadership position to China in science
    and technology in the not-too-distant future.
         Wen Jiabao, the former Premier of the State Council of the
    People's Republic of China, had the following to say, and I
    quote, ``Scientific discovery and technological inventions have
    brought about new civilization, modern industries, and the rise
    and fall of nations. I firmly believe that science is the
    ultimate revolution.''
         There have been a number of studies that have shown that
    up to 85 percent of the growth of the U.S. economy is due to
    advancements in science and technologies. Two of those studies,
    incidentally, were the bases of Nobel Prizes.
         There are really two principal ingredients that dominate
    scientific advancement: financial capital and human capital.
    Beginning with financial capital, our current path is such that
    China is passing us in investments in research and development
    at purchasing power parity. The U.S. Federal investment in R&D
    has fallen from 1-1/2 percent of GDP in the 1960's to 7/10 of 1
    percent today, a period of increasing impact of science and
    technology.
         Turning to human capital, perhaps the best recognized
    international test of primary and secondary education is called
    the PISA test of 15-year-olds, it's given every 3 years.
    Currently, the United States places in 25th place among the
    developed Nations of the world in composite literary, math, and
    science scores.
         It is noteworthy that U.S. scientific and technology
    enterprise today would barely function were not for foreign-
    born individuals who have come to our country, received their
    advanced degrees here, remained here, and raised their families
    here. These individuals today provide 28 percent of the faculty
    of science and engineering at our universities. They provide 1/
    3 of the entire U.S. scientific and tech workforce. They
    provide 1/2 of the postdoctoral workers who perform much of our
    Nation's research.
         I've been asked to comment briefly on military
    implications of these trends. I would note that China has four
    times the population of the United States. We are not likely to
    compete effectively on a personnel manpower basis with China,
    either militarily or economically.
         Further, the history of warfare is replete with examples
    where technological breakthroughs have had decisive results in
    combat. It goes all the way back to the stirrup and the longbow
    to the aircraft and nuclear weapons today.
         But there's another important consideration not widely
    acknowledged, and that is in the past much of the military
    advancements in science and technology are traceable to
    arsenals. However, today commercial technology is driving
    military applications. I refer, of course, to microelectronics,
    high speed computing, manufacturing, AI, robotics, automation,
    and so on.
         One thing that's clear is that we can't build a wall
    around commercial science and technology. It's out there in the
    marketplace, so we have a rather simple choice. We could either
    be a leader, or we could be a follower.
         What might be the U.S. report card in science and
    technology as it would exist today? In terms of quality of our
    research universities, we are unarguably No. 1. In terms of
    innovation, we've dropped from first to eighth place. R&D
    intensity and fraction of GDP, we've dropped from first to
    tenth. Primary and secondary education, we're at 25th.
    Professionals in R&D, per capita, 28th in the world. Fraction
    of research funded by the government, 29th in the world. In the
    fraction of initial degrees awarded in engineering we're 76th,
    just behind Mozambique.
         Permit me a personal word in closing. My first trip to
    China was 44 years ago. I saw a handful of automobiles. Every
    adult was wearing a Mao suit. I have visited there every half
    dozen years or so since that time. While I don't admire many of
    their methods, the economic, military, and S&T results are
    truly astonishing. I'm 85 years old. I probably won't be around
    for the results of the decisions that we make today and that
    are being made in China. But I will note that very early in my
    career as a young engineer, I had the great privilege to play a
    very tiny part in putting 12 people on the Moon, all of whom
    became my friends later on. And it's truly amazing what our
    country could accomplish when we put our minds to it.
         Thank you very much.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Augustine follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
         Dr. Arnold?

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCES H. ARNOLD,

            LINUS PAULING PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING,

                    BIOENGINEERING AND BIOCHEMISTRY,

                   CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

         Dr. Arnold. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
    Members of the Committee, first of all, thank you for
    supporting science and for inviting me to appear today.
         As an inventor, teacher, entrepreneur, and researcher, I
    have seen where innovation succeeds and also how it can fail.
    The quest to understand our universe and our place in the
    natural world is one of the great manifestations of human
    creativity, and as we well know, such exploration is also the
    foundation of wealth. The rest of the world appreciates science
    as the driving force of prosperity, and they are making the
    necessary investments to compete.
         Now, I've been everything from a taxi driver to a
    mechanical and aerospace engineer working for the nuclear
    industry, later building solar energy facilities. After earning
    a Ph.D. in chemical engineering and doing basic research in
    biophysics, I became a professor, an inventor, and co-founder
    of several companies. Now, I was never particularly expert at
    any of these professions, but through these diverse
    experiences, I acquired knowledge I could recombine to solve
    problems in new ways.
         Inspired by the astounding feats--engineering feats of the
    biological world, I chose to become an engineer of that world
    and tune nature's machinery to do chemistry for us. And I have
    little doubt this will be the century of biotechnology, where
    we'll be able to engineer biology to make everything from
    pharmaceuticals, to fuels, to food, to cure cancer, and to
    fight pandemics.
         I am but one of the many Nobel laureates this country has
    produced although, yes, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize
    in Chemistry. But importantly, I am the product of government
    investment in science. That funding has supported cutting edge
    research and trained more than 200 postgraduate researchers who
    are now at top universities, government laboratories, industry.
    And several have started companies that today employ hundreds
    more.
         Federal grants enable seedling ideas to take shape, but
    not to create the many commercial products that come out of our
    research. Getting technology into the hands of users--in other
    words, making research truly useful, requires a much bigger
    innovation ecosystem that includes applied or development
    research, collaboration with industry, and entrepreneurial
    activities, all of which I've done. Importantly, we do not
    separate fundamental science aimed at understanding from
    research aimed at applications. To me, they go hand in hand and
    separation would impoverish both of them.
         The strength of the academic research system in this
    country, in my opinion, comes from empowering younger
    scientists. I strongly favor portable fellowships because young
    people are capable of deciding where the future lies, what
    science fields, what problems. They will choose the
    universities and research settings that meet their
    expectations. Unrestricted grants to the most promising young
    researchers pay off with work that is truly innovative, rather
    than conservative by design, because these PIs (principal
    investigators) are free to formulate whole new questions
    outside the confines of bigger projects, whose goals are
    already set in stone. I received such support early in my
    career from the Packard Foundation.
         Make no mistake, not all ideas are good, nor do all such
    investments lead to breakthroughs, because scientists know
    there may be no pot of gold or Nobel Prize at the end of their
    little rainbow. But I believe we should reward exceptionally
    talented scientists who can tackle those high risk, high reward
    problems. And please note that all three U.S. women who've won
    Nobel Prizes in the sciences in the last 3 years were supported
    in their early years by the Packard Foundation. This is
    remarkable and it is not a coincidence.
         I love what I do for what it can do to alleviate suffering
    of people and the planet. It was easier, however, 35 years ago
    to start a career in academic research because we did not spend
    2/3 of our time in department meetings, writing proposals, or
    complying with regulations. Instead, we focused on research,
    mentoring, teaching. That has degraded. With additional
    responsibilities that women have with respect to family, it is
    very difficult to compete, almost impossible to enjoy the
    process. It is also a struggle for scientists from
    underrepresented communities, and the most talented people have
    multiple choices and simply take other paths.
         I'm honored to be testifying before you today. I greatly
    appreciate the recognition each of you has given to these
    issues in recent legislation, and your recognition that there's
    more that we must do.
         [The prepared statement of Dr. Arnold follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Mr. Bera. I don't know if we lost the chairwoman. Can we
    get----
         Ms. Stevens. Yeah, it looks like Chair Johnson is not
    there.
         Mr. Bera. Should we go to the next witness?
         Ms. Stevens. Yeah, Secretary Moniz.

              TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST J. MONIZ,

                 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                       ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE

            AND FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

         Mr. Bera. Secretary, you're on mute.
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah, the most famous expression of the new
    age, you're on mute. Thank you.
         OK. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Lucas, Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today.
         Many countries have committed to net zero carbon emissions
    by mid-century, and the U.S. will soon release a new ambitious
    interim target for emissions reductions by 2030. A decade of
    supercharged innovation is needed, starting now, in order to
    have a chance of meeting these goals.
         It's important to place the associated investments in a
    larger context: the changing risk profile, the growing
    interdependencies of critical infrastructures, the growing
    importance of supply chains, and regional differences and
    needs. Traditional weather risk profiles are no longer
    adequate. The modernized climate risk disclosure needs to be
    supported by research with sufficient regional granularity for
    the full spectrum of extreme weather events. Electricity,
    natural gas, and water systems are interdependent, and
    innovation in systems analysis is needed badly. The need to
    address supply chain issues was underscored by President
    Biden's Executive order on American supply chains. Critical
    minerals and metals availability are a major challenge and
    needs innovation.
         The administration has proposed an ambition innovation
    agenda. Federal energy innovation should expand the Federal
    Government's innovation role beyond early stage R&D, address
    key breakthrough technology areas, improve coordination across
    the Federal Government, harness the full range of tools for
    Federal support, bring together public and private innovation
    players, support regional innovation, build on and supercharge
    successful innovation structures like ARPA-E (Advanced Research
    Projects Agency--Energy) and the Energy Frontier Research
    Centers.
         The Energy Act of 2020 marks a significant move to advance
    and accelerate the energy innovation agenda. It authorized new
    energy RD&D (research, development, and deployment) efforts in
    seven major titles, and emphasized the importance of Federal
    support for demonstration projects.
         Internationally, the current focus of mission innovation
    should be expanded to include emerging technologies for carbon
    dioxide removal (CDR) and advanced nuclear energy, both fission
    and fusion.
         RD&D areas that merit additional support include cross
    cutting technologies that reduce emissions in multiple sectors
    and strengthen the foundation of the innovation infrastructure.
         A few examples are clean hydrogen, sustainable supply
    chains, climate risk analysis tools, and as a complement to
    emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, and in addition
    to direct air capture, emphasis should be extended to other CDR
    pathways and multiple Federal agency roles.
         A 2019 EFI IHS study also identified the importance of so-
    called platform technologies as an enabler of innovation for
    clean energy and multiple other sectors. Key platform
    technologies include additive manufacturing, materials by
    design, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics,
    genomic science and synthetic biology, and much more.
         A greatly enhanced platform technologies initiative could
    be led by NSF with important contributions from DOE (Department
    of Energy), DOD, Commerce, NIST (National Institute of
    Standards and Technology), HHS (Health and Human Services), NIH
    (National Institutes of Health), and others in a whole of
    government approach.
         The architecture and processes for implementation of a
    Federal energy innovation investment program are also
    important. First, innovation investment programs should build
    upon and better integrate the existing unparalleled innovation
    capacity in the United States across private industry,
    universities, research institutions, entrepreneurs, and
    Federal, State, local, and tribal government entities. Federal
    policies should encourage public/private partnerships,
    formation of regional innovation ecosystems, and alignment of
    innovation investment with market formation policies.
         Second, it's essential that the innovation portfolio
    support the entire innovation spectrum from use-inspired
    fundamental research through learning by doing demonstrations
    and pioneering commercialization. The innovation process is not
    a simple linear process. There's an opportunity to further
    expand the NSF role beyond discovery science to support use-
    inspired fundamental research in areas of science and
    engineering, especially in platform technologies that cut
    across many applications. However, adding a major focus on
    technology development and commercialization to NSF's mission
    would be a major risk to the nature and culture of the agency,
    and would been to be circumscribed with great care.
         A great example of use-inspired research comes from DOE.
    Energy Frontier Research Centers focus on fundamental research,
    and yet, have produced significant advancements in the
    technology base toward commercialization. ARPA-E has also been
    successful in bridging the gap and deserves more funding.
         The future role of NSF in use-inspired fundamental
    research should be complementary to and closely coordinated
    with similar fundamental research at DOE and other Federal
    mission agencies. The innovation agenda calls for better
    alignment of the policies, players, and programs that are the
    key building blocks of our national energy innovation
    ecosystem.
         Madam Chair, Ranking Member Lucas, Members of the
    Committee, I look forward to your questions.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Mr. Bera. Should we go to the final witness?

                   TESTIMONY OF DR. FARNAM JAHANIAN,

                 PRESIDENT, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

         Dr. Jahanian. I'd be happy to. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
    Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee, I am grateful for
    the opportunity to testify today. My testimony is shaped by my
    perspective as a university president, my public service at the
    National Science Foundation, my experiences as a computer
    scientist and an entrepreneur, and as an immigrant who came to
    this country at the age of 16.
         Throughout this Nation's history, a thriving research and
    development ecosystem has served as a foundation for broad
    economic prosperity, national security, and individual and
    collective well-being. Today, we see this ecosystem at a
    crossroads, shaped by three major trends. The first is the
    unprecedented scope, scale, and pace of innovation. Major leaps
    in data-enabled, technology driven research are impacting a
    wide range of applications and industries, from drug discovery
    and enhanced telemedicine, to new materials for clean energy,
    breakthroughs in transportation and manufacturing, and the very
    essence of scientific discovery itself.
         The second is the rise of global competition, as you just
    heard. The U.S. R&D engine has been the envy of the world for
    the past half century, and our global competitors are now
    replicating our model of an innovation-based economy. The need
    to invest and out-innovate could not be more urgent.
         And finally, this moment is defined by a widening
    opportunity gap and a rising economic inequality. Digital
    transformation and globalization have contributed to a profound
    reshaping of our workforce, and persistent structural barriers
    to access and opportunity are preventing the benefits of our
    innovation-based economy from being widely shared.
         At this critical moment, our national response should rest
    on four thrusts as outlined in my submitted testimony.
    Investing in research at the pace of discovery and innovation,
    winning the global race for talent, committing to a robust
    research and innovation infrastructure, and finally, expanding
    the geography of U.S. innovation.
         Let me highlight key recommendations in several of these
    areas.
         First, if we're to compete and win, the Nation must
    urgently increase Federal investment in research to double the
    current levels for the next several years. To some, the current
    moment creates an imperative to choose between increased
    support for curiosity-driven research versus strategic mission-
    driven initiatives in emerging technologies. This is a false
    choice. Scientific exploration occurs along a dynamic continuum
    from foundational discovery to use-inspired research.
    Breakthroughs from the internet to self-driving cars, to rapid
    development of MRNA vaccines all stem from support for
    innovation across this dynamic continuum.
         Along with foundational research across all disciplines,
    we must also invest in use-inspired research motivated by
    national and societal priorities in healthcare, sustainability,
    transportation, clean energy, public health, cybersecurity, and
    much more.
         To catalyze mission-driven approaches for these complex
    challenges, the Nation needs targeted investments in the
    emerging technologies that have become near ubiquitous in their
    impact, including artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced
    manufacturing, materials, biotechnology, quantum computing, and
    next generation wireless.
         Second, the Nation must win the global race for talent and
    build a broad-based science and technology workforce that
    leaves no one behind. We must ensure every child and young
    adult has access to training and digital competency and
    computational thinking, double the number of graduate students
    and postdoctoral researchers in science and engineering, and
    broaden public/private partnerships for human capital
    development.
         Finally, the United States needs now bolder strategies for
    transitioning discoveries from lab to market. With an
    intentional focus on expanding the geography of U.S.
    innovation, our universities and national labs have
    extraordinary capacity to generate discoveries and innovations
    that catalyze economic growth and job creation. The Nation must
    invest in entities adjacent to universities that are capable of
    facilitating the seamless fusion and transfer of ideas,
    technologies and skills. The possibilities for creative,
    innovation-based economic development to support American
    competitiveness are endless.
         I'm grateful to this Committee for the important work that
    you do, including advancing the NSF for the Future legislation.
    The boldness of your actions is a poignant reminder of the
    transformative power of science, technology, and innovation to
    advance our economic prosperity and national security. The
    education and research community is ready to seize the
    opportunities that lie ahead.
         Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
         [The prepared statement of Dr. Jahanian follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Great. Thank you so much to our
    speakers, and as Vice Chair of the Committee, as our Chairwoman
    proceeds to address her technological issues, I will take over
    as chair.
         We want to thank you all for wonderful testimony, and what
    we'll do right now is move into the first five minutes of
    questions. The chair will recognize herself for questions, and
    then pass it over to the Ranking Member.
         So, certainly the breadth of topics and needs that all of
    you discussed are quite pertinent, and in particular, Secretary
    Moniz, you had mentioned that the need to not just focus on
    R&D, but to look at technology transfer applications. And you
    as well, Dr. Arnold, also touched on that.
         But I'd like to get a little more specific. As you
    mentioned, Dr. Moniz, we can't get this--we don't want to
    necessarily house all the technology transfer at the NSF, in
    part because it's early stage, original research applications,
    and you briefly mentioned DOE. But could you get a little bit
    more specific about where we might see this mature is the DOD
    an avenue or at the acceleration of SBIR (Small Business
    Innovation Research) awards or other public/private
    partnerships that we should be pursuing? And you can feel free
    to chime in as well, Dr. Arnold.
         Mr. Moniz. Yes, Congresswoman, I think these are very
    important issues that you've highlighted.
         Let me first kind of reiterate, my view at least is that
    what we need is not to look in the same way that several of my
    colleagues have emphasized that there is a kind of continuum
    across the innovation spectrum. What we need to do is to match
    that to what I believe is the structure of our very
    successful--in need of some juicing up--but very successful R&D
    enterprise across the multiple agencies, with NSF having a
    very, very broad remit across the entire science spectrum, and
    other agencies being mission agencies with narrower focus and
    complimentary roles. It's maintaining the complementarity which
    is critical.
         But as I said, I could see easily NSF having a major lead
    in leading use-inspired fundamental research. And as I said in
    the DOE example, once you're into use-inspired fundamental
    research, you will see spillovers into commercialization.
    That's the stage at which then that initiatives like SBIR can
    be extremely successful. I mean, I think we all know of so many
    examples of SBIR that has helped small companies grow up to the
    next stage going forward.
         And in doing that, I would like to emphasize something
    that Farnam said, and I said in my testimony as well. In terms
    of regional innovation systems, we really need to get regional
    pushes on innovation, and that includes--if you look in my
    testimony, the written testimony, the heat map of innovation
    institutions, we've got some blank spaces there, and we need to
    take advantage of all of our talent in this country, and use
    that also as a criterion for going from use-inspired research
    all the way to commercialization.
         Ms. Stevens. Thank you so much.
         Dr. Arnold, did you want to chime in there at all? And
    specifically honing in on a few things that you said that, you
    know, I love what you were talking about--different topic, but
    portable fellowships, which I think gets us there too a little
    bit.
         Dr. Arnold. Oh, well I'm all for portable fellowships
    because who does the future belong to? It's those students, and
    they're smarter than you might think about knowing what the
    future will be.
         But I also want to say that I have received SBIR grants
    and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) grants that are
    critical for taking things out of the basic research laboratory
    and moving them at least to the next stage. And it's those
    young people who often start the companies that benefit from
    those SBIR grants, so that's a wonderful mechanism, and it's
    also a very high-quality mechanism. Those are hard to get, and
    they're very competitive, and I think could easily increase in
    number and be very beneficial.
         Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Great. Thank you all, and I've got
    about 30 seconds left, so I'll just reclaim the time. Because
    in part, even though I'm Vice Chair, right, it's still--I was
    going to be three in the ranking, so I do want to be respectful
    of my colleagues and recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Lucas,
    for five minutes of questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Lucas.
         Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Vice Chair, and I address my
    question to the entire panel.
         The Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology
    Act, SALSTA as I like to call it, which I introduced last month
    directs the development of a national science and technology
    strategy and a quadrennial review, like the process that DOD
    undertakes for national security.
         Can each of you comment on what you would like to see in a
    process for a whole government strategy for S&T, and how that
    might benefit American competitiveness? Whoever would care to
    go first.
         Mr. Augustine. Well, I'll be happy to start, if I may.
         I think your question touches on a very important aspect
    of the issue we're addressing. One of the problems today is we
    really have no R&D strategy or R&D plan. We also fund our R&D
    efforts on a yearly basis, and R&D just doesn't work on an
    annual cycle.
         Furthermore, I'm not aware of any successful corporation
    in America that doesn't have a capital budget. The Federal
    Government has no capital budget, not in R&D or anywhere else.
    I think one of the very first steps will be to put together
    planning that includes emphasis on the transition from the
    laboratory to the field. We lose a lot of our edge in that
    transition period.
         I will be brief so that my colleagues can speak. I'll turn
    it over to them.
         Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Doctor, Doctor?
         Dr. Jahanian. I'll be happy to chime in next.
         If you step back and look at our R&D ecosystem, which
    candidly is the envy of the rest of the world, the investment
    that we've made in this country over the last 75 years has not
    only enhanced our global competitiveness, but very, very
    bluntly, has enabled so much in this country in terms of the
    prosperity of our Nation and national security.
         But the entire R&D ecosystem not only has the government
    investment, but it also has to be catalyzed by private sector.
    You need to have public/private partnerships that spur,
    essentially, productive entrepreneurship and enhance both
    skilled development and innovative supply chain of ideas. You
    also need to have strategic alignment of education, economic
    and community development, as well as infrastructure
    initiatives.
         So, any kind of a decadal survey or assessment of this
    would really have to look at the entire R&D enterprise of the
    country. Clearly, the government has a huge, huge role to play
    in this without any doubts. Our agencies across the country,
    whether it's NSF, NASA, DOD, and so on, and Department of
    Energy, they have a massive role in terms of shifting and
    prioritizing our priorities in this country.
         But I think we're going to have to bring the private
    sector into the picture. We're going to have to look at very
    creative public/private partnerships to be able to advance not
    only scientific discovery and innovation, but also win the
    global race for talent, and furthermore, transition effectively
    what we discover in our labs to market, hopefully creating new
    industries, products, and services, and beyond.
         Mr. Lucas. Anyone else care to offer some input on that?
         Mr. Moniz. May I add, Mr. Ranking Member?
         Mr. Lucas. Absolutely.
         Mr. Moniz. Let me tee off just from one of the elements
    that you introduced, the quadrennial review of DOD. I will note
    that when I was secretary, we initiated a quadrennial energy
    review, which had the idea of looking at whole of government
    and looking at an extended period of time, like a 5-year
    horizon, which was very important. And I might say, that seemed
    to strike a chord because we had--and you know, in what was a
    difficult political environment, we had 21 recommendations from
    that review passed into law by the Congress. So--because I
    think that leads to a, you know, completely nonpartisan
    approach to meeting these needs.
         So, today, just as one example of this need for
    integration and looking ahead, I mentioned a couple of times a
    critical technology that is getting more and more attention in
    the Congress, carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere and
    the upper oceans. We did a portfolio analysis. DOE has a huge
    role. NSF has a huge role. Agriculture has a huge role.
    Interior has a huge role. NOAA (National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration) has a huge role. I think that's the
    kind of perspective we need to bring to more of our critical
    challenges in terms of bringing it together, putting it before
    Congress, and going forward based upon sound analysis, and I
    think garnering, I would hope, strong bipartisan support.
         Mr. Lucas. My exact point.
         Dr. Arnold, my time is expired, and I regret that.
         Dr. Arnold. That's fine. I don't have anything to add
    here.
         Mr. Lucas. I yield back, Vice Chair.
         Ms. Stevens. Great, and thank you so much.
         With that, our Madam Chairwoman Johnson has returned, and
    I will pass the running of the hearing back over to her.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Ms. Stevens, and
    thank you for filing in during my wi-fi failure. Let me thank
    all the witnesses as well.
         Let me say that when I think about reimagining our
    innovation future, one of the things that's in my focus is how
    we need to be more inclusive in our approach to innovation. By
    inclusion, I mean by gender, ethnicity, race, and disability,
    and institutional and regional diversity, diversity in
    expertise and in perspectives. I think about listening to those
    in our communities who might have something to say about the
    nature of our challenges and our research agenda, but who
    aren't traditionally connected to our local research
    institutions.
         That's just not a moral perspective, but it's also an
    economic and national security imperative. And I just wanted
    [inaudible]----
         Mr. Bera. Looks like we may have lost the Chairwoman.
         Ms. Stevens. I was going to say, I think her wi-fi went
    out again, and I know we've been having problems with that in
    various office spaces and whatnot. So, we need--what we'll do
    is we'll----
         Mr. Bera. Do you want to recognize Ms. Bonamici, who's
    next?
         Ms. Stevens. Yeah, we'll just have to let Ms. Bonamici
    take it over.
         Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Vice Chair Stevens, and thank you
    to Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas, and thank you
    especially to our witnesses for joining us today.
         This hearing is about our innovation future, so as a
    Member of the Education Committee, I want to first note the
    importance of well-rounded education and educating students to
    be innovative, and to be able to, as Dr. Arnold noted, solve
    problems in new ways. A student may become interested in math
    by playing an instrument or learning chess strategy, by growing
    a garden or glazing and firing pottery can spark a child's
    interest in science. We need intellectually curious critical
    thinkers to solve the challenges we face and it is at our peril
    if we don't recognize that, which is why I'm leading a
    bipartisan call for robust funding to Title 4A grants under the
    Every Student Succeeds Act to support that well-rounded
    education that will educate students to be creative and
    innovative.
         So, moving on, the United States has the ability and the
    obligation to lead the world's efforts to curb greenhouse gas
    emissions, and addressing the climate crisis is our next
    moonshot innovation challenge. Our Nation does have some of the
    world's best scientists, researchers, programmers, and
    engineers in the world. We can and should take bold action that
    is informed by their sound peer-reviewed science.
         I have two questions for Secretary Moniz, so I'm going to
    state the two questions and then turn the time over to you to
    answer them.
         Secretary Moniz, you in your testimony noted your work at
    the Department of Energy to develop mission innovation to
    accelerate clean energy research development and demonstration.
    We are anticipating that the Biden Administration will soon
    announce our next Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)
    under the Paris Agreement, so how would you recommit or how
    would recommitting mission innovation contribute to a whole of
    government approach under an ambitious NDC accelerate our
    transition to 100 percent clean energy economy? So, that's my
    first question.
         Then the second question, Secretary Moniz, following up on
    your comment about regional approaches. I appreciate that you
    highlighted that. In northwest Oregon, for example, we
    recognize the tremendous potential of marine energy, but the
    same researchers--resources are not accessible in landlocked
    States. So, regions differ in energy resources, markets, and
    innovation ecosystems. So, as part of mission innovation, as
    you mentioned, you proposed funding during the Obama
    Administration to support those regional clean energy
    innovation partnerships. Last year, I introduced the Regional
    Clean Energy Innovation Act, which is modeled on this idea.
         So, how can the Federal Government better harness and
    align local, State, tribal, regional, and national solutions to
    advance the deployment and commercialization of clean energy
    technologies and help innovative concepts avoid that
    commercialization valley of death? And I'll turn it over to
    you, Secretary Moniz, for your response.
         Mr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. Very good
    questions.
         Let me say on the first question on mission innovation, I
    do expect, as you implied, that the administration will put
    forward a very ambitious NDC probably next week, and it will
    have an extraordinary challenge for the electricity sector by
    2030, and then, of course, economy-wide reductions. If I had to
    guess, it would be north of 50 percent reductions economy-wide
    in line with the EU, for example.
         Now, as I said, to reach that, we need what I called
    supercharged innovation for this next decade that will include
    international collaboration, and I think now that we have
    rejoined the Paris Agreement--and I will give a shoutout to the
    Deputy Secretary, Dave Turk, who when I was Secretary already
    was playing a role in stewarding mission innovation, and he
    continued to do that at the IEA (International Energy Agency).
    So, I think Dave could play an important role in our getting
    back into mission innovation. But importantly, expanding its
    scope.
         I mentioned two areas. Carbon dioxide removal is
    absolutely essential if we are going to meet net zero, and
    almost by definition, if we're going to get eventually to a
    negative economy, we need negative carbon technologies. That's
    a perfect area for international cooperation.
         Another more challenging organizationally, but I believe
    the advanced nuclear technologies--and by the way, that
    includes one from Oregon----
         Ms. Bonamici. Right.
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah. Seriously need a public/private
    partnership because enormous amounts of private capital have
    gone in, but they have to get over the hump in terms of
    demonstration.
         On the second issue I'll be very brief, but you said it.
    The low carbon solutions will look entirely different in
    different parts of the country, No. 1, and therefore, we should
    have some regionally driven innovation that will look at the
    solutions most appropriate to that part of the country,
    engaging their own innovation institutions to advance that.
         Secondly, I believe the regional innovation centers, as I
    said, will be very important for the inclusive nature that we
    need of our system, and although it's the opposite end in a
    certain sense of the commercialization, I would say that
    starting in the 1970's--while I have to say it wasn't very
    popular at some of our leading research institutions, I was and
    I remain a major fan of F-score as a way of reaching areas and
    young students' talent that we need to bring into the system. I
    believe that can be a very effective mechanism as well.
         Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and as I yield
    back, I want to say if I had more time, I would ask Dr. Arnold
    about the importance of childcare, which I know you mentioned
    in your testimony.
         But I will yield back and submit a question for the
    record. Thank you.
         Ms. Stevens. That's a great one, Rep Bonamici, and thank
    you for that.
         I see we've got Chairwoman Johnson in the Committee Room.
    All right. Chair Johnson? I know we had Mr. Posey next in line
    here, which we can pass it over to Mr. Posey and then jump back
    to Chair Johnson so she can finish her questions. But however
    you'd like to proceed, Madam Chair.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Who is the next
    witness? I have changed locations.
         Ms. Stevens. We had Mr. Posey up next for questions.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Posey is recognized.
         Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I must
    say, I appreciate your passion toward the subject of
    innovation.
         And I hope we all recognize that China's economic and
    military goals are one and the same. Through economic
    dominance, they hope to achieve military superiority. So, this
    has been mentioned by two of the speakers already, intertwines
    with our national security.
         Mr. Augustine, in your testimony you state that America is
    on a path to lose its lead in science and technology to China.
    What are your recommendations as to make America competitive
    well into the future, and to fix our Nation's Pre-K through 12
    public school system, particularly in STEM? Would you be
    willing to give us more specific recommendations?
         Mr. Augustine. Thank you, Congressman. I'd be happy to do
    that. Perhaps the--there are two missing links--I know there
    are many, but two major ones that are science and technology
    competitiveness. One is a lack of investment and the second
    is--seems--the ability to produce scientists and technologists
    from domestically born children at scale. And certainly, there
    are some outstanding young people with some outstanding
    schools, but on average, by international standards we're
    failing.
         Part of the issue is having teachers who aren't qualified
    in science and technology. Too often middle school children
    have teachers who are the football coach and they've been given
    a book on algebra and said go teach algebra. We have too many
    teachers not qualified to teach the subject they're teaching in
    the STEM area. And that certainly has to be fixed.
         The problem, for once, is not money. We spend more money
    per student in pre-K through 12 than any other Nation but one,
    Switzerland. And our problem, I think, is to bring the free
    enterprise system, parts of it, to our public education system,
    which means that one has rewards for outstanding performance
    and accountability for poor performance. Somehow, that has been
    very hard to do because we have--I think it is 14,000 public--I
    should say independent public school districts.
         I'm optimistic that we can solve the financial part of
    this issue. The K through 12, and you said pre-K through 12,
    which is really important because too many of our young
    children start first grade 2 or 3 years behind, and pre-K is
    just essential if we're to solve this problem.
         So, thank you for that question, Congressman.
         Mr. Posey. Thank you for your answer.
         You also mentioned in your testimony and you mentioned it
    orally, a balance between technological breakthroughs of
    warfare history, they're the stirrup, the longbow, gunpowder,
    the cannon, machine guns, tanks, battleships, aircraft, nuclear
    weapons, rockets, and night vision, stealth, space, robotics,
    autonomy, and cyber. And I'm just wondering what you see as the
    next technological breakthrough, and do you see the United
    States taking the lead with it?
         Mr. Augustine. One of the wonderful things about
    technological breakthrough is that most of us can't foresee
    them, and I'm afraid I'm in that category. But to try to answer
    your question, there are some areas that certainly stand out as
    being at the leading edge of science today, and I defer to some
    of my colleagues on the panel. But artificial intelligence
    stands near to the top--as does quantum science with its
    several applications. We often talk about quantum computing,
    but there are many more applications. Robotics, autonomy,
    autonomous vehicles are being seen already, and certainly
    biomedical sciences--that's where I think the really big
    breakthroughs are going to come in the decades ahead.
         One of the great things about some of the proposals that
    have been made for legislation would be to have the NSF put
    together a group of people who are really qualified to answer
    that very tough question, and see if they can come to a
    consensus, and then readdress it periodically.
         One of the important things in my last 19 seconds of your
    time, I would just point out is that, as my colleagues have
    said, being first in research is of the utmost importance.
    That's where the ideas come from. My background is mostly in
    business, but research is where the foundation is. But ideas
    left in the research lab are of little value in terms of
    winning wars or succeeding in the market.
         I see my timer is at zero, so thank you, Congressman, for
    your question.
         Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Augustine. I yield back, Madam
    Chair.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
         Our next witness--Mr. Bera.
         Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
         Look, this is a great conversation. One thing that I'd add
    to Mr. Augustine, when I think about my public school
    education, I also had wood shop, metal shop, auto shop, which I
    do think we've really disadvantaged a generation of kids by not
    having that exposure to the arts and--you know, where you have
    to use your imagination.
         Now, I went on to medical school, and when I was training
    at UC (University of California) Irvine, most of the Ph.D.'s
    that we were training with were going on an academic track.
    They'd go into academia, and then join faculty and go on a
    tenure track. Fast forward to my professional life prior to
    coming to Congress as an associate dean and faculty member at
    the University of California, Davis Medical School, most of the
    Ph.D.'s that we were training there were now actually getting
    their training and they were going to go into the private
    sector or startups--not all of them, but many of them, you
    know, were going in that space.
         And you know, I think the right mix--and again, Mr.
    Augustine, you touched on this a little bit--is how do we get
    that blend of academia, and you know, private sector
    innovation? When I think about academics, we are doing research
    and discovery just for the joy of solving these problems, not
    necessarily thinking about how we are going to commoditize it
    and bring it to the masses. Private sector is thinking about
    how you commoditize it and get it to folks.
         So, maybe I'll start with Dr. Arnold and then to the rest
    of the panel. You know, one of the areas that I have thought a
    lot about is this area of technology transfer, and private
    institutions can do technology transfer a little bit easier
    than public taxpayer-funded institutions. Yet, I'd be curious--
    and again, maybe starting with Dr. Arnold, what things should
    we be thinking about doing to make that tech transfer, you
    know, a little bit tighter and easier?
         Dr. Arnold. Right. Well, first of all, let me just say I'm
    the mother of a young man who got his education and tech
    through the U.S. Army, so that's a wonderful training place for
    hands-on technology, and he built the Mars rover at JPL (Jet
    Propulsion Laboratory) after leaving the Army. So, there are
    wonderful careers in hands-on technology that young people
    should know about and should be ready for, and we shouldn't
    have to rely just on the military to train these people.
         Now, to answer your question, I am--what should we do to
    promote tech transfer in places is make it easier. Technology
    is not useful until someone uses it. Academics are very fond of
    saying this is useful for something, but they have no clue what
    it takes to get it into the hands of real users.
         On the other hand, the young people who actually do the
    development of the technology, who invent it, want to do that,
    and so, to the extent that we can support the transition of
    some of these young graduate students into the entrepreneurial
    space, we should do that, as often happens in California.
    California has a thriving ecosystem for that. To the extent
    that we can do that in other parts of the country, all the
    better. I think you'll see that the students have the passion
    and work ethic needed to make that happen in the right
    environment.
         Mr. Bera. Dr. Jahanian?
         Dr. Jahanian. Yes.
         With respect to your comment about education, I just want
    to add one point and then I'll talk about technology transfer.
         I think we're at a point in this country that we need to
    be reimagining not only K through 12, but also higher
    education, because we're going to have to break down
    disciplinary siloes. I think some of the most important
    advances that we're making, both on the discovery side as well
    as on innovation and its impact on society, are inherently
    becoming interdisciplinary, bringing people from different
    perspectives. So, one of the important things to recognize is
    that it is the convergence of disciplines that's really
    catalyzing now some of the innovation that we're seeing.
         Very briefly with respect to your very profound question
    in regard to technology transfer, what I can tell you in my
    experience over the past 25 years in academia is that U.S.
    academic institutions have come a long way. We do have one
    challenge, which is something that I mentioned, and also
    Secretary Moniz mentioned, which is that we need to expand the
    geography of innovation in the U.S., and the best place to do
    it is to look at where the concentration of research is
    happening. In fact, in the U.S. today, we have about 200
    institutions that are receiving more than $50-plus million in
    R&D, and that could be an innovation center that could catalyze
    innovation, working with the private sector, working with the
    economic development in the regions, and so on.
         So, one really important concept to recognize is that
    going from lab to market doesn't happen on its own. We need to
    create the conditions. We need to create the environments to
    facilitate transfer of knowledge from lab to practice, from lab
    to market, creating new industries and products.
         With respect to the universities, at Carnegie Mellon, for
    example, we have created a culture of innovation such that our
    faculty, students, and researchers don't just think about
    foundational versus use-inspired research. They think about the
    entire continuum. But most importantly, we have direct
    engagement with the private sector, and the private sector is
    often involved in research with us, especially in the area of
    use-inspired research, creating much more flexible policies for
    faculty members to be able to transfer their knowledge to
    practice, to be able to leave the university and come back.
    Again, at our institution and I know many other institutions in
    the country, we've made that possible.
         The final point related to the students is that our
    students in this next generation are hungry for the kind of
    use-inspired work that you described.
         So, I think our challenge at universities has been--and I
    think we've come a long way, is to create an entrepreneurial
    culture in the university, such that those who want to engage
    in it, whether they're undergraduates, masters, or Ph.D.'s, can
    do so. I am very optimistic about how far this country has come
    in terms of being able to facilitate this. We have some work to
    do, but there are some terrific examples of successes in this
    country in terms of the innovation ecosystems that we've
    created at universities that involve the community, leading to
    economic development and job creation that could be replicated
    across the country, hence expanding the map of innovation.
         Thank you for that question.
         Mr. Moniz. Madam Chair, may I add a brief comment?
         Chairwoman Johnson. Yes.
         Mr. Moniz. Just to say that I agree with all of that, but
    I don't want to lose sight of the fact that as has been said,
    the most important vehicle for tech transfer from the
    university is the moving van which takes our graduates to their
    next job.
         Chairwoman Johnson. OK. Mr. Clerk?
         The Clerk. Mr. Babin is next.
         Mr. Babin. Yes, thank you so very much, Madam Chair, and
    Ranking Member Lucas. What fascinating testimony here. I want
    to thank our witnesses for being here today. One of the
    greatest assets we have here in this country, as we've just
    heard so eloquently, is our vibrant venture capital market, the
    private sector. When we fully utilize the R&D capabilities of
    industry, we have the ability to dominate global innovation in
    science and technology. The partnership we have with the
    private sector is a unique advantage that we have, and one that
    sets us apart from other countries, who heavily subsidize R&D
    investment that is almost solely reliant on government funding.
         And now, thank you, Dr. Jahanian, for what you said, but I
    would like to ask the same--this question here of Dr. Arnold
    and Mr. Augustine. How do we make certain that we fully utilize
    this unique edge and partnership that we have with industry,
    and how can the government improve collaborative efforts with
    the private sector? I heard Dr. Jahanian, and I'd like to hear
    both of your opinions. Thank you.
         Dr. Arnold. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Babin. I've worked extensively with industry over the years.
    The problem, of course, is that industry has outsourced much of
    their fundamental research, and they have very short timelines
    for solving problem, and I'm talking about the big companies.
    And that's usually not the best partnership with, let's say,
    you know, elite laboratories that are trying to do the cutting
    edge research that will change the world in 10 years, or 20
    years. So there's a mismatch of time scales for industrially
    sponsored research. However, to the extent that companies are
    investing in the next generation of technology in their spaces,
    that seems to work very well, when the timelines are loosened a
    bit.
         Mr. Babin. OK, thank you. And Mr. Augustine? I think
    you're unmuted, Mr. Augustine. Go ahead.
         Mr. Augustine. Can you hear me now?
         Mr. Babin. Yes.
         Mr. Augustine. OK, good. Such an important question. My
    background is in industry, government, and academia. I've had
    three careers, and our system of producing new ideas and
    putting them in the market is really a three-legged stool. It
    depends upon these three elements. It--the government is going
    to have to be the funder of default of basic research. Industry
    just isn't going to do that under today's rules, with today's
    taxes and so on. So the government is going to have to fund
    basic research. That research will best be performed at our
    universities and National Labs. It used to be performed in
    industry, but industry can no longer afford long term
    investments of that type, high risk.
         When I first entered industry, the average shareholder
    held their stock for 8 years. Today they hold it 4 months, and
    they don't care what happens to the company 8 years from now.
    So industry will invest heavily in development, but not in R.
    So that's so important that the government fund R. Academia and
    the National Labs perform R, and then transition it to
    industry. And to pick up on Ernie's point, I've always felt the
    best way to transfer ideas between those three elements is to
    transfer people, and so the more easily that we could make it
    for people to move among those three elements, one to the
    other, I think we'll find transitioning much easier. Thank you
    for a great question.
         Mr. Babin. Yes, sir, and I think I've got time for one
    more. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and
    intelligence agencies have warned Congress about the threat of
    foreign espionage of U.S. science and technology, particularly
    on university campuses. So China's investment in development,
    and not on basic research, implies that they are building their
    technological success on the basic research developed in the
    United States, and around the world. We've seen infiltration of
    Chinese influence in our university systems in several
    different occasions at our top institutions. So how do we
    ensure that foreign nationals from China coming to study at our
    universities do not undermine our open system of research? And
    what is the right balance for protecting U.S. basic research
    while continuing to promote an open science system that has
    made our scientific enterprise the best in the world? Dr.
    Arnold, I'd like to have you start with that.
         Dr. Arnold. Well, Representative, I work in a field where
    the openness is a great benefit. It causes all boats to rise.
    And it's not related to national security. So I see the huge
    benefits of having fully open science, and I don't worry about
    infiltration from China because, frankly, the talent of the
    students who come make that research go forward. On the other
    hand, I recognize that there are areas of research where
    perhaps the openness should not be as open, and I'll leave the
    answer to those who know that better.
         Mr. Babin. OK. Anybody else like to take a stab at it?
         Mr. Moniz. Go ahead, Farnam.
         Dr. Jahanian. I was just going to say that, as you said,
    that we need to preserve and enhance the research, education,
    and innovation ecosystem that has fueled our Nation's
    prosperity since World War II. This is a model that we know has
    worked, and it is not a surprise that others are trying to copy
    it. Having said that, your question is very profound, and it's
    really important. There are areas of research in which openness
    is so important to the long term success of our own science and
    discovery enterprise, but we also recognize that foreign
    influence in the form of intellectual property theft, cyber
    attack espionage, other broad-scale state-sponsored efforts are
    a direct threat to our Nation's security and economic
    prosperity. And it would be a mistake to think that this is
    only happening at universities. This is happening across the
    board, and we have to be ready for it.
         I can give you my assurance that academic institutions in
    this country, including Carnegie Mellon, my home institution,
    are taking significant steps to protect against these
    challenges when it's appropriate. Again, openness, as Professor
    Arnold mentioned, is so important to the research enterprise of
    this country that has served our national security and economic
    prosperity so well. As examples of things that we're doing,
    we're being very diligent in protecting against some of these
    challenges, in working with other institutions; working with,
    obviously, policymakers; building awareness; increasing
    coordination; training faculty and staff; reviewing
    collaborations, contracts, and foreign gifts; reviewing,
    updating, and enforcing conflict of interest policies;
    implementing foreign travel safeguards and protections;
    developing requirements and vetting them; and so on.
         We need to double down on what we do best: leading the
    world in innovation, creativity, and finding solutions to
    society's most pressing challenges. In fact, many international
    students that come here want to stay, and they contribute so
    significantly to the culture of our academic institutions and
    our entire Nation. Our research enterprise has been so
    successful because we are solving some of the most pressing
    challenges for society.
         So instead of hoping that others will lose, I think we
    need to double down in the belief that when we win, when
    America wins, the world wins. We need to continue to ensure
    that our Nation remains a welcoming place for those who want to
    maintain our competitiveness, be part of our society, and
    contribute to it. And also, that's part of the reason that I
    believe we should not retreat from global engagement. We
    shouldn't change how we do research. We must not cripple the
    engine that has delivered amazing benefits to the country,
    while recognizing that we do have challenges--in the private
    sector, and academic institutions, and the government.
         And the very final point I want to make is that the
    biggest threat to our economic prosperity and national security
    at this point in time is cybersecurity, without any doubt, the
    cyber threat to this country. We need to absolutely double down
    to deal with cyber issues. Thank you.
         Mr. Moniz. My----
         Mr. Babin [continuing]. Time.
         Mr. Moniz. My simple point was that we can't kill the
    golden goose, so we need to support the open system, but what
    we also need to do is to get the clock speed up from that basic
    research to the ultimate products so that it is, in fact, a
    material advantage to us to have that open fundamental research
    system.
         Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, and I'll yield back, Madam
    Chair.
         The Clerk. Mr. Bowman is next.
         Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
    to all of our witnesses providing testimony today. I would want
    us to maybe shift our paradigm a bit. It's good to think
    globally, but I also want us to think about the untapped and
    unlimited potential we have here in our country. I would
    propose that our golden goose is in our historically
    marginalized communities, our red lined communities, where we
    have historically underinvested in our schools and in our
    neighborhoods, particularly in our pre-K to 12 school system.
         And I'm so happy that so much of this conversation has
    focused on our pre-K to 12 school system because, you know,
    I've had the privilege of working in pre-K to 12 schools for 20
    years, in all Title I school districts, and I've worked in
    elementary, high school, and middle schools. I've been a middle
    school principal for over 10 years, and I could tell you that
    our kids are ready, willing, and able for more science and
    technology in the classroom, they're ready, willing, and able
    for more innovation. They are curious, they are collaborative,
    they are creative problem-solvers, and they are waiting for us,
    as the adults, to get our act together and bring them more
    curricula and instructional opportunities. So I think a focus
    on K to 12 with regard to science, with regard to arts--we
    spoke earlier about hands-on learning. Our kids are ready for
    all of this, and they're tired of the mundane, rudimentary
    education that we've been giving them for the last 20 years, so
    it's great to hear you all speak about the importance of K to
    12 education.
         Dr. Arnold, thank you so much for your testimony, and
    thank you for highlighting the difficulties that marginalized
    children face in pursuing STEM careers. For example, if they
    fall behind in math and science in middle school, as you
    mentioned. I recently proposed a green stimulus investment of
    $1.16 trillion over 10 years to make each of our public schools
    a healthy, zero carbon center of the community, and a big part
    of that vision is seeing our schools as living labs and putting
    our young people at the forefront of the sustainable energy
    transition. Given your work in biology, engineering, and green
    energy, I'm wondering if you could talk more about how solving
    the climate crisis is an opportunity to engage children on a
    deeper level here, to ignite their passion for learning across
    a variety of STEM fields, and to set them up for a variety of
    careers?
         Dr. Arnold. Representative Bowman, you've seen it with
    your own eyes, the children are passionate about making the
    world a better place, and they've always been, right? Remember
    how we were. Unfortunately, my generation is leaving them a
    world that doesn't look like a better place. We may be leaving
    behind a world that is worse in some ways than the one I
    entered, and I feel ashamed about that. I would like to see
    those children empowered--again, the word is empowerment--
    empowered to make decisions about the future, about their
    education, about their careers that will enable them to make a
    difference.
         Science and technology is an incredibly powerful way to do
    that, and that's what I tell the young people. They need to
    know that, through science and technology, they can make an
    impact on these major problems, and what better challenge than
    climate change? Because that touches everything.
         Mr. Bowman. So just a follow-up question, if I'm a teacher
    in a second grade classroom, and I want to introduce my
    students to the world of science to put them on a pathway
    toward solving the problems that we all know are pressing, not
    just climate change, but other problems as well, what is the
    best way I might do that, Dr. Arnold? And then others can chime
    in.
         Dr. Arnold. Well, I'm not sure I'm the best second grade
    teacher, but I have raised three sons who are all curious. I
    found that just taking them out and showing them the world. and
    not being afraid of it, teaches resilience, curiosity and
    willingness to test the unknown. We've--we tend to often imbue
    our children with fear rather than confidence, and fear of the
    future is not an effective way to instill creativity. So
    confidence, getting out into the world, making things happen,
    seeing things happen, getting out into nature, observing.
    Observing with your own eyes, building with your own hands,
    it's a very hands on thing, science is, so anything that can do
    that, get them out of the Zoom room, and out of the classroom,
    and into the real world helps.
         Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. Secretary Moniz, did you
    want to jump in with a quick response?
         Mr. Moniz. Well, I would just add that, again, I was not a
    second grade teacher, but my grandchildren are--have just gone
    through that phase, and I think the big thing is science is
    fun. Science is remarkable, and I think it goes back to what
    Norm said earlier, that's the teacher cadre that we need, that
    has the confidence, the interest, the excitement, to say, wow,
    you know, if we get these kids to see what science is about,
    remarkable stories, I think we'll get a new generation.
         Could I also add that I think it's very important, of
    course, the role of parents and mentors, et cetera, and on the
    climate side we are going through a big change in which people
    of our generation see with their own eyes that climate change
    is not only an issue for their children and grandchildren, it's
    for them too, because we are paying a lot. I mean, look, the
    recent Texas stuff would be an example of terrible results. And
    so maybe that will help the mentors also understand that this
    is important for the kids, to have that STEM education.
         Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you so much. I yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. Baird is next.
         Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
    Lucas, for having this important kind of a session. I've really
    enjoyed hearing from Mr. Augustine in the past, and again
    today, and I really appreciate all of the witnesses and their
    testimony. I think we've touched upon some very important
    things to help keep our country in a leadership role,
    particularly in STEM education, because it's so important to
    our future. It's becoming increasingly important, and a matter
    of national security. So with an institution like Purdue
    University in my district, and I might mention that they just
    recently was ranked fifth as the most innovative university in
    America by U.S. News and World Report, but I only mention that
    because they have the research part that's adjacent to the
    University. It really provides innovators the opportunity to
    take the information they get out of the lab and have a space
    to work, and be innovative, and develop their own company. So
    it really takes the lab research, and the results there, and
    puts it into practical application. And so I think that's
    really important to our growth and development in this country.
         I also really appreciate what Dr. Bera had to say, and
    also Representative Bowman had to say, regarding stimulating
    young kids, and utilizing their curiosity that was mentioned in
    order to do the pipeline and build a pipeline with young people
    that want to be in the STEM education. If you tell them that
    you want to make them STEM researchers and so on at a very
    young age, I'm not sure how excited they'd get about that. But
    what I have experienced in some of these facilities that I've
    seen, getting the hands-on, the opportunity to challenge
    themselves, and something exciting really does stimulate them,
    so I guess, Mr. Augustine, I'm going to start with you. By the
    way, I really appreciated having access to the ``Perils of
    Complacency,'' but would you care to elaborate on--are there
    other ways that we could stimulate these young kids? I'm
    thinking about Boy Scouts, the FFA, 4H, where they get that
    hands-on experience, that's already in place. What's your
    observations or experiences there, Mr. Augustine?
         Mr. Augustine. Well, thank you for that question. As a
    former President of the Boy Scouts, I appreciate the comment.
    They had merit badges in science, and aviation, and space, and
    you name it. There are many organizations outside of schools as
    you suggest that are doing wonderful work, and if it could be
    made available on a broader scale--I think of such things as
    the Challenger Center, I think of such things as FIRST
    Robotics, started by Dean Kaman. FIRST Robotics has a program
    that goes all the way from preschool through high school, and
    it starts out with a LEGO competition, building robots. And
    when you see these kids working on these things, they're so
    excited. It's unbelievable how they get into it. I think
    emphasis on these out of school things could be very, very
    important.
         I think there's another factor that gets into the
    preschool part of it. We're operating our science and
    technology enterprise with one hand tied behind our backs. And
    I say that because 58 percent of our college graduates are
    women, but only 19 percent of our Ph.D.'s in S&T are women. 40
    percent of the students in our pre-K through 12 public school
    system come from under-represented minorities. They produce 7
    percent of the Ph.D.'s in science and technology. If we could
    just get more of these young kids interested, keep them
    interested and excited, we could solve much of the problem we
    have with China. I think back to my own career. Who would have
    ever thought that a kid from Colorado would help put people on
    the Moon? This is exciting stuff. Thank you for your question.
         Mr. Baird. Absolutely, and you know, you talk about women
    in the STEM programs, Representative Stevens, and I see she's
    on here, we sponsored a bill way back in the last Congress that
    encouraged young women to get involved in the STEM program. I
    am sorry that I don't--I've got several other questions, but
    I'm out of time, and so I really appreciate the other witnesses
    and their testimony. I found a lot of interesting comments that
    you made, and I appreciate it. I yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. McNerney is next.
         Mr. McNerney. Well, first of all, I want to think the
    witnesses. Great testimony, and it's great to see you all in
    front of us today.
         Dr. Moniz, we have to focus on mitigation and adaptation
    for climate change, but is it now the time for serious
    investments in climate intervention, i.e. geoengineering
    research, so that we have that as an option in the future? You
    will need to----
         Mr. Moniz. Sorry, I was muted, I was muted. Yes, a very
    important question. First of all, let me make the--first of all
    a distinction. There's sometimes confusion, I don't mean in
    this Committee, but--between carbon dioxide removal and
    geoengineering. I think on the carbon dioxide removal we need a
    big push in this decade toward demonstration and deployment so
    that we can address legacy CO2 in the atmosphere and
    the oceans. Geoengineering gets into much more difficult
    issues. I personally support highly regulated R&D getting into
    perhaps localized demonstrations, but maybe we need a structure
    like NIH review boards, for example, to do that. I--to be
    perfectly blunt, I sure as hell hope we don't need it, but I
    think we have to do cautious and prudent investigations in case
    we need band-aids for a while as we address the core issues of
    mitigation.
         Mr. McNerney. Well, moving on to fusion, what do you think
    the state of affairs is with regard to fusion as a potential
    energy source, including low energy nuclear reactions?
         Mr. Moniz. OK, well, let me first declare that I'm on the
    board of one of the privately funded fusion companies in
    Southern California, in fact. The fusion--first of all, a lot
    of people are surprised that fusion has probably attracted--
    alternative fusion concepts has probably attracted $1-1/2
    billion of private capital. It's an unknown story, and that's
    happened because the progress is quite stunning. The company
    that I'm associated with, TAE, for example, put out a press
    release last week kind of admitting that we have reached stable
    temperatures approaching the 100 million degrees needed for DT
    fusion. At MIT there's a spinout that within months will be
    testing novel high temperature superconducting magnets that can
    make a compact tokamak design feasible.
         So we are--what I would say is in this decade we'll know
    if this dog hunts. And if it does, it is a big, big deal,
    because, of course, it doesn't have the challenges of fission,
    which is also doing remarkable things, remarkable innovation in
    advanced small fission reactors. But fusion would be an even
    greater breakthrough, and just change the--it would literally
    change the world.
         Mr. McNerney. Thanks. Yeah, I'm pretty excited about
    fusion too.
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah.
         Mr. McNerney. Dr. Jahanian, as co-Chair of the Artificial
    Intelligence Caucus, I want to make sure that we in Congress
    are taking the necessary steps to make sure our Nation stays
    competitive in AI. What metrics should we be examining in order
    to evaluate U.S. competitiveness in AI against significant
    players like China?
         Dr. Jahanian. Thank you very much for that question. As
    you know, advances in AI are probably among the most important
    developments in scientific discovery and innovation over the
    past probably quarter century, among a handful of others.
    Before I get to your question, I do want to highlight an
    important thing about AI, which is connected to basic research
    and importance of investing in foundational research.
         You know, we all look at AI and think that it just came to
    fruition overnight over the past few years. The truth is our
    Nation is leading it because for the past 40 to 50 years we
    have invested in foundational research that has led to
    artificial intelligence. And, in fact, some of the advances in
    machine learning, deep learning, and so on, have happened as a
    result of these major investments that the National Science
    Foundation, and then other mission-oriented agencies, including
    DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), DOE, and NIH
    have made in advancing AI. The importance of that is really
    something that I want to get across, because that 30 or 40
    years plus investment in research is now bearing fruit, and
    it's having impacts in various areas, as you know, from
    healthcare to manufacturing, in national intelligence, national
    defense, and so on.
         With respect to metrics, I think there are a number of
    them. One is we really do need to make sure that our production
    of talent in this country matches the pace and scale and scope
    of innovation that's needed. The second thing that's important
    is to look at the application of AI in various areas, as I
    mentioned, whether it's in healthcare, whether it's in
    manufacturing, whether it's in smart transportation, whether
    it's in energy and climate, and so on, and develop metrics
    around that to see the progress that we're making.
         The last point that I want to make is that we need to be
    very cognizant of what's happening in the rest of the world,
    and continue to out-innovate and outpace our competitors.
    Because of the importance of AI, we see massive investments, as
    others have alluded to, by our partners and competitors across
    the world, including China, so we can't take our eyes off the
    ball.
         Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, my time has expired. I'm
    embarrassed that I didn't get to ask a Nobel Prize winner a
    question in the Science Committee, but I'll submit something
    for the record. Thank you. I yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. Sessions is next.
         Mr. Sessions. Chairwoman Johnson, thank you very much, and
    our Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for doing this. To each of
    our three important people who are providing testimony today, I
    want to focus, if I can, on two issues. No. 1, I would like it
    to be said that if it's just a snapshot today, one would assume
    that we've been laggards and not paying attention to this issue
    for the past 15 years, when in fact we have, and we've done a
    number of things, including, as an example, the NIH, taking
    them on a 5-year model where we did not make them come up and
    beg under discretionary spending. We put them on mandatory. We
    gave them the money and said, ``Please come to us to keep us
    updated. Don't come to us to beg to get money'', and we did
    that. Second, we did right to try. We've done a number of
    things that have been very influential. We funded genome
    project years ago that would lead us to where Francis Collins
    is not today, but where he has been, that helped us at the time
    of the pandemic.
         So I would like for it to be noted in the record that for
    quite some period of time, between the Energy and Commerce, the
    Science Committee, and the Rules Committee that we pushed an
    aggressive agenda, including the Budget Committee, where we
    doubled--this is not a new term--doubled back in 1997 the NIH
    and other funding. Now, that said, thank you very much, we
    appreciate you being here.
         Dr. Moniz, this may be directed directly at you and
    Professor Augustine--Mr. Chairman Augustine. Please know that
    I've heard the discussion now about TAE, the company which Mr.
    Moniz, that you are affiliated with, and thank you very much,
    that is directly related to fusion. But another example I'd
    like to bring up is a company called Urenco, and Urenco is the
    world's leader from back in World War II of uranium enriched
    services. Urenco is, by and large, until they get pushed out of
    European countries that don't like atomic energy or fusion--
    they exist in New Mexico, and they are the world's leader, by
    far, in these uranium enriched services. Close to fusion, not
    the same thing, but they have to begin with the same product.
         My point to you, and question now, with 2 minutes left,
    and I apologize, although we just went through, with Mr.
    McNerney, a little bit extra time, I'd like for you to discuss
    why in the world would we pay our labs or people here to
    compete against someone like TAE and Urenco when they've
    already solved the problem, and they, because they're in a free
    enterprise system, are driven to making things better every
    day, why would we pay $50 million to Oak Ridge Labs to try and
    learn how to do what we already know? Mr. Moniz?
         Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Sessions. First of all, on the
    fusion side, I should say that if I just use the company that
    I'm affiliated with as an example, it's a partnership with the
    labs, actually, has also been very important because the
    Department of Energy has provided large-scale computational
    services. And that, together with a partnership with Google on
    machine learning, all these things come together for the
    progress, so it's really an ecosystem there.
         On the enrichment side, Urenco, as you said, is certainly
    the leader in the West for sure. If I may note, however, we
    have a, in my view, pressing need in the United States to
    deploy an American enrichment technology because that's the
    only way we can serve our national security needs, and those
    national security needs range from making tritium for the
    nuclear weapons stockpile, eventually to making fuel for
    nuclear propulsion, and, in the near term, producing what's
    called high assay LEU (low-enriched uranium), 20 percent,
    roughly speaking, enrichment in order to satisfy some non-
    proliferation objectives, and to support the innovation going
    on in fission because most of the new designs that are being--
    and many are supported by the Department of Energy--almost all
    of them require this so-called high assay LEU. So we need to
    focus on getting an American technology out there to meet our
    national security needs quite separate from competing in the
    commercial market.
         Mr. Sessions. Well, OK, so--but we go to SpaceX to get the
    commercial market for what we need for NASA and other things.
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah, well, the--I mean, the--this national
    security service could be provided by a commercial entity, as
    long as they are using American technology, and American
    equipment, and American uranium because all of that is required
    by our non-proliferation agreements.
         Mr. Sessions. Well, they're in New Mexico, and doing quite
    well. They're a----
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah.
         Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Big power organization. Look,
    I'm just trying to get the concept, not the specifics, but
    sometimes in the concept you have to use an example, and that's
    why I tried using an example, TAE. You gave a great answer. I
    will just go to the premise, Mr. Augustine, and Ms. Arnold. I'm
    not trying to ignore you at all, because I think you bring a
    lot of common sense as much as anything. Norm, you bring a lot
    of realistic ideas about specifics. Should we be funding,
    through the Federal Government, things where there already is a
    world leader in trying to understand it, as opposed to spinning
    off our limited--or lots of resources, but the limited
    resources of trying to compete, as opposed to go build
    something. I'm worried about the competitive model, about
    government against something that's already been solved. Norm?
         Mr. Augustine. Well, thank you for the questions. If I
    could go back to the first part of your comments, they were so
    important, your Committee has played a key role in trying to
    keep America ahead in science and technology, and I think
    what's happened over the years, the past dozen years or so you
    mentioned, is in one word China. China has come along so fast
    that that it has become a concern. Secondly, I think that
    regarding your second part of your comments, fusion is the
    ultimate answer to the energy problem for the world. And it's
    come very slowly, tough technical issues, but there are
    projects in being--progress being made.
         Turning to the issue of fission, which we tend to neglect,
    small modular reactors offer a great deal of promise, another
    new development. We have to pick and choose--there's no such
    thing as second place, if it's an area that's of critical
    importance to us. I would say microelectronics.
    Microelectronics are the heart of all modern technology, if you
    really get down to the fundamentals. But we build now only 14
    percent of the microelectronics in the world. Now, that might
    be an area where we would want to build up our own capability
    even though others have ample capacity. But there's no sense
    reproducing things that our allies, reliable allies, are
    producing. Thank you.
         Mr. Sessions. Ms. Arnold?
         Dr. Arnold. Thank you. I think that the general idea that
    you're putting forward is that we shouldn't reproduce what
    already is happening in private industry as long as it's
    happening well, and there are many examples where private
    industry is fully capable of developing the technology, and, in
    fact, better capable than a research laboratory would be doing,
    so I'm all in favor of that. But you also have to supply people
    to support those industries, so the education of those people
    is critical. No technology exists as a silo.
         Mr. Sessions. Well, and that's the last point--Chairwoman
    Johnson, I just would request 15 more seconds. And this is why
    we made permanent R&D tax credit, so that companies could go
    and plan it in their long term strategy, as opposed to
    ``worrying every year'', so I think we're going to get there.
    Chairwoman Johnson, thank you. Our three witnesses I find
    leading edge in the world, and I appreciate all three of them.
    Norm, thank you for your service to the Boy Scouts of America.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
         The Clerk. Mr. Foster is next.
         Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, especially to all our
    witnesses, for your great written testimony. I stayed up far
    too late last night getting through it all. There appears to be
    a real appetite right now on both sides of the aisle to
    increase Federal funding for scientific research. You know,
    this obviously could result in a fantastic opportunity to
    propel forward enormous advances in science and research
    nationally as a sort of second Sputnik-like moment.
         Now, some of those proposals involve significant--renaming
    and mission change in our scientific enterprises, while others
    see the existing structure as primarily sound, but historically
    under-resourced, and basically just want to increase the amount
    of money there. And I guess Secretary Moniz has mentioned this,
    and I just was wondering if we could go through the witnesses
    and ask what your thoughts are on this general area, whether
    the first priority is just ramping up the budgets for the
    existing program versus structural change in this. And I guess
    I--we'll start with Mr. Augustine, who was a practicing
    engineer during the first Sputnik moment.
         Mr. Augustine. Well, I was, and thank you. I think that
    both are important. Certainly if we don't increase the
    financial support for research from the Federal Government,
    we're going to be in trouble, and I say that because industry
    simply--the old Bell Labs, or the great places like that--Bell
    Labs a canonical place, the home of the laser, the transistor,
    nine Nobel Laureates, is now owned by a company in Finland. So
    the government is really going to be the funder of only source.
         You also point to another problem, and that is these three
    entities that are involved here, the Federal Government,
    academia, and industry, don't work together as well as they
    could. The reasons go all the way from excessive regulation to,
    frankly, some distrust of one another. And, having been at all
    three of those entities, I've found wonderful people, dedicated
    people, competent people, but there is a bit of distrust, and
    somehow we have to tie those organizations together so that one
    plus one plus one is seven, or something like that. I think we
    could do it. Thank you.
         Mr. Foster. Yeah. Yeah, Frances?
         Dr. Arnold. Thank you. I--so structure is important,
    right? Money is important, structure is important. Structure
    can also be destructive, so it has to be very carefully thought
    out how to put together a structure that fosters the
    creativity. I personally am a bottoms-up person. I believe that
    the creativity lies in individual PIs, individual
    entrepreneurs, and individual research scientists in companies,
    however, without the structure, much of that goes to waste. So
    I'm very interested in seeing how a structure will develop to
    make this seamless transition from discovery to getting it into
    the hands of people can best be formed.
         Mr. Foster. Yeah. Farnam? Whoops, you're not muted--you're
    still muted.
         Dr. Jahanian. Thank you for that question. There is no
    question that we need to increase investment in research in
    this country. It's indisputable, as I mentioned earlier. We see
    that our adversaries and our partners across the world are
    taking a page out of the recipe for success of our country. For
    the past 75 years these investments have made us enormously
    successful as a nation, and benefited the country in
    immeasurable ways, so we need to match the scale and the pace
    of the discovery with the investment that goes into it. The
    structure, as the other witnesses mention, is extremely
    important, and, again, it's because of the pace, scale, and
    scope of the discoveries and innovation that we need to be
    creative about new structures. However, forcing down certain
    structures on agencies has a significant risk associated with
    it. We have to be very deliberate about it, and in particular
    in the context of the National Science Foundation, since I
    understand NSF well, I think providing flexibility to NSF is
    going to be, in the long run, extremely important in ensuring
    that we cover the entire continuum.
         My final point is the reason we need the structure and the
    investment is the urgency of the moment, but we can't forget
    that the investment has to happen along this entire continuum.
    Thank you again for that question.
         Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I guess I'm out of time, but
    Ernie's already made his feelings known on this in his opening
    remarks, I guess, and my time is up, and----
         Mr. Moniz. I'm happy to add, but that's up to the Chair.
         Mr. Foster. OK. Well, if there are a few seconds left
    here, I'd just like to point out the merit in the sort of non-
    standard way that the Federal Government can invest in
    businesses to help them support research. An example of this
    was something NSF used to do called Moses, where they provided
    access to foundries, to universities, at a heavily subsidized
    rate, and I was sort of heartbroken to see that that seems to
    have stopped. But that's an example of Federal investment that
    would support something that's not profitable to the company,
    but very profitable to the long term health of our country,
    simply because businesses have advanced technology and
    capabilities that universities can't realistically have. And--
    --
         Mr. Moniz. If I may just note, of course, the National
    Laboratories of DOE provide these tremendous user facilities
    that serve about 30,000 scientists per year, an example of
    something that would be totally impractical for individual
    universities, or companies. If I may add on the first question
    that I agree with the need for more resources. We have too many
    examples where the number of good proposals to available funds
    is such a large ratio that the--those selected are almost
    random, by definition, given the pull. We need that, but on the
    structure side, again, I would repeat two things. One is I am
    very concerned about some discussions going on about NSF
    somehow being commercialization driven. I think that would be a
    major slippery slope to get onto. And, secondly, there are
    areas, let's say in the energy area, where we have
    organizations that were put together to address the issue of
    oil embargoes in the 1970's, and do not quite reflect the
    technology-driven directions we need for addressing something
    like climate change.
         Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I will yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. Meijer is next. Mr. Meijer, if you're
    ready, you're next. If not, Mr. Obernolte would be next.
         Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, and thank you to our
    witnesses. It's been an incredibly fascinating discussion on a
    very important topic. I'll direct my question to Dr. Arnold.
    And, Dr. Arnold, hello to my alma mater there in Pasadena. You,
    in your testimony, talked about the fact that portable
    fellowships would be a better way, perhaps, of investing in our
    future generation of talent, and I think that that's something
    I very much agree with, and something that I think would be a
    really interesting innovation, but I think it would cause some
    changes in disruption to the existing ecosystem that we have,
    where right now institutions, for better or for worse, kind of
    compete with each other for grant funding. And this would
    create an alternative system where institutions would compete
    with each other to attract these fellows. So can you talk a
    little bit about the pros and cons of shifting to that kind of
    a system? Because I find it a very interesting idea.
         Dr. Arnold. What a great question, Representative. I'm at
    an elite institution that competes fairly well for NSF fellows.
    So there exists a program that provides portable fellowships,
    and we compete very well. Some of the concern would be that all
    those portable fellowships will go only to those elite
    universities. But I don't think that will be the case. I think
    that we could triple, easily, the number of portable
    fellowships, and provide them more equitably than they are
    currently provided, and the students will choose the areas and
    the universities that meet their needs. These students know
    what the future will look like. These are the brightest
    students coming out of undergraduate institutions. They will
    create the future. They can choose whom to work for, which
    areas to work in, and so it really is a highly competitive way
    of distributing the funds.
         Research grants are also good, but that structure, again,
    is much more set in stone. So professors like I am, we've been
    in place for 40 years, and many of us tend to do some of the
    same things, and don't move as quickly as the younger
    generation does. So if you really want to promote innovation,
    give it to the young ones.
         Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you. I completely agree with
    you. In your written testimony I noticed that you also said
    that a lack of structure and hierarchy is key to promoting
    creativity, which is something I also agree with. You know,
    however, it has to be said that part of our job as legislators
    is to make sure that taxpayer funds are used for their intended
    purpose, and are used appropriately and wisely, and sometimes
    that's why we need hierarchy and structure. So, you know, when
    we get kind of, you know, these two ideas that are in tension
    with each other. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit
    about how that would relate to this idea of portable
    fellowships, because, you know, when we're talking about
    funding a student, and not funding a research project, we're
    really getting into more of an educational grant than a
    research grant. So how would we with these portable
    fellowships, how would we ensure that there's accountability?
         Dr. Arnold. Well, of course, those grants are actually
    administered through universities, and I'm sure President
    Farnam Jahanian can discuss this as well. They're administered
    through a university, so you will have the same level of
    oversight of how the funds are spent. But instead of dictating
    the research area and the specific project they might work on--
    which I don't think is the role of the government--if we are
    going to foster creativity, we have to let the young
    scientists, the students, make the choice. And with this
    mechanism you are also funding individual scientists through
    the votes of the students, whose careers depend on that.
         Mr. Obernolte. Sure. I agree with you. I think there's
    probably a happy medium there where we choose promising fellows
    in areas that we want to increase investment in, such as
    artificial intelligence, or nanotechnology, or nuclear energy,
    and then, you know, we trust that we've chosen good people, and
    that they're going to follow their passion, so I think there's
    probably, you know, some happy medium there. But I think----
         Dr. Arnold. That's a great idea.
         Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. It was a fascinating idea. I
    want to thank you for raising it, and thank you to all of our
    panelists. I think we all share a passion, as you do, for
    increasing investment in basic science in our country, and I
    want to thank you for being part of that effort. I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
         The Clerk. Ms. Ross is next.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, and this panel has been
    great. I'm from the Research Triangle area of North Carolina,
    and we have just amazing students there, and amazing
    institutions of higher education, and then, of course, a lot of
    innovation. I want to start out my remarks by highlighting an
    exceptional constituent of mine who is, I think, an example of
    innovation, and creativity, and drawing talent from other
    countries. Her name is Sepi Saidi, and she's a visionary leader
    in civil engineering, has a women-owned civil engineering firm.
    She is a champion of community service, went to NC State, and
    came to the United States from Iran, and contributed immensely
    to the STEM industry, and nurturing the next generation of
    engineers.
         I wanted to ask Dr. Jahanian, since you've had a similar
    experience to my constituent Sepi, coming from abroad, becoming
    an expert and a leader in your field, and in your testimony you
    talked about the U.S. needing to better facilitate the ability
    of international students who earn advanced degrees in the U.S.
    to stay here and add to our talent development. This is vital
    to the universities in my district, and to the highly
    innovative Research Triangle Park, where there's a real
    pipeline from the institutions of higher education directly
    into the park. What can you advise these students as they look
    to advance their careers? We've taken some steps already this
    Congress for Dreamers, and for documented Dreamers, who came
    with their parents on H-1B visas, but what can you tell them
    about how to navigate our current system for staying in this
    country and being able to contribute?
         Dr. Jahanian. Thank you so much for that question. And for
    sharing the story of a resident of your community, Sepi. I'm
    delighted to hear the stories. As you know, and I know other
    witnesses would attest to this, there are thousands, and
    thousands, and thousands of stories like this. International
    scholars make incomparable contributions to United States
    leadership in science, in innovation, in discovery, and many of
    them, the overwhelming majority of them, after they finish,
    want to stay here. In fact, you heard from Norm Augustine
    compelling data that 28 percent of U.S. STEM faculty were born
    overseas. Nearly half of the Fortune 500 companies were founded
    by immigrants and children of immigrants, including founders or
    co-founders of eBay, Google, and Moderna. These are amazing
    stories. Members of the National Academies are immigrants to
    this country.
         I'm just going to be very candid, because this is also
    personal to me: we invest in these students to come here. They
    become part of our society. We should do everything we can to
    keep them. I think that has benefited us, without any doubt,
    over the past 75 years, certainly in recent decades, and I
    think it's been a recipe for success for our Nation. And I
    think the more we do to facilitate not only their success, but
    to make it easy for them to stay in this country and continue
    to contribute to the vibrancy of the economy that's based on
    science, and innovation, and technology, the better.
         Students reach out to me, and I tell you, it's been
    stressful for many students, domestic as well as international
    students. COVID has had a dramatic impact on our students,
    their mental health, as well as on our doctoral students, in
    terms of the progress of their work. So in the short term I
    know all academic institutions are doing what we can to support
    our students across the board at all levels, but with respect
    to the international students I'll go out on a limb and say we
    should stamp a green card on these students' diplomas when they
    finish in these areas that we have critical needs, and let them
    go into society and contribute to the vibrancy of our economy,
    and they will continue to play a significant role in the
    progress that our Nation makes in addressing significant
    societal challenges, as well as in innovation that catalyzes
    our economy.
         I'm happy to take some of that offline and give advice to
    students in terms of how they navigate this, but, honestly, I
    think the responsibility is much more on us to create an
    environment to enable the success of all the students on our
    campuses. My humble recommendation to our policymakers is that
    we should make it easy for them to come and stay here. Thank
    you for that question.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you so much for your response, and we'll
    do the best we can. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. Feenstra is next.
         Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you to each one of the witnesses
    for their testimony, and sharing their extensive research and
    opinions with each one of us. I'm excited to be an original co-
    sponsor, with Ranking Member Lucas's SALSTA, which helps create
    a long term strategy for investment in basic research and
    infrastructure to protect the economic and national security of
    the United States, and I really am excited about that bill.
         I've got a question specifically directed for Dr.
    Augustine. Dr. Augustine, your publication on the perils and
    complacency, and your testimony mentions taxes and red tape
    regulations that hinder research and development carried out by
    universities, public and private partnerships. Can you expand
    on this a bit and explain which taxes or regulations are most
    limiting to this R&D, and then which would you advise reducing
    or removing entirely to prevent China from surpassing us in
    innovation?
         Mr. Augustine. Well, thank you for that question. We have
    built many roadblocks. I'm aware of one study that shows that
    40 percent of the time of our researchers is spent submitting
    reports, bidding on new projects, and administrative functions,
    as opposed to performing research, so that's a major thing.
    Another factor is the last time I was involved, the NIH awarded
    contracts to 17 percent of the qualified proposals they
    received, so in the rejection box there is an enormous amount
    of opportunity to be pursued.
         And turning to taxes, one of the problems industry faces
    is the issue that the tax structure discourages long term
    investments, and I have a rather radical proposal that I've
    been making for years with little impact. Industry takes a very
    short term view of the world. The pressure's on for the next
    quarter from the marketplace. My proposal is to change the
    capital gains tax--I should qualify here, I'm an engineer, not
    an economist, but I am a rocket scientist. I would make the
    proposal that the tax on a gain, on an asset that's
    appreciated, the tax on the appreciation--if the asset is held
    10 years, the tax should be one percent. If it's held one month
    or one day, the tax should be 99 percent. Then you could draw
    whatever line between them--whatever revenue you need. That
    would change the way industry would behave entirely.
         And I will just quickly tell a story that relates to this.
    When I was working in industry, our company decided to increase
    spending on research, and we sent the president of the company
    to Wall Street to tell what we were going to do because we were
    so excited about the opportunities we had in research. The
    audience from Wall Street literally got up and ran out of the
    room when our president finished talking, sold our stock, and
    our stock dropped 11 percent in four days. And we got the
    message, don't invest in research if you're in industry. The
    industry will invest in development, it has done so, but
    investing in research is not going to happen under today's tax
    laws and regulatory procedures. So thank you for the question.
         Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you for that information, Dr.
    Augustine. I just think it's so important that we have these
    public private partnerships, and we see that at our
    universities in the State of Iowa. And that's my last question
    I want to just quickly note, you know, private/public
    partnerships are crucial when it comes to American leadership
    in research and development, and one example in my district is
    the Critical Materials Institute, led by Ames Laboratory, which
    includes Iowa State University on its team. I'd imagine that
    the benefits and incentives that an academic institution
    assesses before agreeing to enter into a partnership would be
    different than those that a private industry assesses. Do both
    universities and private industries look for the same type of
    incentives to join these private/public partnerships, or
    there's differences? And I'd ask anybody on the panel that
    question. Any thoughts on that?
         Mr. Moniz. Well, yeah, I would just add, Congressman, for
    the specific example you put forward, I think right now there
    would be tremendous interest because the critical--critical
    minerals and metals, we are so far behind the eight ball on
    that it's crazy, in terms of the kind of supply chain focus
    that I mentioned in my statement that we need. So that's a
    critical example of bringing together public and private to
    address a serious supply chain issue, and raise some difficult
    questions. For example, can we develop environmentally sound
    mining to get back into domestic production? You know, the Ames
    Laboratory had a very, very critical role in the Manhattan
    Project, and that was based upon, of course, domestic mining,
    with different conditions than we need today. So that's a very,
    very important area, and the Ames Lab is doing a great job.
         Mr. Feenstra. Thank you so much, and thanks for the time.
    I yield back.
         The Clerk. Mr. Kildee is next.
         Mr. Kildee. Thank you, and I want to thank the Chairwoman
    for holding this hearing, and for really a stellar group of
    witnesses for your important, and I think really informative
    perspective, so thank you for your participation. Some of you
    know, because I mention it nearly every time I speak, that I
    come from Flint, Michigan, which, at the turn of the last
    century, was really one of the innovation capitals of the world
    related to the automotive industry. In Flint we helped put the
    world on wheels. If you drive around--in fact, if you drive
    around my hometown, you'll see streets named after some of
    these great innovators, Chevrolet, DuPont, who once was the
    president--Pierre DuPont, once the president of General Motors,
    Dort. But, of course, due to pretty dramatic changes,
    technology change, globalization, disparate impact of trade
    policy, Flint, like lots of other older industrial cities, has
    lost parts of our manufacturing base.
         But, you know, foundationally we have people with hard
    work, grit, determination. That's still intact, and we have
    access to great research universities. And Dr. Jahanian, you
    know one of them quite well, the University of Michigan. But,
    unfortunately, we haven't been able to make this connection to
    fully transition to the new economy, or especially to the new
    automotive industry. And I think, for example, we all know that
    electric and autonomous vehicles are the future of transit, of
    transportation and mobility, and it's important that we
    transition to these vehicles for safety, combatting climate
    change, improving mobility, et cetera, but in many ways we fear
    that much of the population is left out. So we can't stop this
    change, we don't want to stop this change, this is where the
    market is going, but I'm really curious about your perspective
    on how we make sure that we all share in this transition, in
    this transformation.
         I'm working on Federal policy to help target investments
    to these older industrial cities, and so in the space of
    innovation and invention, I'm curious about how you think those
    connections are made. So perhaps starting with Dr. Jahanian,
    because you make reference to Pittsburgh, and how it made this
    transition from a steel and mining town to one focused on
    robotics and AI, a real center of innovation. What are the
    lessons, at least from your perspective, that you think could
    be applied to other older industrial cities trying to make this
    connection?
         Dr. Jahanian. Thank you so much for that question, and
    there are so many layers to it. As I indicated in my testimony,
    one of the challenges we face in this country is that there is
    a widening opportunity gap, and that widening gap is
    exacerbated, in fact, by advances in technologies, by
    globalization, and barriers to access, and these are structural
    barriers to access and opportunity. I think it's an issue that
    many communities in the Nation face, and certainly I think
    Pittsburgh, long before I came here, was facing the same issue
    as a result of the decline of the steel industry.
         I think Pittsburgh is a great success story, and has come
    a long way as a result of doubling down in education and
    research, and connecting that to the private sector, and
    creating an ecosystem that is catalyzed by not only these
    technologies, such as AI, and robotics, and autonomous
    vehicles, as you mentioned, but also by the sciences, and in
    recent years, as a result of resurgence of advanced
    manufacturing. So it's been very intentional, but the
    connection between the public sector and the private sector,
    and creative public/private partnerships, have been extremely
    important. It's not a self-serving comment, but the role that
    the university can play in expanding what I refer to as the
    geography of U.S. innovation is undeniable. We have
    extraordinary concentration of intellectual capital and
    capacity for ideas and discoveries that has to permeate and
    involve the community.
         There's a lot more to say about this, but I want to
    acknowledge it's an important issue, and I think expanding this
    map would require us to make very targeted investment to create
    these innovation hubs around not just the universities, but
    also things that are adjacent to them, including incubation
    spaces, community and economic development entities that will
    essentially connect that technology transfer. It's not just the
    push from the university, but it's also the pull, and
    connecting all these pieces of the innovation ecosystem
    together. I hope that, at least at some level, scratches the
    surface in answering your question.
         Mr. Kildee. It's very helpful, I appreciate that. And I
    know my time's expired, but I do want to say that one of the
    weaknesses in communities such as this is that there has been
    an attrition in the public, and even in some of the business
    sector leadership because of the dramatic changes, and I think
    this is the space where academia can help fill some of that
    leadership capacity that's required. So, again, a great panel,
    I really appreciate all of your input, and I wish I had more
    time. I see Secretary Moniz might want to say something.
         Mr. Moniz. Could I add one comment? Which is that--just--
    as information for now, MIT and Harvard, with partners in
    Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, we are looking at a case study of
    the transition from internal combustion engines to EVs
    (electric vehicles), specifically in that area looking at how
    the communities and the workers can be brought along in the
    transition, through supply chains and other methods.
         Mr. Kildee. Well, I would certainly want to follow up with
    that--with you on that, so thank you for that. Again, excellent
    panel.
         The Clerk. Mr. Meijer is next.
         Mr. Meijer. Thank you, and thank you to our panelists for
    being here with us today. I represent Michigan's Third
    Congressional District. One of my predecessors, Vern Ehlers,
    sat on this Committee during his congressional tenure, and it
    was during that period that the first publication of ``Rising
    Above The Gathering Storm'' was published by the National
    Academies in 2007. So this congressionally requested report
    looked at improving K through 12 STEM education, developing and
    recruiting top students, engineers, and scientists from the
    U.S. and abroad, strengthening the Nation's commitment to
    funding basic research, and ensuring that the U.S. is the
    premier place in the world for innovation.
         That seems to be exactly where we are right now, and with
    similar sentiments, so I guess my question for Mr. Augustine,
    and the broader panel as well, you know, this 2000 report
    seemed to have recommended just about the same actions that
    we're discussing today, in broad terms, you know, 14 years
    later. So I guess what--this is a bit of a compound question,
    but what, if anything has changed, you know, how should we take
    action to respond to these broader questions of competitiveness
    posed by the countries that are emulating our research
    ecosystem, and have been robustly investing in R&D?
         Mr. Augustine. Yes, it's been about a dozen years ago that
    the first ``Gathering Storm'' report was prepared by the
    Academies, and, frankly, many of the problems that exist today
    are the same ones that we had pointed to at that time. There
    has been some progress made, much of it at the State and local
    level. I think there have been encouraging signs. The thing
    that we did not recognize when we prepared that report was the
    speed at which China would move forward. My first trip to China
    was 44 years ago, and I saw a few automobiles, every adult was
    wearing a Mao suit. And I've gone back every half dozen years
    and seen what they have done, and it's remarkable. That's
    really the new ingredient here, China.
         One recommendation that you provided me an opportunity to
    point to from the ``Gathering Storm'' report--or two, really--
    one was to increase the investment of basic research
    substantially. The other recommendation related to K through 12
    education, and had to do with a lack of teachers available to
    teach in STEM. Not to just teach from the book, but to excite
    the kids about discovery and innovation. And that
    recommendation, if I can state it properly after all these
    years, was that the Federal Government should fund 10,000
    competitively awarded scholarships to U.S. citizens to study
    science or engineering, with the agreement that they would
    teach at least 5 years at a public school after they received
    their degree. Today the average teacher only stays for 5 years,
    so the 5 year condition shouldn't worry us. Hopefully many of
    them would stay a lot longer than 5 years. And that would have
    a huge impact, I think, in enhancing our public school system.
    That probably was the most important recommendation of the
    ``Gathering Storm'' report that was not adopted, so thank you
    for the question.
         Mr. Meijer. Well, thank you. And I guess, you know, I
    appreciate you kind of filling in a little bit more on other
    opportunities we have to build on that. I certainly don't want
    us to be having the same conversation in another 14 years from
    now, talking about the same issues. But I guess I--you know,
    using that metaphor of the gathering storm, has that already
    passed, and are we in response/recovery mode right now because
    of that unforeseen, you know, explosion in R&D investment in
    China?
         Mr. Augustine. The rate of progress of science and
    technology is just so immense it's hard to describe. A friend
    of mine who ran Intel a few years ago told me that 90 percent
    of the revenues Intel receives on the last day of any year come
    from products that didn't even exist the first day of that same
    year. That's the kind of a race we're in. Whether we're a year
    ahead or a year behind, it's hard to tell. The one thing that's
    very clear is that we're in the process of losing, and that
    China's got long term solutions. They've got their 14th 5 year
    plan. They've made very clear where they're going, and this
    Committee has the opportunity, I think to help America get on
    that same foundation. One thing I would caution--what is needed
    is continuity of funding, and of activity, and of actions.
    We've been through the shot in the arm, the doubling of NIH,
    the ``shovel-ready'' at the beginning of the Great Recession,
    post-Sputnik. What we need is continuity over time, and that
    would be, I think, kind of my bottom line, so thank you.
         Mr. Meijer. Thank you. Could not agree more, and I yield
    back.
        Staff. Ms. Wild is next.
         Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. And I thank
    you, Madam Chairwoman. I really appreciate this very timely
    hearing. I represent a district in Pennsylvania, and I'm so
    proud of the many researchers and innovators at Pennsylvania's
    companies and universities. I have Lehigh University in my
    district, Pennsylvania 7, and it's one of those that are
    charting the future of a clean energy and an America that still
    leads the world technologically. And in the House, I also serve
    on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And as we confront
    significant threats from authoritarian governments around the
    world, I believe that collaboration with our democratic allies
    is a key to maintaining national and global security, and I
    think it has to include research collaboration that advances
    American innovation, and ensures international technology
    standards that reflect our democratic values.
         And beyond maintaining those alliances, I believe it would
    be advantageous to global interests, and to accelerating
    innovation, to cultivate research partnerships with emerging
    economies and democracies. So my question first for Mr.
    Augustine is, what role does the international standard-setting
    process play in encouraging innovation in critical
    technologies? And Part B of that question is what steps should
    our government take to encourage American industry and
    stakeholder participation in international standards
    development?
         Mr. Augustine. Another important question. China has
    recognized the impact of controlling the standards process. I
    would not argue that any one country should control the
    standards process, certainly it should be a collaborative
    effort to come up with standards. But it's a fact that to be
    first, and set the standards, puts you in the driver's seat, in
    terms of the marketplace. China is currently putting the effort
    in to be first in the standards area. That would be a
    significant topic for us to address. Of course, the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology plays an important role,
    as do organizations throughout the country that support NIST.
    Let's see. I forgot the second part of your question. What was
    Part B?
         Ms. Wild. The second part was just what steps should the
    government take to encourage our American industry and
    stakeholder participation in standards development.
         Mr. Augustine. Obviously, the government plays a leading
    role in this. Industry, I must confess, tends to be very self-
    serving, companies do, and I think that this is one of those
    roles that it takes government to kind of pull things together.
         So the beginning of your question, I think it was such an
    important point that the United States has one huge advantage
    over China, and that is our allies. We can work together with
    our allies, whether it's standard setting, or sharing research
    results, or educating each other's students--just as an
    example, if you take the United States and just two of its
    allies, Europe and Japan, they comprise a little over 50
    percent of the world's GDP. If you take China and its three
    putative allies, North Korea, Iran, and Russia, combined,
    they're 17 percent of the world's GDP. So one of our huge
    advantages is to work with our allies to build alliances. Share
    students, share teachers, share knowledge. And I'm so glad you
    raised the question.
         Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. Madam Chairwoman, I can't see
    the clock on the screen. I'm not sure if I have more time or
    not.
         Mr. Beyer. You have another minute, Susan.
         Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. I have a question for Dr.
    Moniz. Given your previous experience leading the Department of
    Energy, as we aim to develop and apply critical technologies to
    tackle global issues, how can policymakers leverage existing
    international research partnerships, and cultivate new ones,
    with emerging global economies?
         Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me first add one
    footnote, if I may, to the discussion you had with Norm, namely
    that from the other point of view, namely foreign relations and
    geopolitics, I think we've made a major error in dialing back
    on scientist to scientist collaboration with our adversaries.
    Because, during the cold war, for example, those relationships
    were absolutely critical when the, you know, Iron Curtain came
    down, in effect. So I think we need to use a lot more of that
    kind of collaboration as well for our own geopolitical and
    foreign policy objectives. In terms----
         Ms. Wild. Thank you for that perspective. I agree.
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah. In terms of the--your question, well,
    again, in the--if I stay to the energy arena, as I said
    earlier, we have a vehicle, frankly, we were the drivers of
    setting it up, the so-called mission innovation. It's not--it's
    24 countries, allies, and less clear perhaps in that spectrum
    there, all committed to increasing the innovation pipeline, all
    committed to collaboration. Every thrust is basically jointly
    led by countries, and some of it is surprising. For example,
    early on Mexico took the lead in mission innovation to work
    with the United States and Canada to set up high throughput
    novel materials by design for energy technology cooperation. We
    chair, with Saudi Arabia, an initiative on carbon capture and
    sequestration (CCS). But frankly, it needs more juice. And as I
    said, now, with a new administration, rejoining Paris, we
    should go in now and take the bull by the horns in terms of
    revitalizing and expanding mission innovation into new areas. I
    mentioned nuclear, I mentioned carbon dioxide removal, for
    example, but we have a----
         Ms. Wild. Thank you.
         Mr. Moniz [continuing]. We have an opportunity waiting for
    us.
         Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. I yield back.
         Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Mr. LaTurner is next.
         Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question's for
    everyone. I believe there's a need to prioritize federally
    funded basic research, which is one of the goals of SALSTA. I
    have concerns about the proposals coming from the
    administration and Senator Schumer that will most likely be
    funded through reconciliation as a one-time money dump at
    levels that aren't sustainable in the long term. You have all
    testified to the importance of basic research, but if you
    could, in just a few words, can you comment, each of you, on
    how long term sustained growth in basic research funding would
    help the U.S. remain the global leader in innovation, and the
    threats of volatile, unstable funding, the threats that
    unstable funding may have on the U.S. research enterprise?
         Mr. Augustine. I'll start, if we're going in alphabetical
    order, if that's all right. The----
         Mr. LaTurner. Thank you.
         Mr. Augustine. I'll speak of the importance of continuity
    of research and development. Most research projects, from the
    time they begin until they produce something in the
    marketplace, you're talking about--on the order of a decade.
    Some are faster, some are slower, but it's certainly not the
    next quarter, or the next year, or the year after that. One
    concern is having an adequate amount of funding, and the second
    is to sustain it over time, and either one without the other
    leaves a rather hollow core. It would be my strong opinion that
    we should commit to a long term sustaining of growth. That also
    sends a signal back to young people. When you get these spikes
    that disappear, and all of a sudden there are jobs then there
    are no jobs, young people see that, recognize it, and they say,
    ``That's not a field I want to go into because it's too
    turbulent.'' So that would be my comment, and I'll stop there
    so my colleagues have time.
         Mr. LaTurner. Thank you.
         Dr. Arnold. I agree. It's the volatility that's extremely
    harmful because, again, the best people have multiple choices,
    and they'll go to more stable or enjoyable careers. Basic
    research takes a real commitment to do it, and if the funding
    does not make an equal commitment, then we lose the best.
         Mr. LaTurner. Thank you.
         Mr. Moniz. Perhaps I will just add to that, that--and I
    won't repeat the volatility issue, but, as I said, I believe we
    need to really--you said prioritize. I think we really need to
    keep in mind the broad base of fundamental research as so
    important. Examples are myriad. I'll just mention one. GPS
    (Global Positioning System) is now so ubiquitous we hardly even
    talk about it anymore. Where did it come from? It came from
    people bringing together progress in communications, in
    satellites, and the atomic clock that was invented to test
    Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Nobody was planning on
    a GPS system when that happened. So we can afford it, and we,
    in fact, can't afford not to, in my view, support this broad
    base of fundamental research, even as we then advance in
    addition toward the use-inspired research that will spill out
    all over the place into commercial products.
         Dr. Jahanian. I'll be very brief. You know, the process of
    innovation discovery is often marked by long, unpredictable
    incubation periods between the initial scientific discovery and
    the societal and economic impact that we see. In fact,
    sustained investment in basic research is so important because
    we can't predict the outcome. Some of the most important
    discoveries that we have made that have made fundamental
    advances and contributions to the well-being of society, to our
    economic prosperity, were not intended initially, in their most
    foundational stage of investment, to have that outcome. It's
    the unpredictable, unanticipated outcomes that are a result of
    sustained investment that often have the most impact. We have
    seen this in a broad range of technologies and industries, from
    the internet, to semiconductor technologies, to advanced
    materials, to nanotechnologies, and so on. So for that reason I
    think sustained investment is very important.
         Secondly, I want to echo what Ernie Moniz said, which is
    that, while we're talking about foundational research, we need
    to understand that investment in the entire continuum has to
    continue. Furthermore, at this particular moment, there are a
    set of technologies that are pervasive, and they're having
    disproportionate impact on everything else, including AI,
    robotics, biotechnologies, and wireless, and so on, and we
    can't lose focus that those targeted investment have to happen
    in addition to the investments that we're making in all areas
    of scientific inquiry. Thank you again for that question.
         Mr. LaTurner. Thank you so much for all of your answers. I
    yield back.
         The Clerk. Mrs. Fletcher is next.
         Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much. Thank you to Chairwoman
    Johnson, and Ranking Member Lucas, for holding this hearing
    today, and thank you to the witnesses for testifying. I really
    appreciate your perspectives on our investment in our people,
    and in our research, and the things we need to do moving
    forward, and I also very much appreciate the important work
    that you do, Dr. Jahanian, Dr. Augustine, Dr. Arnold, you are
    an inspiration and a role model for many, especially the women
    in science who--many of whom live in my district, because I
    represent Houston, Texas, where we have a ton of innovation,
    and a ton of really critical research going forward. And, of
    course, I am focused, as they are, on energy innovation in
    particular.
         So I want to take the opportunity to start my questions
    with Dr. Moniz, and I really appreciate the comments that you
    just made, Dr. Moniz, about carbon capture, utilization,
    sequestration. I agree that that is really important. We passed
    important bills out of this Committee, and out of the House
    last year, trying to make sure that we are investing in that. I
    wanted to take this opportunity, while I have you here, to ask
    you a little bit about hydrogen, because hydrogen is currently
    enjoying unprecedented political and business private
    investment momentum, with the number of policies and projects
    in the world expanding, as I understand it, rapidly. Houston is
    home to 48 plants that extract hydrogen from natural gas, and
    produces more than a third of the United States' supply of
    hydrogen. Several sectors have concluded it's really important,
    and timely, and pertinent for the U.S. to scale up technologies
    and bring down costs to enable hydrogen to become more widely
    used. So I would love to get your thoughts on what further
    technology innovation is needed to bring down the cost of
    hydrogen, and specifically hydrogen produced from clean energy
    sources.
         Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Congresswoman. Hydrogen--we're--we
    are certainly very, very bullish on--as a very important
    innovation direction, and a reason for it, just to--I mean,
    you're aware, but perhaps others may not be, that--the thing is
    that hydrogen, in a certain sense, like natural gas, is--can
    play the role of a fuel in multiple sectors, from power, to
    industry, to transportation, and the like, so it could be--it
    could play an absolutely critical role.
         We think that there are many places in the country, and
    you'll be pleased that, of course, Texas is obviously one of
    them, where we can see major hubs developing around both
    hydrogen and CO2 management at the same time. And
    the reason for that is, while there is a lot of discussion
    about so-called green hydrogen, electrolysis of water, which we
    think will be playing an important role in the future,
    innovation is needed to both reduce the electrolyzer costs--
    it's like battery costs, et cetera, that have to come down in
    time--and innovation that will provide the electricity system
    to produce very, very low carbon, very inexpensive electricity
    to drive green hydrogen. But we believe there is also a major
    opportunity for blue hydrogen, which, as you said, is
    extracting hydrogen from methane, which is mostly hydrogen, but
    then capturing the carbon dioxide and sequestering it
    underground, where, of course, also Texas has got lots of
    experience. And right now blue hydrogen is certainly
    substantially less expensive than green hydrogen.
         So a big issue here is the co-development of the
    infrastructures for hydrogen utilization and for large-scale
    CO2 management. And Texas, and many other places, by
    the way, the upper Midwest, the Appalachian region, there are
    many places in the country with also heavy industry that can go
    clean in this direction.
         Mrs. Fletcher. Well, that's great. Thank you so much, Dr.
    Moniz. And if I can just follow up on that, because you
    mentioned sequestration, and kind of the Texas geology being,
    you know, particularly useful. There's another thing that I've
    been hearing lately about our geology, and I've got 30 seconds
    left, so I just will follow up with you on your thoughts about
    geothermal energy as well.
         Mr. Moniz. Well, geothermal energy, if it can be developed
    at scale, particularly so-called engineered geothermal systems,
    that has the enormous advantage of being a dispatchable
    renewable source, in contrast to wind and solar, where, of
    course, we have major storage issues that need to be handled,
    and reliability issues, grid integration issues because of the
    variability. But all of these can come together into a reliable
    and resilient system as we go forward. We need innovation. For
    example--OK, one more thing. In Texas, for example, we looked
    at wind resources for a year, hour by hour, and what we found
    were there were as many as nine days in a row with no wind,
    essentially, in the State. So that just reinforces we need not
    just batteries, but long duration storage and integration with
    other sources so that the system is always reliable and
    resilient.
         Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that. I agree, we need
    a diversity of fuel sources, and it's really important for us
    to understand the science of our energy, so I really appreciate
    you being here. I appreciate all of your testimony, and your
    written testimony. I've gone over my time, so I'm going to
    yield back, but thank you----
         Mr. Moniz. But I'm going to add one more thing. It's very
    important. Many of these approaches, CCS and engineered
    geothermal, what's very important, they will also draw upon the
    skillset of the oil and gas industry, and so this can be an
    enormous continuity of workforce issue as well. Sorry.
         Mrs. Fletcher. No, thank you, Dr. Moniz, and I yield back.
    Thank you.
         Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Lizzie, very much. I'm Don Beyer,
    and I'm batting cleanup, but first I want to thank all of you
    for hanging in there for 3 hours. I hope you're at your home or
    your office, but you've been very patient, and very brave and
    resilient. And let me just begin--Dr. Arnold, you--I'm going to
    quote from your testimony. You said, ``It was easier, however,
    35 years ago to start a career in academic research. We didn't
    spend 2/3 of our time at department meetings, writing
    proposals, or making''--``we were complying with regulations.
    Instead, we focused on''--``that has degraded.'' Why, or how do
    we fix--how do we reform the university? Because this is not
    the first I've heard that complaint, that you spend all your
    time in committee hearings.
         Dr. Arnold. Yes. Well, it's not entirely university's
    fault, right? The size of the typical grant from the National
    Science Foundation, for which I am hugely grateful, supports at
    most one student, and often research group have several
    students, so that means that, with these very small grants,
    we're always just writing. And then with--along with each
    grant, the compliance is very complex. Financial compliance,
    research integrity, everything is very complex, and we often
    don't have a lot of support. So the university can help by
    providing the support, but, of course, that's complex for the
    university, and expensive. We're--we end up doing a lot of
    things we're not very good at, and it way--and it uses our time
    in a way that takes us away from our chief mission. There has
    to be some better distribution of some of these
    responsibilities.
         Mr. Beyer. OK. By the way, we're all very proud of you, as
    the first woman to--first American woman to win the Nobel in
    Chemistry. It's very cool, inspiration to my three daughters.
         And I really want to thank Mr. Augustine and Dr. Moniz for
    your leadership on fusion energy. We've actually stood up a
    bipartisan fusion energy caucus here on the hill. Had a couple
    meetings already. And, Dr. Moniz especially--when I talked to
    my pals at MIT, they said fusion energy, which has been 25 to
    50 years away every year for the rest of our lives, is now
    maybe 5 years away. And the National Academy of Sciences--or
    National Academy came two weeks ago and said, you know, the
    first power plant could be ready by 2035. And yet our private
    sector folks, people like Key A and Conwell Fusion think must
    faster. Where what--what's--where's reality lie, in terms of
    commercial delivery of fusion?
         Mr. Moniz. Well, first of all, I think the--as I said
    earlier, the 5 years which are being quoted by those two
    companies, and by other companies as well, with novel fusion
    approaches, it really is that within 5 years we think that
    the--we'll have an answer, yes or no, that the scientific
    challenges required for a fusion power plant will be resolved.
    If that is resolved--we're optimistic, but if it's resolved
    positively, I think it's--personally, and some of my colleagues
    on the board may argue with me, but I think it's--in the real
    world it's got to be at least 10 years to go through the
    engineering, the licensing, the building, the capital raise, to
    get a power plant.
         But if we have power plants based on that technology that
    are coming out in 2035, or even 2040, it is a just--as I said
    earlier, a total game changer for where we go with clean
    electricity, including a game changer on how you would design
    the grid infrastructure. Because having a large number of very
    small footprint, high output dispatchable low carbon power is
    very, very different system design to having, you know, very,
    very low energy density spread out far from load technology. So
    it's going to be----
         Mr. Beyer. So----
         Mr. Moniz [continuing]. It's going to be interesting.
         Mr. Beyer. So it would all have to be in Texas, right?
    So--but the other piece of this--I can talk to you--I've got a
    bill on air capture, you know, of carbon, and of course the
    dilemma there is we have to turn it into a refundable tax
    credit because there's not much you can do with it. We're
    basically going to have to pay the private sector to take it
    out. So what I'm told is that the only energy source as
    plausible to pull the carbon out of the air is going to be
    fusion.
         Mr. Moniz. Well, I don't know. We'll see about that. There
    are many other approaches going. What I would like to
    emphasize, Congressman, is that direct air capture is one of
    many, many routes towards removing CO2 from the
    atmosphere, including terrestrial approaches. Some of them
    involve biology, like new plants with very, very deep root
    systems. The Salk Institute actually is developing that kind of
    technology. Mineralization technologies. There's really a big
    portfolio, and I--what I would urge is significant support
    across this broad portfolio. We estimated that roughly $10
    billion over a decade would bring a huge number of those
    different technology pathways to commercialization in a decade.
         Mr. Beyer. So I--this is good time for a shoutout for the
    Land Institute in Salina, Kansas that's working on food sources
    for perennial plants, so you----
         Mr. Moniz. Uh-huh.
         Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Get those deep roots----
         Mr. Moniz. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
         Mr. Beyer. And one last comment. I know my--Jake LaTurner,
    the Congressman, brought up the idea of the long term
    commitment to research funding, so it doesn't go up and down.
    And, of course, we hear from the National Science Foundation,
    NIH, et cetera, the shrinking number of excellent projects that
    are approved because of this. The only way to--since one
    Congress can't commit the next Congress, the only way to do
    this is through so-called mandatory spending. Dr. Moniz, you
    were a lead bureaucrat, Secretary of Energy, how do you think
    we could actually get mandatory spending for R&D into the
    budget?
         Mr. Moniz. That was a pejorative description of my job,
    but--no--well, let--I mean, I'll just speak again from the
    energy area, there are a variety of ways it's been done. For
    example, about 15 years ago, maybe, there was a--Congress
    approved for 10 years a fraction of oil and gas royalties paid
    to the Federal Government would go into an R&D program for--in
    that case for unconventional natural gas. So there's an example
    of the kind of thing which could be done. Earlier there was
    also a discussion of--for example, if you--as one example, if
    you had a one mil per kilowatt hour charge on all electricity
    delivery going into R&D to manage CO2, that would be
    $4 billion a year. One mil per kilowatt hour, which would be,
    you know, well underneath the fluctuations in the electricity
    bill. So I think there's--I'd love to talk with you, if there
    are some options for moving legislatively to create a mandatory
    funding stream, for energy and for other areas.
         Mr. Beyer. Thanks. We've been working for a number of
    years on just a House resolution, which is a sense of Congress,
    that is should increase 4 percent per year.
         Mr. Moniz. So----
         Mr. Beyer. We will definitely----
         Mr. Moniz. OK.
         Mr. Beyer. Well, look, it's one o'clock. I'm so grateful
    for you guys. I think you've heard from Democrat and Republican
    for the last 3 hours how fascinating this has been, and I could
    take another hour, but I'm not allowed to. So I just want to
    formally say that we bring this hearing to the close, that we
    very much thank you for your testimony, for all your wisdom,
    for your experience. The record will remain open for two weeks
    for additional statements from Members, and for any additional
    questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. And, with
    that, with my Zoom gavel, I declare this hearing over. Thank
    you very----
         Mr. Moniz. Thank you all.
         Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
         [Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                [all]