[Senate Hearing 117-841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-841
 
                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING 
                      ON THE ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 14, 2021

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
       
       
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
       
       
       
       

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS              
                            FIRST SESSION
                            
                            
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-870 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024 
                  
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            


                             
                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                    David Strickland, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on April 14, 2021...................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     4
Statement of Senator Young.......................................     6
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    41
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    45
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    47
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    51
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    53
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    57
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    58
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    61
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    63
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    65
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    67
Statement of Senator Scott.......................................    70
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    72
    Letter dated April 13, 2021 to Hon. Joe Manchin and Hon. John 
      Barrasso from the National Laboratory Directors' Council 
      (NLDC)--comprised of the directors of the seventeen 
      Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories...........    74
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    79
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    80
Statement of Senator Warnock.....................................    82
Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    84

                               Witnesses

Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of Meteorology and 
  Weathernews Chair Emeritus, Roger and Sherry Teigen 
  Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma.................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D., Charles and Jill Fischer Provost, 
  Professor of Applied and Computational Mathematics and 
  Statistics, Director of the Children's Environmental Health 
  Initiative, University of Notre Dame...........................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice President, Mississippi 
  State University...............................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
Linden Rhoads, General Manager, The W Fund.......................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
Dr. Gary D. Butler, Chairman and CEO, Camgian....................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
William B. Bonvillian, Senior Director, Special Projects, MIT 
  Office of Open Learning and MIT Lecturer.......................    34
    Prepared statement...........................................    36

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Kelvin K. 
  Droegemeier by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    87
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    88
Response to written questions submitted to Marie Lynn Miranda, 
  Ph.D. by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    89
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    92
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    93
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. David Shaw by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    94
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    95
Response to written questions submitted to William B. Bonvillian 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    95


                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING 
                      ON THE ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Rosen, 
Lujan, Warnock, Wicker, Thune, Cruz, Fischer, Blackburn, Young, 
Lee, Scott, and Lummis.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Chair Cantwell. Well, good morning, everyone. The Senate 
Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to 
order. Today we have an exciting hearing, I believe, on the 
future of America's competitiveness when it comes to research 
and development. And how we move forward on research and 
development to tech transfer and the most successful strategies 
of that.
    We are honored to have a very distinguished panel in front 
of us and joining us virtually. The Honorable Kevin 
Droegemeier, Regents Professor, University of Oklahoma, and 
former Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
and former Acting Director of NSF for Norman Oklahoma, welcome.
    Welcome to Dr. Marie Lynn Miranda, Provost of the 
University of Notre Dame. Thank you so much for joining us here 
and for your work on so many fronts, but particularly on 
leading and making our homes and children safer. We so 
appreciate that.
    Dr. Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice President, Mississippi 
State University, welcome to you and thank you. We look forward 
to your comments. We put the provosts in the middle, so OK, you 
can--you can--you can be global and specific at the same time. 
So, we appreciate that. The provosts are, like, the most 
important people on the university campus. Everybody wants to 
get a message in to the provost. What are you going to focus 
on? So, we appreciate it.
    We are joined virtually by Linden Rhoads, General Manager 
of the W Fund, Seattle. And, Linden, I so appreciate you 
joining us today. I am so excited for everyone to hear your 
testimony and the success that the University of Washington has 
had on tech transfer by being innovative over the last decade.
    We are joined by Dr. Gary Butler, Chief Executive Officer 
of Camgian in Starkville, Mississippi. And it has been great to 
have a few moments to hear about your success in the AI field 
and look forward to more comments.
    And welcome to Bill Bonvillian, who is also joining us 
remotely, from MIT's Office of Open Learning in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts where also servesas a Senior Director. I am sure 
he has a lot to say about this legislation that has been 
previewed a year ago, the Endless Frontiers Act, and I think is 
still being worked on by our colleagues. But, nonetheless, this 
is the stimulus for a very big debate about America's 
competitiveness as it relates to research and development and, 
as I said, commercialization and the tech transfer process.
    So, no doubt, even without that, it would be a good time to 
dust off this discussion. And clearly, with our history as a 
committee on the America COMPETES and COMPETES Reauthorization 
Act, we can see a little bit of retrospective of how well, or 
how well we did not do, on authorizations and appropriations 
trying to do similar things. Basically, we will look at 
building and analyzing the ecosystem in which R&D and tech 
transfer is conducted in the United States of America.
    So, today we are here to talk about America's 
competitiveness and that business competition. And as I 
mentioned, we have a talented list of witnesses here. We know 
that we, importantly, do Federal funded research. And between 
1996 and 2015, federally funded research led to over $1 
trillion in economic growth, and millions of new jobs. Now, I 
do not know if we are like a venture capital startup, where 1 
in 13 are successful. I do not know. But we know that federally 
funded research, when it comes to even the original R&D done, 
that was then commercialized with Mozilla, out of the 
University of Illinois, was a big enough success with the 
Internet technology, by just some research on how to connect 
every computer with, you know, hypertext links. This was 
unbelievable and unleashing. So, it should not be lost on 
anyone that sometimes with R&D, you just never know what the 
big breakthrough is going to be.
    Today, Federal investment in research and development is at 
its lowest point in 45 years, when measured against the GDP. It 
has been essentially flat over the past two decades, with 
adjustments for inflation. And this comes as international 
competition is increasing, and other nations are ready to 
challenge our position on the world's innovation stage. So, 
since 2000, global R&D spending has risen more than 200 
percent. To me, you have to take that into consideration with 
where we are. While the United States has certainly contributed 
to that growth, we only spend about 2.8 percent of GDP on 
research and development, less that some of the big economies 
like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
    So, Congress has looked at this issue before. As I 
mentioned, in the COMPETES Acts of 2017 and 2010, we authorized 
$80 billion in spending across multiple science agencies. And 
while COMPETES was successful in launching various initiatives, 
I believe the Advanced Research Project, ARPA-E program, which 
for me, being a member of the DOE committee and with Washington 
being the home to the very prominent Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory, I can tell you those monies went to good use and 
helped us in growing very important, what I would say, 
solutions to some of our thorniest problems. These include 
investments in battery technology, how to get intermittent 
power onto the grid, and leadership in cybersecurity detection 
on the nuclear weapons front. So, anyway, lots of great work 
being done there.
    Even today, NSF has not fully achieved that funding level 
that we imagined in America COMPETES. So, Senator Wicker and 
other members of the Committee, I think one of the fundamental 
questions for us is what our committee can do to bolster the 
confidence of our appropriation allies, that these are the 
right levels of investment and should be adhered to. And so, I 
hope that we can do that.
    So, I know that many of the witnesses today, Mr. 
Droegemeier, Mr. Bonvillian, will point these important issues 
out. But I really love the underlying theme in a lot of the 
testimony in front of us, both about decentralization and how 
universities play such a key role in, I think, a distributed 
network of R&D that already exists in the United States. And we 
should be playing off of that. But also, Mr. Droegemeier and 
Dr. Miranda, you know about the need for collaboration and the 
ways to build better aspects of collaboration within these 
communities and these frameworks. Because, as one noted author 
said, ``Collaboration is the next phase of innovation''. You 
can have all the innovation in an information age and all the 
information, but if you do not collaborate to get it 
implemented, then you are not going to innovate. So, I hope 
that we can keep moving forward.
    We know that women and minorities are underrepresented in 
this area. Dr. Miranda will help address this today, that we 
need more representation in STEM. In 2019, women made up 48 
percent of workers, but only 27 percent of STEM workers. And as 
noted, COVID-19 made that challenging, because many of these 
women were also the caregivers in their families. So, how do 
you be a caregiver and a researcher at the same time? Very 
complicated. And one research paper said that women's research 
has fallen 19 percent during this pandemic. So, we know that we 
have been very affected by this.
    So, I want to point out that, you know, Washington--Seattle 
is probably one of the leading innovation centers in the United 
States. But I also think that they are becoming students of 
innovation itself. That is, I think there is an NSF grant the 
University of Washington is looking at related to some of the 
successes Rose-Hulman has made in, what I would call, fee-for-
service innovation. Rose-Hulman has figured out how to create 
an engineering and customer service-oriented success. As we are 
going to hear from the University of Washington today, we will 
hear how you can take an already very plump research budget and 
get more out of it by changing the tech transfer system that we 
have at universities. So, there will be a lot to digest today 
on this front. And so, I look very much forward to hearing the 
discussion from our witnesses and from our colleagues today.
    I just want to point out, there are a few things that I 
personally think that we need to be concerned about. We 
definitely need to make sure we are making investments in not 
only R&D but our STEM workforce--building up R&D without the 
STEM workforce component will be a mistake. We need the 
workforce. The best research cannot be implemented if we do not 
have the workforce. And clearly, we are still seeing a shortage 
in the STEM workforce.
    Second, I want to make sure that we continue to think of 
ourselves as a capitalist country, in how there is nothing 
better than to put the right money into the right research when 
capital is on the line. I can tell you this is important in 
aerospace and in other forms of computer science, as we compete 
against other nations. The fact that we have capital markets 
funding the investment creates a level of due diligence that 
gets us to success. So, I am not saying that any of this is a 
planned economy strategy. But to the degree that we veer off 
toward that, I am going to bring us back to something that 
really focuses on America's capitalism because that has driven 
more success, and more innovation, I believe.
    And so, thank you so much and we will look forward to 
hearing the witnesses. So, with that, Ranking Member Wicker.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. And amen, and amen. And here I am getting 
feedback. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for that very 
comprehensive opening statement. I welcome our witnesses and 
guests today, as the Committee considers the concept of an 
Endless Frontier Act, as well as our Nation's innovation 
ecosystem.
    Investments in science and technology drive economic growth 
with job creation. America leads the world in science and 
technology because of our strong innovation ecosystem, which 
includes roles for government, institutions of higher learning, 
and industry, as the Chair just pointed out. Maintaining our 
edge against rising global competition requires continued 
support for all components of the Nation's science and 
technology enterprise. China, in particular, is quickly 
becoming a self-reliant technology power, threatening America's 
global dominance in advanced industries and technology.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for witnesses to discuss 
how Congress can advance the innovation ecosystem to ensure the 
United States remains a leader in science and technology.
    Basic research fuels technology development and innovation 
for every industrial sector. Today's hearing will consider one 
approach to strengthen technology investments through the, yet 
to be introduced, Endless Frontier Act.
    The major structural changes to the National Science 
Foundation contemplated in this proposed legislation should not 
detract from the agency's core mission of advancing basic 
scientific knowledge. NSF is the worldwide gold standard for 
basic research agencies, with 236 Nobel Prizes won by NSF 
funded researchers.
    Congress should also ensure that we avoid duplicating R&D 
missions of other Federal agencies, dozens of which invest in 
basic and applied research and technology development. Whatever 
we enact should contain sufficient guardrails to protect the 
NSF's core mission and coordinate properly with other 
departments and agencies.
    It appears the intent behind this legislation is to help 
America compete with China. But let me suggest, we will not 
beat China by copying its strategy. China is betting that an 
ambitious, top-down program of applied research and investment, 
along with subsidies for technology companies, will produce 
global dominance in key technology areas, yielding both civil 
and military uses.
    Strategic investments in technologies and supply chains are 
important, but we will not win by simply throwing money at the 
problem. We could actually end up doing harm if recipients of 
funding through this concept, lack the capacity and capability 
to conduct R&D activities that are actually useful.
    We also need to guard the fruits of our R&D system by 
preventing China from stealing American research and 
technology. So far as I can tell, the proposed bill does not 
include any provisions to bolster research security and 
integrity, particularly at our universities. So, we are going 
to need to address that.
    Competing with China means leveraging the talent, 
expertise, and capabilities found across our entire nation. 
Presently, about half of all Federal research funding in 
science and technology ends up at only six states. 
Unfortunately, this uneven distribution has changed little over 
the decades. Since we have not actually seen complete bill 
language, it is not clear to me that the Endless Frontier Act 
will go far enough to change this paradigm. Future strength of 
our innovation sector requires that we provide opportunities 
for all Americans, regardless of where they may live, work, or 
attend school.
    And the distinguished Chair just mentioned disparities and 
opportunities for young women. I think one of our distinguished 
witnesses will mention disparities and opportunities for 
African American college students at the undergraduate and 
graduate level.
    Today, I have the privilege of introducing two 
Mississippians who have important perspectives on the 
scientific ecosystem. Dr. David Shaw is Provost and Executive 
Director at Mississippi State University. For decades he has 
been at the forefront of the nexus between Federal research, 
universities, and economic development. I look forward to 
hearing his insights on how to grow STEM talent in 
underrepresented states and ensure an equitable distribution of 
science funding across states and institutions.
    Dr. Gary Butler is CEO of Camgian, a leading technology 
company in Mississippi. Camgian builds and sells products to 
the government and private sector based on cutting-edge 
research. Dr. Butler can provide insights on the important role 
industry plays in bridging the valley of death that exists 
between research and commercialization.
    Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the Endless 
Frontier Act is to be part of a larger China package envisioned 
by the leadership. I hope we can continue the Committee's 
bipartisan tradition of considering the consensus science and 
technology related legislation. It is worth asking whether 
President Biden's recent $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal 
would spend hundreds of billions of dollars for many of the new 
or modified programs that would be authorized in an Endless 
Frontier Act. Authorization and appropriations, of course, 
should be done in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues 
to work with me to build consensus on this China proposal in a 
deliberative manner and make sure we get it right.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important hearing 
and I look forward to a great discussion.
    Chair Cantwell. Well, thank you, Senator Wicker, and I 
certainly plan on working in a bipartisan fashion, on both 
authorization and appropriation. I know we have two of our 
colleagues who have been doing that for a year, Senator Young 
and Senator Schumer. And we appreciate their hard work on that. 
And so, I agree. I do not think there is anything--well, there 
is an R&D here, but it is not the Republican and Democrat. It 
is--Research and Development is really a bipartisan issue.
    So, Senator Young, did you want to make further comment in 
introducing Dr. Miranda? And again, thank you, to you and 
Senator Schumer for your leadership.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank 
the Ranking Member. This is such an important hearing to hold. 
And I especially want to thank Madam Chair for doing some field 
research in my home state of Indiana, in preparation for this 
hearing. Drawing on the insights, for example, of Rose-Hulman, 
that is doing some ground-breaking work in how we fund 
research.
    But I am honored to be introducing Dr. Marie Lynn Miranda. 
And honored, also, that she is here to lend her support and 
endorsement of the Endless Frontier Act. Indiana's expertise in 
science and technology is extensive and often underappreciated, 
and we aim to change that. Dr. Miranda's leadership at one of 
our most distinguished institutions of higher education, is 
indicative of that. And her joining us today is proof of the 
importance of this issue in particular, of ensuring that the 
United States of America, outgrows, out innovates, and out 
competes the People's Republic of China. Using our unique 
system, our existing assets, harnessing talent across the 
country geographically, drawing from different genders, and 
races, and ethnicities, and using our native creativity.
    The doctor is the Charles and Jill Fischer Provost at the 
University of Notre Dame. Before coming to South Bend, Indiana, 
Dr. Miranda was a Provost and Professor at Rice University, 
where she oversaw $230 million in investments. She graduated 
Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude from Duke University, where she 
later served two decades on the faculty. She also holds a 
master's degree from Harvard, where she held a National Science 
Foundation graduate research fellowship. So, she is intimately 
familiar with the subject matter here today.
    Dr. Miranda's resume is remarkable and her accomplishments 
are countless. But beyond this, the reason her support is so 
critical to the Endless Frontier Act, and to American 
innovation more broadly, can be seen in the Children's 
Environmental Health Initiative, of which she is the Founding 
Director, commendably. The program uses research and data 
collection to better understand and address environmental 
impacts on at-risk children. Applying science and technology, 
not just to enhance America's competitiveness, or advance 
America's interest, but to also meet pressing challenges at 
home and abroad. This is the innovation that the Endless 
Frontier Act has the potential to inspire.
    Now, we are not attempting to prove that what, you know, 
works in theory might work in practice. We have economic 
history to draw upon. We have economic history to draw upon. 
So, over the course of the hearing today, I look forward to 
drawing, not just on abstract theories or long-standing 
chibalis or talking points, but also, the history of some of 
these clusters, that do disproportionately draw the bulk of our 
venture capital in this country. Discussing why they may draw 
that disproportionate share of venture capital, in discussing 
how we could, indeed, harness the untapped potential of regular 
Americans across this great land.
    So, Dr. Miranda, I welcome you. I thank you, again, for 
participating in the hearing today, and I look forward to your 
testimony.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Young. And so, let us 
get at it. Dr. Droegemeier, we are going to start with you. 
Again, welcome to all the witnesses, and we know that you have 
submitted longer statements. If you could keep to 5 minutes, we 
so appreciate it, so we can get questions from members. So, 
again, welcome, Dr. Droegemeier.

 STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER, REGENTS' PROFESSOR OF 
 METEOROLOGY AND WEATHERNEWS CHAIR EMERITUS, ROGER AND SHERRY 
     TEIGEN PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

    Dr. Droegemeier. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, thank you so 
much. Ranking Member Wicker and members of the Committee, it is 
a great privilege to be here testifying before you today on the 
Endless Frontier Act. I am also grateful to the Majority and 
Minority staff and the great support that they provided in 
preparing for the hearing.
    You know, America has an absolutely amazing science, 
technology, research, education, and innovation ecosystem 
consisting of four important sectors--the Federal Government, 
colleges and universities, for profit private companies, and 
non-profit organizations. When they join forces toward 
achieving common goals on specific problems, America sees a 
whole that is far greater than the sum of the individual parts. 
In my personal view, this particular point, along with 
increased funding is the--the key for unlocking transformation 
in American science technology. And Chair Cantwell mentioned 
this very point about collaboration.
    We saw several examples of this in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic and the beneficial results absolutely speak for 
themselves. And as Ranking Member Wicker mentioned, research 
security and balancing the appropriate protection of our 
research assets, with providing the open collaborative 
environment needed for advancing American science technology is 
very, very important.
    Now, with regard to NSF in particular, successes it has 
enabled over the more than seven decades it has been in 
existence, they are well known. But in fact, it has been mostly 
underfunded for many years, as Chair Cantwell pointed out. So, 
my first point is at redressing years of failed attempts to 
increase the NSF budget is a national imperative for American 
competitiveness.
    Second, NSF foundational mission is one of supporting 
curiosity-based research, and this should not change. However, 
this research can in fact be augmented with additional use 
inspired research which, in fact, NSF already funds in many 
disciplines, but that is targeted to specific technology 
domains that enhance America's competitiveness. NSF leadership 
already is taking several actions consistent with this 
direction.
    A third, increased American competitiveness will only come 
about, not just by--by increased funding, though funding is 
very, very, important. But also, by thoughtfully implementing 
structural changes that are essential, if that funding is to 
achieve its intended purpose. And, Chair Cantwell, you--you 
mentioned this point, again. And I elaborated on these very 
points in my own testimony--my written testimony.
    Fourth, if a new technology and innovation directorate is 
created at NSF, with some DARPA-like characteristics, those 
characteristics should not be confined just to that new 
directorate alone. For example, NSF program officers should 
make big bets on big, but intellectually risky ideas. Some 
projects should, and in fact must, fail because, in the absence 
of failure we are not bold in America. And America will not 
become the leader in science technology, become more 
competitive by being timid. We have to make big bets on big 
ideas. And in fact, that directorate should itself be 
structured to fail, if it works only in isolation from other 
parts of NSF, or other Federal agencies.
    Fifth, the new technology directorate can serve as the 
organizing mechanism by which to create new multi-sector 
collaboration frameworks in technology that span the spectrum 
completely, from fundamental research, through applied 
development, and across the valley of death, to pre-production 
prototypes that are tested at scale, all within the same 
organizational construct. That is, bringing all of these 
sectors together in ways that we have not done so in the past.
    So, in so doing, we do not just create separate funding 
entities or centers for performing research or moving outcomes 
to market or establishing test beds and fabrication facilities, 
we leverage the tremendous capabilities we already have. 
Everything can and should operate within the same organizing 
framework, with specific goals, with specific types of problems 
in mind. This is, in fact, how I think we transform the current 
process to make it far more efficient, and I elaborate on that 
in my written testimony.
    Also, industry academia non-profits have to absolutely be 
at the table with the Federal Government from the very 
beginning, as all of these programs are being contemplated, so 
that they all can truly be active participants in the entire 
process, from fundamental research all the way through scaled 
prototype. Among other things this will provide a mechanism to 
help ensure long-term sustainability of these new activities 
that we are going to discuss.
    And finally, NSF should be provided the flexibility, 
working closely with Congress and other stakeholders to, 
itself, determine the appropriate rate at which programs are 
ramped up, both in time and, also, in funding, particularly in 
new technology directorate. You know, NSF has extensive 
experience doing this, and we really ought to tap that 
expertise.
    To other aspects of the bill, I just want to let you know 
it is unclear in my mind how some of the investments that are 
being described will avoid reinforcing existing challenges that 
already are there today in our current complex research to 
market processes. Interactions among the many different types 
of organizations noted are really also not clear. Nor is it 
clear to me how the proposed regional technology hubs, at 
roughly a billion dollars per award, would really be structured 
and managed, or how those major activities would complement 
other new investments that are being described in the bill.
    And finally, multiple undertakings, as large as those 
proposed in the bill, they really pose extraordinary challenges 
and accountability, especially with regard to evaluating the 
collective activities that are really in place to achieve more 
than the sum of their individual parts. So, how does that whole 
really, together, achieve more than the sum of the individual 
parts?
    So, in closing, by bolstering and weaving together all the 
elements of our research enterprise in powerful new ways, 
without compromising identity and value of each, or the culture 
of each, and by appropriately resourcing NSF, we will help 
ensure not only that America becomes more competitive and more 
broadly engaging, but in fact, that we will continue to be the 
global leader in science, technology, research, education, and 
innovation.
    Thank you very much, Chair Cantwell. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of 
  Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus, Roger and Sherry Teigen 
             Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma
    I extend my deep appreciation to Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and Members of the Committee for the privilege of testifying on 
the Endless Frontier Act. My name is Kelvin K. Droegemeier, and I am 
Regents' Professor of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I also 
am a former member of the National Science Board (2004-2016), serving 
the last four years as Vice Chairman. I served as Secretary of Science 
and Technology in the Cabinet of former Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin 
(2017-2019), and most recently served for two years as Director of The 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Science 
Advisor to the President (2019-2021). During the latter appointment, I 
also served for two and a half months as Acting Director of the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). Before going to The White House in 
early 2019, I served for nine years as Vice President for Research at 
the University of Oklahoma (2009-2018), where I have been for nearly 36 
years. I am testifying today in my roles as an academic researcher, 
administrator, teacher, and advisor on matters of science and 
technology policy.
    I also wish to thank the Members of this Committee for their 
longstanding commitment to fostering national prosperity, economic 
security, quality education, and international competitiveness through 
support for fundamental/discovery research and related activities. Not 
to be overlooked are staff for both the majority and minority, all of 
whom work exceptionally hard and in a collaborative manner on behalf of 
our Nation. I am especially grateful for assistance provided to me in 
this hearing by Gabrielle Slais, Richard-Duane Chambers, and Mary 
Guenther of Chair Cantwell's office, and by Cherilyn Pascoe, James 
Mazol, and MaryAsa England of Ranking Member Wicker's office.
    The topic of this hearing is especially important in light of 
increasing challenges faced by the United States, both from within and 
externally, as well as extraordinary opportunities now before us to 
build upon--in bold and transformative ways--the exceptional foundation 
of American leadership in science and technology developed since World 
War II. That foundation was laid, in large part, in response to Dr. 
Vannevar Bush's visionary treatise, Science: The Endless Frontier.\1\ 
The bold vision put forth by Dr. Bush led to the creation, in 1950, of 
the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is unique among Federal 
agencies in two important ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, NSF funds the bulk of non-medical/clinical foundational/
discovery/curiosity-based \2\ research in the United States.\3\ Second, 
its governing body, the National Science Board (NSB),\4\ also serves as 
an independent source of advice to the President and Congress on 
matters of science and technology research and education. It therefore 
is especially appropriate the Endless Frontier Act (EFA) seeks to 
continue Dr. Bush's bold, transformative thinking by providing 
substantial increases in funding for NSF, along with creating a new 
directorate and taking other actions to accelerate the movement of 
research outcomes to products and services that benefit society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ I prefer these terms to ``basic ``research because to some, the 
word basic connotes ``simple.''
    \3\ https://www.nsf.gov/about/
    \4\ https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/index.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Such a transformation will come about not only by virtue of 
additional funding, but also by thoughtfully implementing structural 
changes that are essential if the additional funding is to achieve its 
intended purpose. Specifically, success will require creating more 
effective linkages and partnerships among all sectors of our innovation 
ecosystem; co-investing and leveraging funding, facilities and talent 
across academia, industry, Federal agencies, and non-profit 
organizations; eliminating regulations that unnecessarily tie our 
hands, impede our progress, and arguably provide little or no practical 
benefit; and securing our research assets in a manner balanced with an 
appropriately open system of sharing and collaboration.
    Despite the terrible consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic, 
it offered us a powerful glimpse of what is possible in America when 
the aforementioned issues are addressed, albeit temporarily. Although 
we do not wish to continue operating within a pandemic, we should 
desire to continue operating with the urgency it brought forth. We 
should not wish to go back to where we were in our science and 
technology research and education enterprise, but rather use the 
lessons learned from the pandemic to go to a much better place. A place 
of greater efficiency, better coordination, stronger leveraging and 
partnering, and emphasis on whole-of-Nation goals. The EFA provides one 
mechanism to do so and will help ensure that science continues to 
inspire, unite, and guide America.
    I offer with this testimony several comments and suggestions 
regarding the EFA. We should not be comfortable as a Nation to simply 
compete, but rather our goal should be global collaborative leadership 
in science and technology research, education and innovation. 
Underpinned by our national values, which comport with values of the 
research process itself, America can remain a beacon to the world of 
freedom, integrity, mutual respect, progress, and principled 
collaboration.
1. Why Increased Funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is a 
        National Imperative
    Created more than 70 years ago with a powerfully elegant statutory 
mandate and organizational structure, NSF has become the envy of the 
world among government funding agencies. The research it supports has 
unlocked the secrets of nature--from sub-atomic particles to the 
vastness of the universe--spurring major technological innovations, 
creating entirely new research disciplines, and producing generation 
upon generation of scientists and engineers who help ensure America's 
global strength in science and technology. Since 1950, over 230 Nobel 
Laureates have received funding from NSF at some point in their 
career.\5\ NSF's merit review process is the global gold standard, and 
only a small portion of NSF's yearly budget goes toward supporting 
organizational overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100683
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these and numerous other extraordinary attributes, NSF has 
been woefully underfunded for many years. The reasons are many, 
including difficulty by some of conceptually linking fundamental 
research outcomes with products and services, even though the latter 
are all around us (e.g., the Internet, search engines, smartphones, 
medical diagnostic equipment, global positioning system-based maps, on-
demand commercial programming); the long time required for some 
fundamental research outcomes to bear fruit; and the view by some that 
funding curiosity-based research, without a clear practical outcome, is 
a waste of money.
    The 2007 America COMPETES Act \6\ sought to double, over a five-
year period, the budgets of NSF, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of 
Science (SC). Despite best intentions, this doubling did not occur 
then, or during the 2010 reauthorization \7\. In 2016, COMPETES became 
the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA)\8\, which did 
not include authorization levels. Yet during this same overall period, 
the budgets of other agencies supporting fundamental research did in 
fact increase, in some cases substantially,\9\ while that of NSF grew 
more modestly. Today, NSF is forced to decline several billions of 
dollars in proposals judged to be as meritorious as those it does 
support, simply due to the lack of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf
    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf
    \8\ https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ329/PLAW-114publ329.pdf
    \9\ The NIH budget increased by $12.5 billion between FY 2007 and 
FY 2020, an increase of 43 percent. The Department of Energy Office of 
Science budget increased by 3.2 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an 
increase of 84 percent and thus nearly doubling. The NSF budget 
increased by $2.4 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an increase of 
41 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I believe the EFA can help redress years of failed attempts to 
increase the NSF budget. In light of increasing global competition and 
threats from nations that do not share our values, an infusion of funds 
at NSF, along with other actions, truly are national imperatives. NSF 
already is moving forward on several organizational innovations, and as 
a major driver of change in the research enterprise, especially 
academia, NSF is well suited to continue its established leadership 
role by executing the EFA.
2. The Endless Frontier Act (EFA) in Context
    Each sector of America's science and technology research, education 
and innovation ecosystem--Federal agencies, colleges and universities, 
for-profit corporations, and non-profit organizations--has its own 
reasons for existing, its own structures and operating philosophies, 
and its own measures of success. Although differing from one another--
in some aspects dramatically--these sectors are highly interdependent 
and mutually reinforcing. When brought together in tight collaboration 
toward common goals, each contributes what the other cannot or will 
not--both culturally and in other ways--yielding a whole that is far 
greater than the sum of the parts.
    Within this framework, it is well understood that fundamental 
research is funded primarily by the Federal Government \10\ owing to 
the lack of certainty in producing outcomes having practical value, 
though value indisputably exists in the creation of knowledge itself. 
The national appetite for increased Government investment in such 
research generally has been limited, apart from health-related topics 
as evidenced by substantial increases to the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) budget over the past several years. However, the COVID-19 
pandemic has illuminated brightly the numerous other areas of science 
and technology that have proved essential to our Nation's response.\11\ 
These include but are not limited to molecular and structural biology, 
in situ and remote sensing, advanced manufacturing, artificial 
intelligence, microelectronics, atmospheric science, and social and 
behavioral science. Each of these areas and more are core components of 
NSF, and indeed, NSF's ``fingerprints'' can be found in virtually every 
area of capability used to fight the pandemic. And each of these areas 
yielded basic research outcomes from which innovation led to practical, 
implementable solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The private sector, and non-profit organizations, also fund 
discovery research, with the former funding nearly three-quarters of 
total research and development in the United States.
    \11\ Droegemeier, K., 2020. Harnessing the power of science to 
fight the coronavirus. Op-ed, Washington Times, August 19. Available at 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/harnessing-the-power-
of-science-to-fight-the-coronavirus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The EFA seeks not only to provide an unprecedented increase in 
funds to NSF to support use-inspired fundamental research, but also 
establish a new directorate for technology and innovation,\12\ create 
new research test beds, centers, technology hubs, and fabrication 
facilities; expand engagement in research of various types of 
institutions; and substantially increase postdoctoral awards, graduate 
fellowships and traineeships, and undergraduate scholarships. 
Understandable fear exists among some in the community about the 
potential for changing NSF's foundational mission from one of 
curiosity-based research to one that is driven mainly by practical 
needs, and these concerns are not without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ NSF is structured around seven directorates: Biology (BIO), 
Computer Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), 
Geosciences (GEO), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Mathematics and 
Physical Sciences (MPS), and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences 
(SBE). Three other programs support cross-cutting activities: Office of 
Integrative Activities (OIA), Office of International Science and 
Engineering (OISE), and Environmental Research and Education (ERE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, if implemented thoughtfully, the EFA can in fact enhance 
the capabilities of NSF, strengthening its core purpose while greatly 
improving the efficiency by which research outcomes are innovated for 
the benefit of society. Indeed, America needs to supplement the current 
``handoff and hope'' model of research-to-products and services 
transition with one that more effectively integrates all four sectors 
of our research enterprise without forsaking the features of any, and 
without placing itself on the slippery slope of use-inspired technology 
research becoming the tail that wags the curiosity-based research dog. 
The EFA can, in my view, serve as one mechanism for achieving those 
ends.
3. Comments on the Endless Frontier Act Specific to NSF
    Point #1. The Potential Risk of Displacing Fundamental Research. As 
noted previously, virtually all technology innovation owes its 
existence to fundamental research. That America now has trillion-dollar 
technology companies, and numerous other high-wealth companies that 
depend upon technology, is a testament to the virtue of Government 
investment in fundamental research and our ability as a Nation to 
transition research outcomes into products and services for the benefit 
of society. However, the very size and reach of our technology 
enterprise suggests care needs to be taken in creating a technology 
directorate at NSF (see below), lest technology become the focal point 
for new resources and ironically end up harming the very thing upon 
which it depends for continued success--fundamental research.
    A good example of this risk is illustrated in the field of 
meteorology. Both research and operations are critical for protecting 
life and property, and operational forecasting and warning capabilities 
depend upon advances in research. However, at the end of the day when 
money is appropriated, operations always take priority for obvious 
reasons. This approach led, in part,\13\ to the United States being 
overtaken by Europe in computer weather prediction capabilities, though 
fortunately, recent investments are reversing that trend. Fundamental 
or curiosity-based research therefore must remain the strong 
philosophical and practical foundation upon which NSF continues to be 
funded and operate, augmented by, but not replaced with, new mechanisms 
for engaging use-inspired research in technology domains that enhance 
America's competitiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Another major contributor was insufficient investment in 
computing resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Point #2. Creating a New Directorate. Although NSF indeed was 
founded to support fundamental or discovery research, a portion of its 
portfolio appropriately consists of use-inspired research. This is 
especially true in the Engineering, Computer Information Science and 
Engineering, Geosciences, and Social/Behavioral/Economic Sciences 
directorates, and likewise is true in research university departments. 
Consequently, such work is not foreign to NSF's operating framework or 
culture, and in fact creating a technology-focused directorate can 
enhance support for curiosity-based research, as noted below.
    The EFA speaks to the importance of bringing DARPA-like 
capabilities to the new directorate, and I interpret that in at least 
two ways. The first includes funding more use-inspired research, 
issuing solicitations that seek to address specific problems, applying 
DARPA hiring authorities, and engaging industry directly as programs 
are being structured. The second emphasizes autonomy of program 
officers to make funding decisions that run counter to prevailing 
wisdom or reviewer input.
    To the first point above, NSF already issues solicitations to 
address specific challenges and is changing the way it engages industry 
(see below). To the second point, although NSF program officers do have 
considerable latitude in making decisions, panel review, community 
pressure, and budget realities often lead to understandable aversion to 
intellectual risk-taking. This behavior is not unique to NSF but is 
prevalent in many if not most funding agencies. America needs to be 
willing to make big bets on big ideas that could fail.
    Consequently, if the EFA seeks to bring more of a DARPA-like 
culture to NSF, it should not confine those attributes to the new 
directorate, but rather use that directorate to help infuse positive 
change throughout the Foundation. In so doing, NSF program officers 
would become more empowered to go against the flow and make big bets on 
big ideas, with some failure not only an expectation, but rather a 
desired outcome. The absence of failure indicates an absence of 
boldness, and America will not become more competitive by being timid.
    Another important way in which NSF differs from DARPA is the 
breadth of disciplines and topic areas represented in the NSF 
portfolio. The new NSF technology directorate can do what other 
directorates already do, namely, create substantial horizontal 
connective tissue across directorates and thus a wide array of 
disciplines. However, the new technology directorate can play an 
additional and unique role, by virtue of its special partnerships with 
industry and other collaborators, in linking curiosity-based research 
with use-inspired research and subsequent applied development and 
scale-up (see Point #3).
    The following specific suggestions are offered regarding a new 
technology directorate to address some of the issues raised above.

  a.  A new directorate should not duplicate activities being 
        undertaken by other Federal agencies (though in some cases 
        competition is warranted), nor should it fund activities likely 
        to be supported by private industry or non-profit 
        organizations. Instead, the directorate should partner with 
        other components of the research enterprise, including 
        regional, state and municipal entities, to fill gaps and 
        leverage all available resources to achieve a force multiplier 
        effect that accelerates innovation and greatly enhances 
        competitiveness.

  b.  Although a new technology directorate should receive sufficient 
        funding to pursue certain activities of its own design, such as 
        issuing solicitations for use-inspired research, developing 
        partnerships with industry, and managing grant and contract 
        programs in a DARPA-like manner, the structure and level of 
        funding should be designed such that the directorate cannot 
        succeed in achieving its goals in the absence of working in 
        close partnership with other NSF directorates and other sectors 
        of the research enterprise, including other Federal agencies. 
        In other words, the directorate should inherently be designed 
        to fail if it works only in isolation.

  c.  Changes of the nature and magnitude proposed in the EFA require a 
        time of transition to accommodate institutional cultural 
        adjustment (both within NSF and the external research 
        community), the creation of required or the modification of 
        existing administrative frameworks, and the development of 
        implementation strategies. Yet the length of this adjustment 
        period needs to be balanced with some urgency in light of 
        aforementioned competition and threats. NSF should be provided 
        the flexibility, working closely with Congress and other 
        stakeholders, to determine the appropriate rate at which 
        programs are ramped up in time and funding, particularly a new 
        technology directorate. NSF has extensive experience doing so 
        by virtue of the numerous new centers, institutes, and major 
        research facilities it creates on a regular basis.

    Point #3. Engaging Private Industry and Non-Profit Organizations. 
Although, as discussed earlier, the Federal Government funds the 
majority of non-medical/clinical fundamental research in the U.S., the 
vast majority of funding for applied research and development, and the 
transition of research outcomes to products and services, is 
principally the domain of the private sector (note that some private 
sector organizations also fund a considerable amount of use-inspired 
fundamental research on topics related to their business priorities). 
Yet the intertwined and circuitous pathway from fundamental research, 
say as performed in academia, to scaled prototype product or service, 
within industry, is fraught with inefficiency owing to factors such as 
numerous cultural differences among the sectors involved, the many 
handoff points present within the overall process, and complex legal 
issues, particularly those involving intellectual property, that often 
vary among organizations.
    Bringing all four sectors of the ecosystem together for specific 
activities, with each playing its unique role, creates an 
extraordinarily powerful framework that will truly transform American 
competitiveness without forsaking the value or place of fundamental 
research. Indeed, industry, academia, and non-profits must be at the 
table with the Federal Government, from the very beginning as programs 
are being contemplated, so they all can truly be active participants in 
the entire process from fundamental research to scaled prototype.
    This point was underscored during several meetings and a national 
summit \14\ coordinated by OSTP and collaborators during the past two 
years on multi-sector partnerships. One recurring message, delivered by 
private industry, was its dismay at typically being brought into 
discussions of partnering only as programs were being executed, and 
only at the tactical rather than the strategic level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://uidp.org/new-report-from-ostp-uidp-symposium-
broadening-university-and-industry-engagement/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NSF Director already has begun meeting with counterpart 
institutional leaders in the private for-profit and non-profit sectors 
to frame partnerships and programs at a strategic level, which will set 
the stage for, and greatly accelerate progress in, tactical execution. 
Such efforts should continue in order that these sectors may co-invest 
with the Government as active, participatory research and development 
partners in executing the EFA--including in hubs, fabrication 
facilities, and centers.
    This co-investment should involve not only funding at the strategic 
institutional level, but also corporate-sponsored facilities, industry 
researchers, internships, apprenticeships, enhancements to I-CORPS, 
fellowships, test beds, and joint activities to engage traditionally 
underserved and marginalized populations. Indeed, the EFA seeks to 
create 1000 new post-doctoral awards, at least 2000 graduate 
fellowships and traineeships, and at least 1000 undergraduate 
fellowships. Industry partners could co-fund such activities and 
perhaps triple the number of recipients by creating prestigious NSF 
industry scholars and fellows, also thereby contributing substantially 
to increased participation by underserved populations.
    A new directorate can serve as the organizing framework by which to 
achieve the aforementioned multi-sector collaboration in technology and 
thus provide a means for more effectively moving research outcomes 
across the ``valley of death'' to become de-risked and tested at scale_
the next step being a final prototype for production. In this approach, 
NSF would not be responsible for funding all de-risking and testing at 
scale, but rather, by virtue of its partnerships with industry, would 
principally provide the organizing framework by which such activities 
would take place in a seamless and efficient manner--all the while 
preserving the cultural elements of NSF so critical to its past and 
future success.
    Such a concept was proposed in a January, 2021 report \15\ issued 
by the previous President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology (PCAST) and may be useful here. Specifically, PCAST 
recommended creating a new type of organizational framework that brings 
together multiple technology areas (e.g., artificial intelligence, 
advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology) to address compelling 
practical problems at the intersection of such areas as a complement to 
recently created centers and institutes.\16\ The organizations 
envisioned by PCAST would conjoin all four sectors of the research 
enterprise, as equal partners from the outset, and span the entire 
spectrum from fundamental research to prototype de-risking and scale 
up--all within the same administrative framework. They also would be 
structured with streamlined administrative compliance environments, in 
some cases via Federal waivers of certain requirements that 
unnecessarily inhibit progress, flexible personnel policies that allow 
researchers from all four sectors to move across organizational 
boundaries with ease, and intellectual property frameworks that 
accelerate the transfer of technology to industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://science.osti.gov/-/media/_/pdf/about/pcast/202012/
PCAST_IOTFI-FINAL-
Report.pdf?la=en&hash=0196EF02F8D3D49E1ACF221DA8E6B41F0D193F17
    \16\ For example, the U.S. Department of Energy Quantum Information 
Science Research Centers and NSF National Artificial Intelligence 
Research Institutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By following a strategic, all-sector true partnership model for 
certain activities, America more broadly will reap greater benefits 
from the EFA, and the momentum and collective partnership resources 
thus established will provide a mechanism to help ensure long-term 
sustainability.
    Point #4. More Innovative and Efficient Models for Centers and 
Hubs. NSF and other agencies have been funding university-based 
research centers, institutes and facilities for several decades. 
Although this mode of funding has proven successful, the increasingly 
prescriptive nature of such efforts, driven in large part by today's 
burdensome and complicated compliance environment and general aversion 
to intellectual risk-taking, suggest that modified structures should be 
pursued. This issue was addressed in the aforementioned PCAST report, 
which identified a number of significant limitations with current 
research organizational models and suggested a new multi-sector 
framework that would stimulate new ideas, simplify collaboration among 
types of institutions, and accelerate the movement of fundamental 
research outcomes to products and services at scale, all within the 
same general framework.
    The centers and other entities proposed by the EFA, as well as 
programs such as EPSCoR (Established Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research), could serve as experimental proving grounds for new 
organizational approaches, including accelerated approvals and waivers 
of certain compliance requirements and new personnel structures. One 
need look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic for a compelling 
example of such an experiment. In one week, several organizations 
joined forces to establish and begin executing a consortium that made 
huge amounts of both public and private computing time available to 
researchers, free of charge and with rapid proposal review, to 
understand the virus and begin developing vaccines and therapeutics. 
Under normal circumstances, this effort would have taken months to 
establish.
    Point #5. Broadening Engagement. A particularly significant 
component of the EFA involves programs which seek to engage a larger 
segment of America's academic research and education enterprise, 
especially emerging research institutions, emerging institutions of 
higher education, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Tribal Colleges and 
Universities (TCUs). I can well attest that extraordinary research 
accomplishments and talent can be found in all parts of our great 
Nation, especially in rural and underserved areas, and in institutions 
which are not research powerhouses but are becoming more engaged in 
research with a great deal to offer. I also am quite aware that a great 
number of capable individuals never have an opportunity to develop 
their talent or achieve their goals and dreams, whether by virtue of 
their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other circumstances. 
Taking firm action to address these and other issues is essential, and 
in doing so, two important factors need to be considered.
    The first concerns institutional culture. Many emerging research 
institutions have well established and highly regarded reputations for 
instruction, with faculty incentive and reward systems likewise 
structured. Enhancing research in substantial ways most likely will 
require faculty to reallocate their time, thus reducing their formal 
teaching activities so they can spend more time writing grant 
proposals, managing awards and facilities, and mentoring student and 
post-doctoral researchers. All of these are positive activities and 
foundational to research in academia. However, because notable 
increases in such activities can impact both institutional culture as 
well as existing personnel policies, these and other impacts need to be 
fully understood by the highest level of institutional leadership. 
Consequently, leaders of emerging and other types of research 
institutions named in the EFA should be engaged as soon as possible to 
understand how their institutional cultures and policies might need to 
change, if such change is desired, for them to accommodate greater 
research funding.
    The second issue concerns the administrative frameworks needed to 
support research grants or contracts and associated compliance 
requirements, such as financial and other management activities, 
intellectual property management, legal review, space allocation and 
tracking, reporting to state and Federal organizations, and research 
security. Many emerging research institutions have relatively small 
research offices that are not presently equipped to handle 
significantly larger numbers of, or more complex research grants and 
contracts. Nor do they likely have the funding to create or enhance 
them. Consequently, some of the funding from the EFA should be used to 
create new or enhance existing institutional research administration 
capabilities. This funding could be provided for a limited period, 
until such time the institution can absorb the costs by virtue of 
increased research revenues.
    Point #6. Discovering Emerging Intellectual Property. Despite the 
fact that America invests nearly $600 billion per year in research and 
development, only limited mechanisms exist, to my knowledge, with which 
one can identify and then explore emerging research outcomes to 
determine whether a particular activity holds sufficient promise for 
possible corporate investment. Some funding agencies have powerful 
databases with which the public can use keyword searches to obtain 
plain-language summaries of current and past research projects. Yet, if 
a small company, for example, is interested in research on a particular 
topic and wishes to determine which Federally funded projects on that 
topic are nearing completion--and explore their results to date and 
contact the investigators--existing databases are not designed to 
readily provide such information
    If the technology goals of the EFA are to be met, America needs a 
more effective mechanism for linking progress and outcomes in research 
to those who wish to innovate with them. Yet doing so in an open manner 
creates obvious vulnerabilities at a time when theft of ideas, 
proposals, and intellectual property by certain foreign governments is 
a real and significant threat to America's competitiveness. If a new 
NSF technology directorate is established, it should coordinate with 
NSF and other organizations to consider ways for addressing these 
competing needs.
    Point #7. Test Beds and Fabrication Facilities. The EFA suggests 
test beds and fabrication facilities would be located at universities 
or consortia of academic institutions, which indeed would be valuable 
for enhancing education and research. However, the private sector 
already operates substantial facilities that could function as test 
beds and be used for fabrication through creative partnerships with 
academia. In particular, use of such facilities could be linked with 
internships and apprenticeships as a mutual value proposition, which 
would be particularly important for emerging institutions. 
Additionally, a partnership strategy would enhance the likelihood of 
sustainability as some academic institutions, especially emerging 
institutions, may not be positioned to absorb out-year costs of 
facility maintenance, staff support and upgrades.
    Point #8. Timing and Allocation of Funds. NSF is a highly 
sophisticated and effective Federal agency that operates with great 
efficiency and transparency, and works closely and successfully with 
both the Executive and Legislative branches of Government. It also has 
extraordinary leadership in its Director and governing board. 
Consequently, NSF and the NSB should be provided maximum flexibility 
and freedom, with obvious continuous oversight from Congress, to 
execute the EFA as it deems most appropriate for achieving the stated 
goals.
4. Comments on the Remainder of the Endless Frontier Act
    In addition to changes associated with NSF, which include creating 
a new directorate, establishing several University Technology Centers, 
creating test beds and fabrication facilities, directing funds to STEM 
education, enhancing existing research programs, and broadening 
engagement in research and technology commercialization, the EFA seeks 
to establish several Regional Technology Hubs. Consideration also is 
being given in Washington, DC to substantially expanding the current 
Manufacturing USA Institutes (MUI) and Hollings Manufacturing Extension 
Partnerships (MEP). Collectively, this represents an extraordinarily 
large and complex endeavor which underscores the well know adage that 
it is far easier to create than coordinate. Thus, several important 
issues need to be addressed if the proposed infusion of significant 
funds, and the associated creation of large and complex activities in 
America's research and technology enterprise, are to work as needed.
    First, as noted previously, America's innovation engine suffers 
from a number of inefficiencies, including the lack of a seamless 
national framework by which multiple sectors of the enterprise can 
seamlessly transition fundamental research outcomes to scaled prototype 
products and services. It is unclear how investments in the Department 
of Commerce will avoid reinforcing challenges with existing handoff 
points and address the ``valley of death'' problem?
    Second, although the EFA speaks to the importance of coordination 
with the MUI and MEP programs, it does not address the many ways in 
which a new NSF directorate, or increased NSF activities in technology-
driven fundamental research more broadly, could contribute to enhancing 
both the MUI and MEP programs or lead to new, innovative approaches for 
executing the MUI and MEP missions. Nor does it address how MUI and MEP 
might coordinate with and enhance NSF activities, especially corporate 
engagement, which is foundational to both MUI and MEP. This interaction 
is especially important in light of ways in which MUI and MEP can 
enhance engagement with emerging institutions, which is a significant 
aspect of NSF's focus in the draft bill.
    Third, the proposed Department of Commerce Regional Technology Hubs 
appear designed to create confederations of stakeholders within 
multiple sectors of a region with the goal of enhancing technology 
development, creating jobs, and transforming local and regional 
economies. Although this is an important and valuable idea, such top-
down approaches often fail to align stakeholders with common goals 
because they lack a ``grass roots'' push. Once again, coordination is 
one of the many challenges needing to be addressed. If the Hubs are 
scaled as described in the bill, at roughly $1B per award, additional 
clarity is needed regarding how the confederations would be structured 
and managed to ``create the conditions'' for economic development and 
education enhancement. Additionally, how would such large funding 
completement new investments made within NSF as well as programs such 
as MUI and MEP--all of which are candidate components of a 
confederation?
    Fourth, throughout the EFA, coordination and collaboration among 
multiple Federal agencies is rightly cited as critical to success of 
the programs described. Such coordination historically has proved 
extremely difficult, particularly for the scale and complexity of 
programs envisioned in the EFA and in light of the multiple stakeholder 
sectors involved. One possible coordination mechanism would be to 
create a special, select or joint committee within the National Science 
and Technology Council (NSTC), co-chaired by OSTP and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and involving NSF, the Department of 
Commerce, and other departments and agencies as deemed appropriate. 
Based upon my experience with major multi-agency Government programs, 
front-line OMB involvement is essential for ensuring inter-agency 
coordination.
    Finally, multiple undertakings as large as those proposed in the 
EFA will create extraordinary challenges in accountability, especially 
with regard to evaluating how the collective of the activities are 
achieving more than the sum of their individual parts. To be effective, 
the various elements need to work together in ways different from and 
more effective than previously, which creates complex 
interdependencies. This is a feature and not a limitation, but will 
require careful thought in how success is defined and measured, and how 
the various EFA elements contribute to success individually and 
collectively.
5. Final Thoughts
    America today boasts the greatest research, education, and 
innovation ecosystem in the world. Although we do not lead in every 
area, the collective of our four-sector enterprise, underpinned by our 
values, is unmatched. Yet we face unprecedented threats and 
competition. By bolstering and weaving together all elements of our 
research enterprise in powerful new ways, without compromising the 
identity, culture and value of each, and by appropriately resourcing 
NSF, we will help ensure not only that America becomes more competitive 
and broadly engaging, but also that it continues as the global leader 
in scientific and technological research, education and innovation.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, again, Dr. Droegemeier, for 
being here. And now, we will turn to do Dr. Miranda.

        STATEMENT OF MARIE LYNN MIRANDA, Ph.D., CHARLES

         AND JILL FISCHER PROVOST, PROFESSOR OF APPLIED

         AND COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS,

            DIRECTOR OF THE CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL

          HEALTH INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

    Dr. Miranda. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Wicker, and 
Members of the Committee, on behalf of the University of Notre 
Dame, I am honored to appear before you today. Chair Cantwell, 
thank you for your commitment to scientific discovery and 
innovation, including empowering pathways for women and other 
underrepresented groups within STEM fields.
    I also extend greetings to my own Indiana Senator, Todd 
Young, who is working with Senator Schumer to author the 
Endless Frontier Act. Thanks to all of you for your good work.
    At Notre Dame, our mission is to be a force for good in the 
world. I myself have spent more than 30 years as a use-driven, 
or applied, researcher who deploys Bayesian spatial statistics 
to identify impacts of and solutions to environmental and 
social threats to children. While I am a use-driven researcher, 
I rely heavily on basic science or curiosity-driven research. 
Use-driven researchers and curiosity-driven researchers 
interact constantly, discussing problems, challenging each 
other, and sharpening each other's work. As an example, I have 
long worked on childhood lead exposure, specifically interested 
in using spatial analysis to identify houses where children are 
most likely to be exposed to lead, so that we can prevent 
future exposure.
    Federal investments in geographic information systems, and 
in computational power and speed, made it possible for me to 
analyze millions of observations on desktop computers. Housing 
departments use our models to prioritize housing rehabilitation 
dollars, working with property owners to make homes lead safe. 
Health departments use the models to drive lead screening 
programs, resulting in a 600 percent increase in their ability 
to identify children with elevated blood lead levels at no 
additional cost. As a result, thousands of children were 
protected from potential loss of IQ, learning and behavioral 
disorders, attention deficits, and other negative neurological 
effects.
    My own path to doing this work moved from mathematics to 
economics to toxicology to statistics. I emphasize path over 
the usual STEM pipeline metaphor because pipeline implies that 
there is only one intake point and one outtake point, with some 
leaks along the way. In fact, members of the STEM workforce 
travel different paths. Some paths are smooth and direct. Some 
meander and traverse rough terrain. Some lead to PhDs and some 
to associate degrees. Some have multiple entry points. Some 
have only one. We need to support all of these paths to build 
the STEM enabled workforce required to ensure national security 
and national competitiveness and to solve our most challenging 
social problems.
    The ability of the U.S. to meet the demand for individuals 
with the knowledge, skills, curiosity, and creativity necessary 
to enter STEMs careers is hindered by the lack of women and 
underrepresented minority populations in STEM fields. While 
there are about 5 million people in the U.S. employed in 
computing occupations, only 24 percent are women, and 15 
percent are underrepresented minorities. If we fail to get the 
full diversity available to us onto those STEM paths--diversity 
defined by gender, race, ethnicity, income, geography, our STEM 
workforce will simply be too small. It will also lack 
perspectives that encourage creativity and innovation.
    In my written remarks, I offer eight recommendations 
regarding the proposed legislation. Here, I highlight three. 
First, fund the development and maintenance of networks and 
wraparound services designed to provide mentorship, research 
rotations, internships, shadowing programs, support systems, 
and career advancement in STEM fields, especially as they are 
relevant to gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic 
diversity.
    Second, I recommend expanding dramatically the funding for 
NSF Graduate Research Fellowships and Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates, programs which are incredibly effective at 
attracting and retaining young scholars in STEM. Crafting 
similar programs for high school students and masters students, 
and post-doctoral associates is also a part of this.
    Third, I recommend creating funding mechanisms that 
deliberately promote interdisciplinary collaboration between 
use-driven and curiosity-driven scholars. As a provost, with 
the landscape view of research at Notre Dame and across higher 
education, I have come to believe that the three most powerful 
drivers of innovation are curiosity, purpose, and profit. The 
Endless Frontier Act has the potential to tap deeply into all 
three of these drivers.
    While I am proud of my research group's work to protect 
children, it would be vanity for me to claim credit for it. The 
National Science Foundation funded my graduate education, and 
Federal funding fuels my research. So, the credit really goes 
to all of you Senators, for your long-standing commitment to 
science and scientists.
    In the 1950s, curiosity-driven researchers, who were 
botanists and cultural anthropologists, were fascinated by the 
Madagascar rosy periwinkle. Eventually, an extract of the plant 
was used by use-driven researchers at Eli Lilly to develop 
vinblastine, one of the four chemotherapeutics that was used to 
save my daughter Viviana's life when she was diagnosed with 
Hodgkin's Lymphoma 3 years ago. She is now a healthy and happy 
college sophomore, studying chemistry.
    I provide more detailed comments in my official testimony, 
for the record. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Miranda follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D., Charles and Jill 
Fischer Provost, Professor of Applied and Computational Mathematics and 

Statistics, Director of the Children's Environmental Health Initiative, 
                        University of Notre Dame
Introduction
    Madam Chair, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Committee, 
on behalf of the University of Notre Dame, I am honored to appear 
before you today to offer testimony regarding the Endless Frontier Act.
    Chair Cantwell, as a career scientist, researcher, and higher 
education administrator, I am grateful for your commitment to 
scientific discovery and innovation, and your Committee's dedication to 
strengthening our Nation's innovation ecosystem. I am particularly 
appreciative of your efforts and leadership in creating pathways for 
women and other underrepresented groups to pursue STEMM (science, 
technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) fields.
    I also extend greetings to my own Indiana Senator, Todd Young, who 
is working with Senator Schumer to author this important legislation. 
Thank you for your leadership and longstanding support and commitment 
to university research and learning.
    I am particularly pleased to be here in person--something that 
might not have been possible a month ago, but is today due largely to 
the tremendous U.S. Federal government investments made over many years 
in basic science and technology research conducted at our Nation's 
universities. Those long-term, strategic investments in science and 
technology established the knowledge base and foundation that enabled 
pharmaceutical companies to develop and produce several safe, effective 
vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in a timespan previously 
unimaginable.
Background
    I am a professor of applied and computational mathematics and 
statistics at the University of Notre Dame, where I also serve as the 
Charles and Jill Fischer provost and direct the Children's 
Environmental Health Initiative (CEHI), which is a research, education, 
and outreach organization committed to fostering environments where all 
people can prosper.
    I have spent more than 30 years as a use-driven, or applied, 
researcher who deploys Bayesian spatial statistics to identify impacts 
of and solutions to environmental and social threats to children. I 
have applied science and technology to help understand and address 
complex, real-world challenges locally, regionally, and nationally.
    In my own work and in my role as provost at the University of Notre 
Dame, I have witnessed firsthand the power of the Federal government's 
substantial investments in basic science and technology to improve 
lives for individuals, communities, and our society more broadly. That 
is our mission at the University of Notre Dame--to be a force for good 
in the world.
    It is common to conceive of researchers dividing up into curiosity-
driven versus use-driven scientists and engineers. In fact, a virtuous 
cycle exists between the two. Curiosity-driven researchers elucidate 
critical insights into basic science questions that drive new 
opportunities for use-driven researchers. In turn, use-driven 
researchers highlight new challenges for curiosity-driven researchers 
to take up. And in fact, many scientists and engineers are both use-
driven and curiosity-driven.
    While I am primarily a use-driven researcher, I rely heavily on 
basic science or curiosity-driven research. Use-driven researchers and 
curiosity-driven researchers interact constantly, discussing problems, 
challenging each other, and sharpening each other's work. When I wrote 
my dissertation, I had to use a mainframe computer to analyze the 
40,000 observations in my dataset, and I could only implement the 
analysis at the county level. Back then, 40,000 observations was big 
data!
    In contrast, for the past 20 years, I have worked on childhood lead 
exposure, specifically interested in using spatial analysis to identify 
houses where children are most likely to be exposed to lead, and then 
remediate houses to prevent future exposure. Federal investments in 
basic science research on geographic information systems, as well as 
computational power and speed, made it possible for me to analyze 
millions of observations on my desktop computer. In addition, new 
insights from theoretical statisticians made it possible to implement 
our models at the individual tax parcel level.
    Housing departments use CEHI's detailed models to prioritize 
housing rehabilitation dollars, working with property owners to make 
homes lead-safe. Health departments use the same models to drive lead 
screening programs, resulting in one county, for example, experiencing 
a 600 percent increase in its ability to identify children with 
elevated blood lead levels at no additional cost.
    These models have been replicated for communities across the United 
States. As a result, we have protected thousands of children from 
potential harmful effects of lead exposure, including learning and 
behavioral disorders, poor hearing, attention deficits, and other 
negative neurological effects.
    While the scope of the Endless Frontier Act is broad, as requested, 
I will focus this testimony on opportunities to strengthen the Nation's 
research enterprise and increase diversity of the science, technology, 
engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields.
Federally funded research: the foundation of American innovation and 
        security
    It is unfortunate that many Americans neither see nor appreciate 
the myriad, intricate connections between basic, curiosity-driven 
research and its end uses, developments, and products. Instead, many 
view the amazing technologies that surround us--self-driving vehicles, 
rovers on Mars, mobile phones that do everything from navigate our 
world to monitor our health--as the unexpected next new products to 
shape our world.
    The truth, of course, is that nearly all of the technological 
innovations that enable our modern society emerge from a deliberately 
built foundation of federally funded research conducted over many years 
at universities or federally funded research laboratories. While many 
Americans may not fully appreciate this connection, our peers, 
competitors, and potential adversaries around the globe certainly do.
    The initial large-scale investments in federally funded research 
were a conscious post World War II decision related to the Cold War. 
Other nations watched as U.S. government investments in science, 
sustained in part through National Science Foundation (NSF), created a 
global superpower and shaped a society and economy that have been the 
envy of the world for multiple generations. The American system awards 
funding competitively, balancing a centralized source for funding with 
the incredible entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes our 
researchers. This system aligns fully with American democratic values.
    Other nations are now making similar investments with similar 
ambitions at a pace that exceeds the United States, especially 
expenditures in critically important areas such as artificial 
intelligence, quantum computing, and other advanced technologies. 
According to data from an April 2020 Congressional Research Service 
report, U.S. investments in research and development funding declined 
from 69 percent of the world's total in 1960 to 28 percent in 2018. 
Interestingly, the U.S. decline is not the result of cuts in U.S. 
investments. Rather, the decline in
    U.S. global leadership in this area is the result of even greater 
investments by the governments of other countries that recognize the 
importance of R&D to their innovation and competitiveness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Congressional Research Service, Global Research and Development 
Expenditures: Fact Sheet Updated April 29, 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R44283.pdf, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That targeted funding is having direct results. For example, since 
the mid-2000s, increased investments by China in science and technology 
have led to steady growth in the number of scientific journal articles 
published by Chinese researchers, a key measure of scientific 
innovation. China is now the largest single global producer of 
scientific journal articles, surpassing the U.S. in 2016.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 
2018, Outputs of SE Research: Publications, https://nsf.gov/statistics/
2018/nsb20181/report/sections/academic-research-and-development/
outputs-of-s-e-research-publications, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education as a foundation of innovation
    Sustainable economic development in general is not easy to achieve, 
and innovation-based economic development is an even greater challenge. 
However, as noted in the World Economic Forum's 2019 Global 
Competitiveness Report, ``In most advanced and emerging economies, 
technology adoption and innovation have become priorities for 
governments and companies alike as a source of value creation, 
productivity growth, and improved living standards. Technology can also 
improve access to basic services, working conditions, health outcomes 
and economic security.'' \3\ Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
nature of jobs and work has been changing at a rapid pace, enabled by 
advances in computer science and engineering, advancements in learning 
sciences, and new conceptions of work and workplaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ World Economic Forum Global Competiveness Report, http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF
_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Linked to this rapid pace of change is an unprecedented opportunity 
to expand access to emerging new industries and occupations, enhance 
productivity and quality of work life, and increase workforce 
participation. U.S. regions with successful innovation-based 
``ecosystems'' share in common well-defined links between colleges and 
universities, a skilled workforce, investments in technology and 
infrastructure, and an entrepreneurial culture that drives a region to 
capitalize on its economic strengths.
    Moreover, America's need for both basic, curiosity-driven research 
and applied, use-driven research is greater than ever today because the 
challenges and competition we face as a society and nation are greater 
and more complex than ever. Our societal and technical challenges also 
require greater collaboration between research fields, increased 
diversity of perspectives and skills, and a much larger and broader 
talent pool entering STEMM fields. The Endless Frontier Act represents 
a major effort to address these concerns, and I commend its authors and 
the Committee Members for their renewed commitment to confront these 
challenges.
    Strengthening our U.S. innovation ecosystem necessarily begins with 
education and efforts to encourage young Americans to pursue rigorous 
academic courses, and it continues with efforts to transfer technology 
and knowledge created in research universities to industry, which 
brings these innovations to the marketplace. Complementary to these 
technology transfer initiatives are college and university programs 
that support regional industry innovation, which creates jobs, boosts 
regional economies, and addresses regional concerns.
Thinking outside the pipe
    It is popular to refer to the STEMM pipeline as a metaphor for 
producing a STEMM-enabled workforce. Referring to it as a pipeline, 
however, implies that there is only one intake point and one outtake 
point, with potential leaks along the way. In fact, members of the 
STEMM workforce travel different paths. My own research path moved from 
mathematics to economics to toxicology to statistics. I encourage 
people to think about multiple pathways, rather than pipelines.
    Some paths are smooth and direct; some are circuitous and must 
traverse rough terrain. Some lead to STEMM PhDs and some to STEMM 
bachelor or associate degrees. Some have only one entry point; some 
have many. We need all these paths to build the STEMM enabled workforce 
our country needs for national security, for national competitiveness, 
for national prosperity, and to solve our most challenging societal 
problems.
    While we need PhD-trained researchers to develop new cybersecurity 
systems, we also need people with associate and bachelor degrees 
trained to run those systems on a daily basis. While we need PhD-
trained researchers to predict and model natural disasters, we need 
large STEMM-enabled multidisciplinary teams to use that research to 
react in real time on the ground in disaster zones.
    We are also vulnerable when it comes to STEMM talent. The ability 
of the U.S. to meet the demand for individuals with the knowledge, 
skills, curiosity, and creativity necessary to enter STEMM-intensive 
careers is hindered by the lack of women and underrepresented minority 
populations in STEMM fields.
    We must also think broadly about the need to bring our entire 
talent pool to this issue. For example, women comprise 51.5 percent of 
our population and 47 percent of the labor force. However, in computer 
science, only 19 percent of those awarded bachelor's degrees in 2016 
were women--down from 27 percent in 1997.\4\ Similarly, 
underrepresented minorities comprise 27 percent of our population and 
30 percent of the labor force, but only 9 percent of those with science 
and engineering doctorate degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Center for Educational Statistics, Women, Minorities, 
and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, 39 percent of U.S. high schools are unable to offer 
physics, a foundational course for STEMM fields. The inability to offer 
physics and other science and mathematics courses relates directly to 
the lack of qualified teachers, primarily in low resource, smaller 
schools. So, nearly two in five high school graduates, regardless of 
their academic ability, interest, or motivation, will start college 
facing a much tougher path for pursuing STEMM degrees.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Science Education Policy, Problematizing the STEM Pipeline 
Metaphor: Is the STEM Pipeline Metaphor Serving Our Students and the 
STEM Workforce?, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At Notre Dame, we established a STEMM scholars program in 2018 to 
support students who intend to pursue STEMM careers but arrive at our 
university without the benefit of multiple Advanced Placement courses 
or other STEMM enrichment opportunities. This program has been very 
successful in helping these students succeed in their courses and 
persist in STEMM disciplines, without the emotional burden of feeling 
less qualified than others.
Modernizing university technology transfer programs
    The Endless Frontier Act seeks to strengthen America's economic 
competitiveness and efficiency by producing innovative technology 
through research and commercialization grants. Achieving these goals 
will require commercialization of innovations that emerge from these 
research investments, much of which will go to universities.
    To achieve the goals of the Endless Frontier Act, universities need 
to remake their technology transfer and commercialization operations. 
More specifically, they should shift away from the nearly ubiquitous 
model of relying on tech managers, who usually have deep technical 
knowledge and little business experience, to commercialize university 
discoveries. Twenty years of data have shown this approach does not 
work.
    For example, despite tens of billions of dollars spent on 
university research each year, 95 percent of all intellectual property 
discovered in universities goes unlicensed.\6\ Of the intellectual 
property that is licensed, 72 percent takes place at only 37 
universities. Furthermore, only 13 percent of tech transfer offices are 
self-sustaining.\7\ Why? Technologies that emerge from universities are 
very early-stage and full of risk for potential licensees, so potential 
investors are hesitant to invest. Traditional tech transfer offices 
lack the skills and processes to de-risk a technology sufficiently 
enough that the right funders, founders, entrepreneurs, advisors, 
mentors, or corporate partners will engage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Nature: https://www.nature.com/news/universities-struggle-to-
make-patents-pay-1.13811, 2013.
    \7\ AUTM (formerly the Association of University Technology 
Managers) Report, https://autm
.net/surveys-and-tools/databases/statt, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address this issue, university commercialization operations 
should put in place a rigorous and replicable de-risking process. At 
the University of Notre Dame, we have implemented a stage-gated, 
milestone driven methodology to de-risk technologies and make them more 
attractive for commercialization.
    Implementing such a process drives success in a number of ways. 
First, it allows the commercialization office's staff to specialize in 
key areas, including IP and technology, business, and startups. Second, 
it ensures the staff applies the right resources in the right amounts 
at the right times for the right projects. Finally, it turbocharges the 
speed with which technologies move from discovery to market.
    Over the past five to eight years, a small number of universities 
have started using a variant of this system and the results are 
impressive. They have created hundreds of startups, tens of thousands 
of jobs, and billions of dollars in value. Research funding alone will 
not achieve the goals of the Endless Frontier Act. New and inventive 
commercialization processes will be required.
Expanding innovation at the national, state, and regional levels
    U.S. business research and development activities are presently 
concentrated in a relatively small number of states. In 2018, of the 
$441 billion in R&D performed in the U.S., most went to California (33 
percent), followed by Washington (7 percent), Massachusetts (6 
percent), Michigan (5 percent), Texas (5 percent), New Jersey (5 
percent), New York (4 percent), Illinois (3 percent), and Pennsylvania 
(3 percent).
    While the particular focus of EFA legislation is to address and 
advance America's national security and global competitiveness, I 
applaud its efforts to provide targeted investments and development of 
additional, broadly distributed technology hubs or centers throughout 
the United States, including in promising ``Heartland America'' places 
like Indiana. Indiana is well positioned to serve as one of these state 
tech hubs, as we have rich collaborations across the three major 
research universities; Purdue University, Indiana University, Notre 
Dame, and with the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Indiana 
State government's Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC). We 
also have a highly active organization coordinating the corporate 
relationships in the State, the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership 
(CICP). The CICP has become a major catalyst for growing the industrial 
competitiveness of the companies in the State in areas such as (see 
list of EFA foci). In fact, a recent report that we commissioned from 
the Brookings Institution identified existing strengths and related 
opportunities in a manner that is generally consistent with the tech 
hub framework.
    As of 2019, Indiana has the Nation's third-highest rate of 
employment in these R&D and STEMM-worker intensive industries. 
Indiana's advanced industries employ 10.5 percent of the Hoosier 
workforce (323,600 individuals), while producing 25 percent of the 
state's GDP and 60 percent of the state's exports. And because of long 
supply chains and multiplier effects, the state's industries are 
indirectly responsible for another 700,000 jobs.
    Our state's advanced industry mix makes clear that Indiana's 
economy is largely driven by advanced manufacturing. Among Indiana's 
advanced industry workers, 76 percent are employed in advanced 
manufacturing. These workers produced 79 percent of the state's 
advanced industry output--amounting to roughly 20 percent of the 
state's contribution to GDP.\8\ Furthermore, the life sciences are a 
particularly significant contributor to the state's advanced 
manufacturing sector. Specifically, pharmaceutical and medical device 
production together employ almost 15 percent of all Hoosier advanced 
manufacturing workers and are responsible for more than 25 percent of 
all Hoosier advanced manufacturing output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Indiana GPS Project Report, https://indianagpsproject.com/, 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The South Bend-Elkhart (SBE) Region is at the locus of three 
emergent trends within the global economy: the shift to a digital 
environment in industry; the growing polarity of innovation and 
investment; and the renewed emphasis on applied and experiential 
learning models to better equip the future workforce.
    While these developments present potential challenges, they also 
signal opportunity. The growth of wireless technologies, artificial 
intelligence and robotics, data analytics, and digital sensor 
technologies--often referred to as the fourth industrial revolution--
have accelerated the pace of innovation and increased the need for 
highly skilled expertise.
    Companies that succeed in this transition will be, first and 
foremost, enterprises still producing tangible products, but doing so 
within a data-based, digital environment with connectivity from the 
shop floor through the supply chain and customer base. Regions at the 
forefront of digital transformation, in turn, offer some of the most 
compelling career and economic opportunities for a well-trained 
workforce, thereby concentrating talent, investment, and innovation.
    In response to these emerging economic demands and need for a 
coordinated solution, funded by a $42 million grant from the Lilly 
Endowment, Notre Dame and the South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership 
launched the LIFT Network and iNDustry Labs to more effectively and 
proactively serve the businesses in the South-Bend Elkhart region with 
a regional innovation hub. The LIFT Network and iNDustry Labs link the 
faculty expertise, student talent, and R&D capabilities at the 
University and throughout the region with the regional companies 
embarking on the digital transformation journey to become more 
productive, resilient, and skilled organizations in the digital 
economy.
Recommendations
    I offer the Committee seven recommendations to create greater 
access to STEMM pathways, to promote increased collaboration between 
and among curiosity-and use-driven researchers, and to ensure the full 
potential of the Endless Frontier Act is achieved.

  1.  Create funding mechanisms that encourage research institutions to 
        collaborate with middle schools and high schools at scale, 
        including supporting the professional development of middle and 
        high school science teachers, developing innovative STEMM 
        curricula, and inviting students for meaningful STEMM on-campus 
        experiences. Separately fund a full-scale analysis of the 
        effectiveness of different approaches.

  2.  Seed fund the development of wrap-around services for first-
        generation students and those from low resource backgrounds to 
        ensure they can prosper in STEMM fields. Separately fund a 
        full-scale analysis to assess effectiveness of different 
        interventions, preferably as randomized controlled trials.

  3.  Fund the development and maintenance of networks designed to 
        provide mentorship, research rotations, internships, shadowing 
        programs, support systems, and career advancement in STEMM 
        fields at all levels, especially as they are relevant to 
        gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.

  4.  Dramatically expand funding for NSF Graduate Research Fellowships 
        (GRFs) and Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), 
        programs that are incredibly effective at attracting and 
        retaining young scholars in STEMM. Craft and fund similar 
        programs for high school students and masters-level students.

  5.  Create funding mechanisms that promote collaboration between 
        researchers in different fields and between use-driven and 
        curiosity-driven scholars. These mechanisms should also include 
        grants designed specifically to develop the databases that will 
        accelerate use-driven research.

  6.  Provide funding that extends the length of current grants to 
        address the impacts of COVID-19 on research. Such funding is 
        critical for keeping women and minority scholars in STEMM.

  7.  Implement funding incentives to help universities transform their 
        tech transfer offices into business-oriented, de-risking 
        operations that better promote commercialization of federally 
        funded research.

  8.  To maximize the return on Federal investments in regional 
        technology hubs, consider regional readiness, including 
        vibrancy of partnerships, existing structures for university-
        industry partnerships, and local/regional support in workforce 
        development programs.
Conclusion
    Keeping our Nation secure, prosperous, and economically competitive 
in a dynamically changing world depends upon a tremendous investment in 
science and technology research. That investment is a necessary one, 
and it is one our peers, competitors, and adversaries are making. That 
investment will also allow us to address our most pressing societal 
challenges and continue to fulfill the great promise of the American 
experiment. Our generation must make this commitment, as previous 
generations did for us, to secure a prosperous future for our children 
and grandchildren.
    As a university provost, with a landscape view of research at Notre 
Dame and across higher education, I have come to believe that the three 
most powerful drivers of innovation are curiosity, purpose, and profit. 
The Endless Frontier Act has the potential to tap deeply into all three 
of these drivers.
    While I am proud that my research group's work has helped protect 
children across the country from lead exposure, it would be vanity for 
me to take credit for those impacts. The National Science Foundation 
funded my graduate education, and Federal funding fuels my research. So 
the credit really goes to all of you, senators, and to your colleagues 
in the House of Representatives, for your longstanding commitment to 
science and scientists.
    I will close with a personal story of the powerful synergy between 
curiosity-driven and use-driven research, the role of 
commercialization, and a single, but important, good outcome.
    In the 1950s, curiosity-driven botanists and cultural 
anthropologists were fascinated by the Madagascar rosy periwinkle. 
Eventually, an extract of the plant was used by Eli Lilly to develop 
vincristine, a chemotherapeutic that increased the survival rate from 
childhood leukemia from 10 to 90 percent. From the same plant, they 
also developed vinblastine, one of the four chemotherapeutics that was 
used to save my daughter Viviana's life when she was diagnosed with 
Hodgkin's Lymphoma three years ago. She is now a healthy and happy 
college sophomore, studying chemistry.
    Again, I commend this Committee for their dedication to this effort 
and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Miranda. Thank you for 
sharing that personal story, thank you. It makes it very 
meaningful today, thank you.
    Dr. Shaw, thank you so much for joining us.

    STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID SHAW, PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE 
            PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Shaw. Thank you. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak to you today about a topic that is vital to our Nation's 
future. For the past century, the U.S. has led the world in 
research, and technology development. However, that leadership 
is now in peril, requiring immediate and sustained action. This 
issue has no political nor geographic affiliation, and 
solutions must be crafted that benefit every American, if we 
are to maintain that leadership. We must be unified in 
developing this solution, since our threats are not within the 
United States; rather the threat is from competition abroad.
    Past Federal investments in research have made a tremendous 
difference in my home state of Mississippi. Mississippi State 
University won a National Science Foundation Engineering 
Research Center in 1990, focused on computational field 
simulation. As a part of the incentive to attract Nissan to the 
state, we leveraged the ERC to create a new Center for Advanced 
Vehicular Systems at our university. The Department of Commerce 
has now estimated the impact of just this one center, to be 
nearly $6 billion over a 12-year period, in jobs saved and 
created. Without the NSF investment, this simply would not have 
been possible.
    I appreciate the language in the current legislation that 
recognizes the need for broad participation, but I also believe 
it does not go far enough. The Established Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is mentioned specifically. I 
serve on the EPSCoR Coalition board and can attest, from 
firsthand knowledge, that this program has a substantial impact 
on the 28 states and territories that qualify for this program. 
However, allocating only 12 percent of the funds to the EPSCoR 
program belies the commitment to see distribution of technology 
and innovation funding beyond the five states that see the vast 
majority of existing funds. Language regarding the regional 
hubs, similarly, has a minimal role for an EPSCoR state to be 
included, and no leadership role is expected. EPSCoR 
jurisdictions are the home of tremendous potential. However, a 
lack of resources greatly limits the development of this 
potential.
    The disparity of existing NSF funding between states, the 
haves and have-nots, is striking, and my concern is that 
without specific and proactive action mandated in legislation 
this disparity will only worsen. Congress has the opportunity 
to ensure that zip code does not determine whether talented 
students can develop the workforce of the future, the new ideas 
for entrepreneurial businesses, and the economic development so 
desperately needed in some of our more depressed economies.
    I will use my state and my institution as an example. 
Mississippi's population has the highest percentage of African 
Americans of all U.S. states. At MSU, we enroll a higher 
percentage of African Americans, by a wide margin, than any 
other university in the Southeastern Conference. And by an 
equally wide margin, MSU enrolls a greater proportion of 
African Americans than any other historically white land-grant 
university in the entire United States. MSU also enrolls the 
most PELL-eligible students of any university in our state. We 
strive for all students, but particularly those from 
underrepresented and disadvantaged populations, to be 
successful. To do that, however, we must be provided the 
resources to involve these students in creative discovery, 
technology development, and entrepreneurship to ensure that 
they are given all of the tools necessary to be successful in 
their lives and careers. Currently, Mississippi ranks at the 
bottom of all states in terms of NSF funding per capita. Less 
than $7 is invested per Mississippi citizen, whereas the 
national average is $23, and in some states is over $80 per 
capita. This inequity simply must be addressed if we as a 
nation are to move forward in unity.
    Two years ago, I had the opportunity to testify at a sub-
committee hearing before this Committee and would reiterate 
here the following four recommendations from that testimony, 
calling for investments to be, first, broad-based 
geographically. Second, truly trans-disciplinary in nature. 
Third, broadly supportive of both fundamental and developmental 
research endeavors. And finally, encouraging Federal, State, 
university, and industry partnerships.
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the 
Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify 
before you today. Mississippi State University is a staunch 
advocate for bipartisan support in technology development and 
innovation, and we are eager to be full participants in the 
efforts. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Shaw follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice 
                President, Mississippi State University
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about a 
topic vital to our Nation's future. For the past century the U.S. has 
led the world in research, innovation, and technology development. 
However, that leadership is now in peril, requiring immediate and 
sustained action. This issue has no political nor geographic 
affiliation, and solutions must be crafted that benefit every American 
if we are to maintain that leadership. We must be unified in developing 
this solution, since our threats are not within the U.S.; rather the 
threat is from competition abroad.
    Past Federal investments in research have made a tremendous 
difference in our state. Mississippi State University (MSU) won a 
National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) in 
1990, focused on computational field simulation. We have many success 
stories that came from that ERC, but none more important than how it 
was used to attract Nissan to the State of Mississippi. As a part of 
the incentive to attract Nissan, we leveraged the ERC to create a new 
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at MSU, with a combination 
of basic engineering research and industrial outreach to support the 
automotive industry in the state. In fact, the Department of Commerce 
has estimated the impact of just this one center, not the entire 
university, to be nearly $6 billion over a twelve year period, in jobs 
saved or created. Without the NSF investment, I doubt any of this would 
have been possible.
    I appreciate the language in the current proposed legislation that 
recognizes the need for broad participation, but would challenge that 
it does not go far enough. The Established Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is mentioned specifically. I serve on the 
EPSCoR Coalition board, and can attest from firsthand knowledge that 
this program has a substantial impact on the 28 states and territories 
that qualify for this program. However, allocating only twelve percent 
of the funds to the EPSCoR program belies the commitment to see 
distribution of technology and innovation funding beyond the five 
states that see the vast majority of existing funds. Language regarding 
the regional hubs similarly has a minimal role for an EPSCoR state to 
be included, and no leadership role is expected. EPSCoR jurisdictions 
are the home of tremendous potential; however, a lack of resources 
greatly limits the development of this potential.
    The disparity of existing NSF funding between states, the haves and 
have-nots, is striking, and my concern is that without specific and 
proactive action mandated in legislation this disparity will only 
worsen. Congress has the opportunity to ensure that zip code does not 
determine whether talented students can develop the workforce of the 
future, the new ideas for entrepreneurial businesses, and the economic 
development so desperately needed in some of our more depressed 
economies.
    I will use my state of Mississippi and my institution as an 
example. Mississippi population has the highest percentage of African 
Americans of U.S. states. At MSU, we enroll a higher percentage of 
African Americans--by a wide margin--than any other university in the 
Southeastern Conference. And by an equally wide margin, Mississippi 
State enrolls a greater proportion of African Americans than any other 
historically white land-grant university in the United States. MSU 
enrolls the most PELL-eligible students of any university in our state. 
We strive for all students, but particularly those from under-
represented and disadvantaged populations, to be successful. To do 
that, however, we must be provided the resources to involve these 
students in creative discovery, technology development, and 
entrepreneurship in order to ensure that they are given all the tools 
necessary to be successful in life and their careers. Currently, 
Mississippi ranks at the bottom of all states in terms of NSF funding 
per capita. Less than $7 is invested per Mississippi citizen, whereas 
the national average is $23, and in some states is over $80 per capita. 
This inequity simply must be addressed if we as a nation are to move 
forward in unity.
    On another note, we need to see stronger coordination with other 
Federal research agencies and national laboratories. In working with 
Department of Energy and Department of Defense national labs, it has 
often struck me that there needs to be a much stronger partnership 
among Federal agencies in technology and innovation. Discovery science 
at the national labs can readily partner with technology development 
programs at academic institutions that would benefit both, and 
dramatically enhance innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S. 
Mississippi State has done this particularly well with the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center in 
Vicksburg Mississippi, and our state has seen tremendous benefit from 
this partnership.
    Establishing a Technology and Innovation Directorate at NSF will 
not only ensure the United States' leadership role in research is 
continued, it will also bring about STEM training for the workforce of 
the future and lead to an economic development renaissance not seen in 
decades. Mississippi State has placed tremendous focus on these efforts 
already, and the benefits have been gratifying. Our Thad Cochran 
Research, Technology and Economic Development Park is completely 
filled, and phase 2 has already been implemented. We have wonderful, 
entrepreneurial industry partners such as Camgian, Babel Street, II-IV 
Inc, Martin Federal, and HBM nCode working side by side with MSU 
faculty and students in efforts to grow the Mississippi economy. Our 
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems works particularly closely with 
industry in the state to develop innovative solutions as businesses 
grow. And, our Raspet Flight Research Laboratory has a seven-decade 
history of partnering with companies such as Boeing, Airbus, and new 
startup companies in manned and unmanned aircraft systems. It is clear 
that these partnerships are having a positive impact on the community, 
pushing it to a leading technology center with new jobs and industries.
    Two years ago I had the opportunity to testify at a sub-committee 
hearing before this Committee, and would reiterate here the following 
four recommendations from that testimony, calling for investments to 
be:

  1.  Broad-based geographically. We must support the best and 
        brightest students and researchers wherever they are, not just 
        at a few locations if we as a nation are to make the progress 
        you envision.

  2.  Trans-disciplinary in nature. The most challenging issues we face 
        today cannot be solved by any one or even a few disciplines. 
        Rather, issues such as health disparity, food security, and 
        water scarcity can only be solved by the hard sciences and 
        social sciences working together in new and novel ways.

  3.  Broadly supportive of both fundamental and developmental research 
        endeavors. Both basic and applied research are critical if we 
        are to lead the world in innovation and entrepreneurship.

  4.  Encouraging federal, state, university, and industry 
        partnerships. We must find ways to invest in research that 
        leads directly to innovation that spawns entrepreneurship and 
        economic development in the private sector. Historically, our 
        economy is based on this innovation, and with reduced private 
        investment in academic research, Federal funding is ever more 
        important if we are to continue to lead the world.

    Finally, I applaud your efforts to ensure that the U.S. is working 
on an even playing field in research and development. MSU fully 
recognizes the threat from intellectual property theft, as well as 
national security issues in research, and diligently works with Federal 
law enforcement officials to do all that we can to ensure our research 
findings are held with the appropriate confidentiality.
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the committee, I 
thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 
Mississippi State University is a staunch advocate for bipartisan 
support in technology development and innovation, and we are eager to 
be full participants in your efforts.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Shaw. Thank you for 
representing Mississippi State by being here and testifying. I 
think your contributions to this discussion are very important, 
so thank you.
    We are now going to turn to Linden Rhoads, who is joining 
us virtually.

         STATEMENT OF LINDEN RHOADS, GENERAL MANAGER, 
                           THE W FUND

    Ms. Rhoads. Good morning. My name is Linden Rhoads, and I 
am testifying today from Seattle, Washington, where it is 
allergy season, and this morning I am inconveniently afflicted. 
So, I apologize for that.
    Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for the opportunity to share 
my experience that I hope shows that, with adequate funding 
from Congress, universities can better provide for innovation 
for our Nation.
    From 2008 to 2014, I served as the Vice Provost for 
Commercialization for the University of Washington. During my 
tenure, the university agreed to a substantial temporary 
increase of the budget for tech transfer, which we used to 
implement an integrated slate of programs designed to radically 
increase licensing and spin-out activity. So, my experience is 
a reinforcing data point for those of you who posit that there 
is gold in the academic research hills, and that we could, as a 
nation, be mining more of it.
    The University of Washington has a massive research 
enterprise, conducting over $1.5 billion of mostly federally 
funded research every year. Yet, as with most research 
universities, there had not been enough to show for it in 
commercialization output. When I arrived, the 10-year run rate 
for spinouts from the university was 8 per year, mostly as 
small hobby businesses. In my last year at UW, we spun out 21 
companies, which put UW at third in the Nation for academic 
spinouts, with the majority of those companies being venture 
capital appropriate companies that had the potential to scale, 
create numerous jobs for our State, and have real impact on 
society.
    I was not a career academic executive. I am a serial 
technology entrepreneur and venture investor, who was hired to 
be a change agent. And I made a multitude of programmatic 
changes over 6 years. We brought in in-house patent agents, in 
both IT and life science, who were available to confer free of 
charge with research faculty about IP in areas in which they 
were considering writing research grants, seeking promising IP 
white space.
    We launched an entrepreneur-in-residence program to provide 
broad mentorship to entrepreneurial faculty and introduced 
highly technical potential CEOs with subject-matter expertise 
to our world class researchers.
    We established advisory boards of industry experts to 
advise life science faculty on reimbursement, clinical trial 
design, and the FDA. In many cases, the only way our faculty 
entrepreneur teams could spin-out a life science startup was 
with an SBIR grant. So, we hired an SBIR grant writer.
    We awarded a million dollars annually in $50,000 
commercialization grants to the most promising translational 
projects. For some steps, that would reduce technical or market 
risk and increase the likelihood that the project could attract 
for-profit investors.
    We launched the university's first incubator, a building 
with wet lab space, as well as office space for startups. We 
raised a $20 million venture fund, The W Fund that invested 
exclusively in spinouts from Washington State's non-profit 
research institutions.
    I still serve as the General Manager of The W Fund, as 
Senator Cantwell mentioned. And we are making our last 
investment, a follow-on investment in one of our 19 portfolio 
companies, this week. Expert sector-specific mentorship, value-
creating gap funding, and strong IP support created significant 
new opportunities and economic success out of UW's already 
stellar research enterprise. This level of support is necessary 
because university researchers balance commercialization 
efforts with their academic teaching and research workload.
    And the programs I have mentioned require funding. Very few 
tech transfer offices, especially those at public universities, 
have adequate funding. UW happens to have had one big tech 
transfer hit, the Hall patents that provided a base level of 
funding to its tech transfer office. I convinced the university 
administration to invest over $2 million, closer to 3, more 
dollars per year while I was there to allow us to spend more on 
the programs I have mentioned, as well as a bump in patent 
activities. It was a happy coincidence that this public 
university was positioned to accede to my request.
    My successor started when the Hall patents had just expired 
and spent 5 years winding down many of the programs that had 
yielded great results. Support of the innovation ecosystem is a 
long-term play and, while short-term gains can be achieved, 
game-changing potential is lost for our Nation when programs 
must be dismantled. And that is because administrators are wary 
of programs that suggest that minimal capital investments will 
have great results, or that significant capital investments, 
for only a few years, will have sustained results.
    Too often government or foundations offer universities less 
than a million dollars a year, for one to 3 years, with the 
notion that after the funding ends, the programs they funded 
will somehow become self-sustaining. What is ideally needed is 
a 10-year commitment that the substantial funds major tech 
transfer offices need to provide comprehensive innovation 
support, including the funds to speculatively protect the 
intellectual property generated by federally funded research, 
including filing international patents where appropriate.
    Only a few elite, private institutions can afford to do 
this adequately today. All of the above has at least a $3 
million price tag per $1 billion of federally funded research 
per year, on top of the funding such offices currently have 
available in their budget for base operations. But I believe 
that the results would make that investment nation changing. 
And I would be happy to answer any questions about that.
    Thank you so much for the invitation to participate today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rhoads follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Linden Rhoads, General Manager, The W Fund
    Good morning,

    My name is Linden Rhoads, and I am testifying today from Seattle 
Washington. I've been asked to participate because from 2008 to 2014, I 
served as the Vice Provost for Commercialization for the University of 
Washington. During my tenure the university agreed to a substantial 
temporary increase of the budget for tech transfer, which we used to 
implement an integrated slate of programs designed to radically 
increase licensing and spin-out activity, and we were successful. So my 
experience is a reinforcing data point for anyone who posits that there 
is gold in the academic research hills, and that we could as a nation 
be mining more of it. The University of Washington has a massive 
research enterprise, conducting over $1.5B of mostly federally funded 
research every year. Yet, as with most research universities, there had 
been little to show for it in commercialization output when I arrived; 
the ten year run rate for spin-outs from the university was 8 per year, 
and many of these were companies destined to be small hobby businesses. 
In my last year at UW we spun out 21 companies--that put UW at third in 
the Nation for academic spin-outs--with the majority of those companies 
being venture capital appropriate companies that had the potential to 
scale, create jobs, and have real impact. I was not a career academic 
executive. The UW hired in me a serial technology entrepreneur two of 
whose start-ups had been spin-outs from the university's computer 
science and engineering department. I was hired to be a change agent, 
and we made a multitude of programmatic changes that drove the 
spectacular improvement in results over the 6 years I ran the office. 
We brought in in-house patent agents with specialization in both IT and 
life science who were available to confer free of charge with research 
faculty about IP in areas in which they were considering writing 
research grants, seeking promising ``IP white space.'' We launched an 
entrepreneur-in-residence program that provided broad mentorship to 
entrepreneurial faculty and would-be entrepreneurial faculty, and 
introduced potential CEOs with industry and highly technical and 
scientific subject matter expertise to our world class researchers. We 
created advisory boards of industry experts who could advise our life 
science faculty on regulatory issues, clinical trial design, and the 
right approach to the FDA. Because in many cases the only way our 
faculty/entrepreneur teams could amass sufficient capital to spin-out a 
life science start-up was with an SBIR grant, we hired an SBIR grant 
writer to assist us in doing a better job of garnering that support. We 
awarded $1.25M annually in $50K ``commercialization'' grants to the 
most promising translational projects, requiring that the funds be used 
not necessarily for science, but for some step that would reduce 
technical or market risk and thus increase the likelihood that the 
project could attract ROI funding from for-profit investors. We 
launched the university's first incubator, a building with wet lab 
space as well as office space for start-ups. We raised a $20M venture 
fund, The W Fund, that invested exclusively in spin-outs from 
Washington's non-profit research institutions. I still serve as the 
General Manager of The W Fund and we are making our last investment, a 
follow-on investment in one of our 19 portfolio companies, this month. 
Expert sector-specific mentorship, value-creating gap funding, and 
strong IP support created signficiant new opportunities and economic 
success from UW `s already excellent research enterprise. This level of 
support is necessary is required because university researchers balance 
commercialization efforts with their academic teaching and research 
workload. The programs I've mentioned required some level of ingenuity 
and passion for the business of seeing the research that has consumed 
$20M of Federal funding and the lives of three star researchers 
actually get to a patient and improve their health. But these programs 
also required funding. Very few tech transfer offices, especially those 
at public universities, have adequate funding. UW had had one big tech 
transfer hit, The Hall patents, that provided a base level of funding 
to the tech transfer office. I convinced the university administration 
to invest over $2M more per year while I was there to allow us to spend 
more on the programs I've mentioned as well as patent activities. It 
was a happy coincidence that my arrival coincided with a moment when 
this public university was positioned to accede to this request. My 
successor started when the Hall patents had just expired, and spent 5 
years winding down many of the programs that had yielded great results. 
Support of the innovation ecosystem is a long-term play and whole 
short-term gains can be achieved, game-changing potential is lose when 
programs must be dismantled and rebuilt with changing budgets. This is 
why tech transfer administrators are wary of programs that suggest that 
minimal capital investments will have great results, or that 
significant capital investments over only a few years will have 
sustained results. Too often government or foundations offer 
universities a few hundred thousand dollars to a million dollars a year 
for one to three years with the idea that somehow after the program 
funding ends, the program will be self-sustaining. The continual 
pivoting and change is not helpful. What is needed is ideally a ten-
year commitment of the substantial funds major tech transfer offices 
need to provide comprehensive innovation support including the funds to 
speculatively protect the intellectual property generated by federally 
funded research, including filing international patents where 
appopriate. Only a few elite private institutions can afford to do this 
adequately today. This is probably a $2.5M price tag per $1B of 
federally funded research per year, on top of the funding such offices 
currently have available in their budget for base operations. Such 
funding would allow universities to align their considerable tech 
transfer talent with entrepreneurs and investors in bridging the gap 
between promising discovery research and life-improving technologies 
and products. I'd also like to commend the iCorps HUBS. My colleagues 
in tech transfer continue to laud these that train researchers to 
pursue customer directed discovery and to focus on the end user, and 
that encourage well managed expert industry mentorship. I'd be happy to 
answer any questions.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Linden, and thank you for the 
leadership at the University of Washington and your success 
there. I do think it really is a very instructive case about 
large research institutions and what they can do on tech 
transfer.
    So, next we are going to turn to an entrepreneur himself, 
who is going to explain exactly why this R&D investment is so 
necessary. Welcome, Dr. Gary Butler, and I would love to hear 
your testimony. Thank you.

   STATEMENT OF DR. GARY D. BUTLER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, CAMGIAN

    Dr. Butler. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, 
Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today. In my previous career, I 
worked here in the Beltway as an engineer for a Cambridge, 
Massachusetts based advanced technology firm, leading programs 
funded by agencies such as DARPA. In 2006 I decided to move to 
Mississippi, my home State, where I founded Camgian.
    Since that time, Camgian has grown into an award-winning 
technology company, which today is building automation and data 
science technologies that support our military and some of the 
world's leading financial institutions. This from a high-tech 
company headquartered in a state with a greater than 20 percent 
poverty level.
    As today's discussions reflect on the innovation needed to 
maintain our global leadership, I will use my time to focus on 
an area that I believe is vital to our country's future. This 
is Artificial Intelligence. Make no doubt, the U.S. is in a 
global race in AI. Efforts by our competitors to increase 
funding for AI development have resulted in a rise of new 
technologies that are radically transforming the battlefield. 
As such, Camgian is engaged in developing a new generation of 
AI powered military technologies that aim to provide our war 
fighters the capability to think and act faster than our 
adversaries.
    To address the emerging threats to our national security 
and competitiveness, I applaud Congress for taking the bold 
move to expand the NSF to include applied research. But would 
ask that you consider the vital role that small tech companies 
play in commercialization.
    Given our skills in product development and marketing, 
agile tech companies would bring the requisite capabilities to 
the NSF, to deliver leading edge technologies to market. This 
would also include establishing the framework for protecting 
our country's valuable intellectual property. To this point, 
one of the breakthroughs in AI is deep learning, which was 
created almost entirely through academic research in the United 
States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Such capabilities 
derived from AI research are shared openly across the globe 
and, today, underpin many of the AI technologies that directly 
compete against the United States, commercially and militarily. 
Quoting from the book AI Super-Powers, ``The West may have 
sparked the fire of deep learning, but China will be the 
biggest beneficiary of the heat the AI fire is generating.''
    So, I would like you to consider three takeaways from my 
testimony today. First, I would recommend the DARPA applied 
research model, which is proven and would provide small high-
tech companies the ability to directly apply to the NSF for 
grants to support technology development. Expanding investment 
in the NSF without an effective commercialization process, will 
have a minimal effect on U.S. global competitiveness. According 
to the National Science Board, academic institutions accounted 
for only 2 percent of the patents granted in 2016, and many 
generate less revenue from licensing their inventions than the 
cost of managing them, according to the Washington Post.
    This is not meant to be a criticism of universities, but to 
highlight that moving research from the lab to the market is 
complex and is best suited for America's small high-tech sector 
who has the technical talent, organizational infrastructure, 
and business processes to fill this role immediately. Most 
importantly, America's small-tech entrepreneurs will bring the 
sense of urgency, competitive drive, and speed necessary to 
meet the accelerated pace of the emerging challenges to our 
global technical leadership.
    Second, I would call on Congress to develop policy that 
ensures inclusivity of the entire country, not just the 
traditional tech-hubs, in a unifying mission that leverages the 
power of our Nation's diversity. This includes the diversity of 
thought, culture, and socioeconomics that exists across our 
great country to build the next generation technologies, 
products, and workforce of 21st century America.
    Finally, history shows that if you give the U.S. 
entrepreneurs the mission and funding, the U.S. will win this 
race. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Butler follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Dr. Gary D. Butler, Chairman and CEO, Camgian
    Good morning. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today. In my previous career, I worked here in the Beltway 
for a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based advanced technology research and 
development firm, leading applied research programs funded by 
organizations such as DARPA. In 2006 I made the decision to move to 
Mississippi, my home state, where I founded Camgian. My objective was 
to leverage our organic talent to build a leading high-tech company and 
limit the brain drain from our state, which we have done.
    Since that time, Camgian has grown into an award-winning high-tech 
company, which today is building solutions addressing our country's 
most pressing national security issues and providing information 
products and services to some of the world's leading financial 
institutions. Our business model is built on artificial intelligence 
(AI) and software and their combined ability to drive new levels of 
decision automation. This from a high-tech company headquartered in a 
state with a greater than 20 percent poverty level and a county 
classified as ``at-risk'' by the Appalachian Regional Commission where 
a portion of the county is classified as economically distressed, and 
in the bottom 10-25 percent economically of all counties in the United 
States.
    As today's discussions reflect on the innovation needed to maintain 
our global leadership, I will use my time to focus on a technology area 
identified in the Endless Frontier Act that I believe is vital to our 
country's future. This technology is AI. Make no doubt, the U.S. is in 
a global AI race. In July 2017, the State Council of China released a 
plan to build a domestic AI industry worth nearly $150 billion with a 
target to become the leading AI power by 2030. Global efforts to 
increase funding and government-led support of AI technology 
development have resulted in an increase in new high-tech companies and 
applications that are radically transforming the battlefield. As such, 
Camgian is deeply engaged in addressing these emerging threats by 
developing AI-enabled solutions that help our warfighters think and act 
faster than our competitors.
    The primary source of our funding is from the Department of Defense 
(DoD). This funding supports our applied research and development 
efforts, which in turn fuels our technology and product development. I 
want to leverage our know-how, processes, technologies, and talent to 
address national competitiveness issues in AI and expand our business 
in the broader commercial market. However, funding sources and 
opportunities to pursue this strategy for small high-tech companies 
like Camgian are extremely limited.
    To address this critical gap, I applaud Congress for taking the 
bold move to expand the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
to include applied research in the organization's mission but would ask 
that you consider the vital role that high-tech entrepreneurial 
companies play in technology commercialization. Speaking on behalf of 
this community, I would advocate for an implementation plan to 
facilitate a public-private partnership between our country's best 
academic minds and our best high-tech entrepreneurs.
    Applied to our national competitive gaps, this approach would 
catalyze those on the front lines of our global technology competition, 
the high-tech entrepreneurial companies. As an agile high-tech 
business, our advantage is speed. We cannot survive by being 
distracted, complacent, cautious thinkers, or incrementalists. 
Innovation and a sense of urgency must be in our DNA or we die at the 
hands of large corporations. Coupled with our skills in product 
development and marketing, a strong academic and entrepreneurial high-
tech sector partnership would deliver future technologies and 
applications to the market to address our national competitive gaps.
    More importantly, a prominent role for small high-tech businesses 
would establish the framework for protecting our country's valuable 
intellectual property. To emphasize the importance of this point, one 
of the breakthroughs in AI is deep learning, which was created almost 
entirely through academic research in the United States, Canada, and 
the United Kingdom. Capabilities derived from AI research are shared 
across the globe through the open-source community and deep learning 
technologies now underpin many products and systems that directly 
compete against the U.S. both commercially and militarily. Quoting from 
the book AI Super-Powers by Kai-Fu Lee, ``The West may have sparked the 
fire of deep learning, but China will be the biggest beneficiary of the 
heat the AI fire is generating.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Kai-Fu Lee, Ai Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, And The New 
World Order (Houghton Miffin Harcourt Company, 1st Edition, September1, 
2018) page 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In closing, I would like you to consider three takeaways from my 
testimony today.
    First, I would recommend using the DARPA applied research model, 
which is proven and would provide small high-tech companies the ability 
to directly apply to the new NSF for grants to support technology 
development and prototyping. Expanding investment in the NSF without an 
effective commercialization process will have a minimal effect on U.S. 
global competitiveness. According to the National Science Board, 
academic institutions accounted for only 2 percent of the patents 
granted in 2016 and many generate less revenue from licensing their 
inventions than the cost of managing them, per a 2020 Washington Post 
article \2\. This is not meant to be a criticism of universities, but 
to highlight that moving research from the lab to the market is complex 
and is best suited for America's small high-tech sector who has the 
technical talent, organizational infrastructure, and business processes 
to fill this role immediately. Most importantly, America's high-tech 
entrepreneurs will bring the sense of urgency, competitive drive, and 
speed necessary to meet the accelerated pace of the emerging challenges 
to our global technical leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ John Markus (January 17, 2020) Think universities are making 
lots of money from inventions? Think again. Washington Post https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/think-universities-are-making-
lots-of-money-from-inventions-think-again/2020/01/16/3989e448-362f-
11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, I would call on Congress to develop policy that ensures 
inclusivity of the entire country, not just the traditional tech-hubs 
and large tech firms, in a unifying mission that leverages the power of 
our Nation's diversity. This includes the diversity of thought, 
culture, and socioeconomics that exists across our great country to 
build the next-generation technologies, products, and workforce of 21st 
century America.
    Finally, history shows that if you give the U.S. entrepreneurs the 
mission and funding, the U.S. will win this race.
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you 
today. On behalf of Camgian and other high-tech small businesses across 
America, bipartisan solutions with legislation such as this are 
essential as a catalyst to maintain the U.S. as a global technology and 
innovation leader.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Butler. I applaud your 
enthusiasm and dedication, and I am certainly very interested 
in asking questions about workforce opportunities and 
partnerships in Mississippi, when we get to the Q&A.
    Last, but certainly not least, is the Senior Director of 
MIT's Office of Digital Learning, Mr. Bill Bonvillian, and he 
is joining us remotely.

 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. BONVILLIAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SPECIAL 
     PROJECTS, MIT OFFICE OF OPEN LEARNING AND MIT LECTURER

    Mr. Bonvillian. Thank you, Senator. Senators Cantwell, 
Wicker, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 
to talk with you today. I study and teach science and 
technology and have authored books, over the last few years, on 
workforce education, advanced manufacturing and the DARPA 
model. So, I wanted to step back a bit for some bigger picture 
discussions this morning.
    U.S. technology history is littered with technologies that 
are innovated here in the U.S., that did not scale-up here, and 
were produced elsewhere. Flat panel displays, LED lightings, 
solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, drones, the list goes on. 
We know that a series of new, oncoming technologies, many 
listed in this bill, will be critical to our economic future. 
Will we make them here? And then, if the technologies are 
designed here and produced elsewhere, it means we are not 
translating the gains of innovation into our own economy.
    We are now facing a great technology challenge, really for 
the first time, from competitor nations to our innovation 
capability. The consequences are going to affect our economic 
security, our national security, and our living standards. So, 
what happened to U.S. production? We are running over all trade 
deficit and manufactured goods of some $800 billion, an 
unheard-of level. We ran a trade deficit in advanced technology 
products, of $133 billion in 2019. Our share of global 
manufacturing output declined from 25 percent in 2005, to 16 
percent in 2018. We lost one-third of manufacturing jobs 
between 2000 and 2010, with only limited recovery since then. 
How did this happen?
    So, during World War II, the U.S. developed mass production 
to a level that was the envy of the world and enabled our 
success in that war. At the end of the war, when we were 
creating our R&D system, manufacturing was not the problem. We 
were kings of world manufacturing. We were concerned with 
science. We were not the science leaders going into the war, 
but we built remarkable science during the war and we wanted to 
keep it. So, when we organized R&D, we focused on science. So, 
we developed new science and technology advances. We did not 
focus on how to make them.
    But production needs to be seen as part of that innovation 
process. Production involves deep engineering to get to a 
design of the technology to meet market prices and market 
demands, that often requires rethinking the science to get 
there. Manufacturing, particularly of the new technology, is a 
very creative stage.
    Now, Germany and Japan, in the post war, they had to revive 
their economies, restore their industrial bases, get their 
people working. They did manufacturing-led innovation. Japan 
had to teach us about quality production in the 1980s because 
we had missed it. Germany's innovation is also organized within 
production. It is running the largest surplus in manufactured 
goods ever, pays its manufacturing workers 60 percent more than 
the U.S. pays its manufacturing workers, and Korea, Taiwan, and 
China have followed that manufacturing-led innovation model. We 
thought we had to lose manufacturing jobs and offshore them 
because we were high wage, high cost. But somebody forgot to 
send that memo to Germany. They show that you can be high wage 
and win manufacturing markets if you innovate in production.
    So, it is not enough to develop a scientific idea and 
publish a paper. We cannot just assume that it is going to go 
through the stages and get to be manufactured. There is a 
serious of stages that we have to get right, and we have not 
paid enough attention to these.
    So, let me turn briefly to the bill. I discuss three topics 
in my written testimony that spell this out in more detail. But 
concerning tech organization, the bill creates a new tech 
development directorate at NSF. Will this create a culture 
clash with NSF? You know, we have, actually, a long history of 
basic research working alongside use-inspired applied research. 
The other witnesses today have noted that. The cultures can be 
complimentary. DARPA works alongside the Office of Naval 
Research, ARPA-E alongside DOE's labs and its Office of 
Science. Is NSF the right place to put many of these new 
elements? It is our one broadly focused R&D agency not tied to 
specific narrower missions. It does science research in a range 
of a fields that it is famous for. But our current problem is 
technology, not simply basic science. We need a new technology 
development trust, hence this new directorate.
    The new technologies need to move through a series of 
stages. So, for R&D and critical technology areas, the bill 
supports earlier State's research at existing NSF directorates, 
and then, later State's research at the new NSF technology 
directorate. For development and prototyping stages, the next 
level, the bill support university technology centers. And 
importantly, these can be consortia, which include industry 
participants. For tech testing and demonstration, the next 
stage, the bill supports test beds to prove out and demonstrate 
the technologies. And then, for scale-up, we are going to need 
to build regional innovation capacities for scaling up toward 
production.
    Concerning regional innovation--you know, innovation is 
like real estate, location matters. Innovation has to be scaled 
up in regions. It does not happen nationally; it happens 
regionally. So, we need to build our regional innovation 
capacity. We need regions with committed area firms, with small 
and--that are both small and large. We need higher education 
institutions to provide the R&D and the talent. We need backing 
from State and local governments. And we need strong workforce 
technical education. And these pieces have to be working in 
concert. We have to have the regional foundation, so that the 
U.S. innovation can scale. And a 2019 study suggests that there 
are some 102 regions, for example, in the U.S. with the 
potential assets to become regional tech centers, many of which 
are not that now.
    Concerning the workforce, the technical workforce, along 
with the STEM workforce, are going to have to play a key role 
in the emergence of these critical technologies. That technical 
workforce should be supported along with the STEM workforce, 
through the tech directorate. It could also work with NSF's 
existing advanced technical education program, which I know 
both Senator Cantwell and Senator Wicker have been supportive 
of. The regions can also play a role in workforce readiness for 
these critical technologies. So, the workforce element needs to 
include the technical workforce and it will be vital to scale-
up.
    This is a moment of opportunity. The Endless Frontier 
offers an important, indeed historic, opportunity for the U.S. 
to buildup its innovation system, based on the critical 
technologies we must have for our national and economic 
security. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bonvillian follows:]

 Prepared Statement of William B. Bonvillian, Senior Director, Special 
         Projects, MIT Office of Open Learning and MIT Lecturer
    Senators Cantwell, Wicker and Members of the Committee,

    Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today.
    I want to emphasize at the outset that this is important 
legislation that needs to pass. We are facing a challenge to technology 
leadership that we have not faced before. Our growing trade imbalance 
in high-tech industries,\1\ the fall in our real manufacturing value 
added output,\2\ our declining position in international innovation 
ranking systems,\3\ and the weaknesses in our defense industrial base 
\4\ make it clear that American technological leadership in both 
innovation and production has eroded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The U.S. ran a trade deficit in advanced technology products of 
$133 billion in 2019 compared to a trade surplus in these goods of $4.5 
billion in 2001. Trade in Goods with Advanced Technology Products, U.S. 
Census, https://www.census. gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html.
    \2\ U.S. Share of Global Manufacturing Value Added (controlled for 
the value of the U.S. dollar) declined from 25 percent in 2005 to 18.4 
percent in 2014. Adams Nager, Trade vs. Productivity, What Caused 
Manufacturing's Decline, ITIF Feb. 2017, ITIF, citing United Nations 
Statistics, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database (GDP and its 
breakdown at current prices in U.S. dollars, all countries for all 
years). U.S. Manufacturing value added as a percentage of GDP declined 
from nearly 20 percent to 11.2 percent between 1990 and 2021, Statista 
(based on UN and World Bank data), https://www.statista.com/chart/
20148/manufacturing-value-added-as-percent-of-gdp-in-major-economies/
    \3\ See, for example, South Korea Leads World in Innovation as U.S. 
Exits Top Ten, Bloomberg innovation Index, Bloomberg, 2/2/21, https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-03/south-korea-leads-world-in-
innovation-u-s-drops-out-of-top-10;
    \4\ Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military and Security 
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, 2020, Annual 
Report to Congress, Department of Defense, August 2020, 73, 85, 88, 
105, 113, 123, https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/
1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this Committee understands, strong competitors are making 
economic and technology advancements that threaten to displace U.S. 
leadership.\5\ Our current systems are simply not competing well. This 
requires us to adopt a new advanced technology strategy. Without it the 
United States will in all likelihood continue to lose market share in a 
host of advanced industries, including aerospace, life sciences, 
semiconductors, advanced communications and protocols, and Internet 
applications, with negative implications for innovation, national 
security, and, importantly, living standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Robert D. Atkinson, Time for a New National Innovation System 
for Security and Prosperity, Prism (National Defense University 
journal), v.9, n.2, March 2021, 60-61, http://www2.itif.org/2021-PRISM-
9-2-new-national-innovation-
system.pdf?_ga=2.76279189.1863482471.1617915091-1416244290.1617639922
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony covers three topics: (1) organizing to meet the tech 
development challenge, (2) regional innovation, and (3) workforce 
education. Under each topic, I will make general points about these 
areas as well as some suggestions for how the legislation can help deal 
with these three critical areas.
I. Organizing to meet the Tech Development Challenge
    The U.S., starting in the post-World War II period, organized its 
research and development (R&D) around mission agencies, so that the 
research would serve the mission. The National Institutes of Health 
became part of Health and Human Services, DARPA and the other defense 
research organizations became part of the Department of Defense, and 
the Office of Science served the Department Energy. Overall, this 
decentralized science approach has worked well, and helped us bring 
science into specific missions. It was a basic research model because 
the U.S. had been weaker in science at the outset of the war while it 
completely dominated world manufacturing by the end of the war. So the 
U.S. didn't have to consider the implementation stages, it needed to 
strengthen and retain the science base it built during the way.\6\ But 
now we have a series cross-cutting technologies that will serve many 
missions--AI, quantum, new high performance computing, robotics, 
biotechnology, cybersecurity, advanced materials, etc. Where do we put 
a new innovation focus for this range of new technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ William B. Bonvillian, The New Model Innovation Agencies: An 
Overview, Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 
41(4), 2014, 425-426, https://academic.oup.com/spp/articleabstract/41/
4/425/1607552?redirectedFrom=fulltext; William B. Bonvillian and Peter 
L. Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, The New American Innovation Policies 
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2018), 34, 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NSF is our one major, broadly-focused R&D agency not tied to a 
specific, and narrower, mission. It does basic science research in a 
range of fields and it is famous for it. But our current problem is 
technology, not simply basic science--we need a new technology 
development thrust, and this has not been NSF's job. So, the approach 
of this legislation is to form a technology-focused sub-unit within the 
agency--the proposed new Technology Development Directorate at NSF. 
Some argue this will create a culture clash within NSF. Yet we have a 
long history of basic and more use-inspired, applied working in tandem 
and the cultures can be complementary--DARPA works alongside the Office 
of Naval Research, and ARPA-E alongside the DOE's Labs and Office of 
Science,.
    Creating this tech directorate challenges us to think hard about 
the follow-on stages to research. To get to new technology as opposed 
to new science, we need to get through a series of stages, post-
research. New technologies must move through: research, development, 
prototype, testing, demonstration, scale-up/piloting, initial market, 
full production. The proposed legislation recognizes this. It has 
inserted institutional elements to match the process:

   R&D in critical technology areas--with earlier stage 
        research elements at existing NSF directorates, and later stage 
        research as well as development to be performed at the new 
        Technology Directorate.

   Development and prototyping--at University Technology 
        Centers, and importantly, these can be consortia, including 
        industry participants.

   Testing and demonstration--new test beds to prove and 
        demonstrate the new technology so they can get into the risk 
        range that industry and other kinds of capital can work with.

   Scale-up--could be supported at Commerce Department-
        designated Regional Innovation Hubs--for scaling-up toward 
        production- preparing the regional tech infrastructure for 
        introduction

    U.S. technology history is littered with technologies innovated 
here in the U.S., that did not scale-up here, and were produced 
there.\7\ Flat panel displays, solar panels, lithium ion batteries, 
drones, the list goes on and on. A core goal of this bill is to get the 
new critical technologies into range of industry acceptance--here. The 
new technologies require de-risking to get into the scope of risk and 
corresponding costs industry can absorb in implementing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, 57-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enhancement--Connecting the New Pieces: This bill puts key new 
pieces on the table, but all these pieces, as the sponsors and the 
Committee understand, need to be connected. They won't work if they are 
separate stovepipes. There need to be ties between NSF basic research 
and the NSF technology directorate. There need to be direct ties from 
there to the University Technology Centers then to Testbeds for testing 
and demonstration, then these need to tied to the Regional Hubs to be 
established through the Commerce Department for scale-up and pilot 
production.
    We need to build a new house of innovation, and we can't do that if 
the foundation is in one place, the walls in another place, and the 
roof in a third. So the bill, for example, requires the Tech 
Directorate to work with (and transfer funding to) existing 
directorates, and by making clear that the University Technology 
Centers can be part of the regional hubs.
    Innovation economists and technology policy experts have long 
indicated that innovation must be connected. They tell is that 
technology-based innovation is the dominant driver of economic growth. 
They tell us that to innovate, you must have strong R&D, and you must 
have a strong talent base staffing that R&D system. They also tell us 
that ``innovation organization'' is a critical third innovation factor. 
Innovation needs a series of strong actors, from university research, 
to gov't research support and labs, to strong companies and supplier 
systems. You need strong actors and the actors have to connect with 
each other, so the handoffs are easy and smooth. The new pieces this 
bill creates will need organizational linkages to each other.
    And there is another reason for these close connections: there 
needs to be two-way street--exchanges so that the tech development 
influences the R&D not just the R&D influencing the tech development. A 
linear model doesn't work well--a two-way street is critical so the 
actors can assist and teach each other. This is another reason why 
linkages are key between the new pieces. Shared, cross-cutting 
technology strategies that work linking each of the new institutional 
elements called for in the bill, shared advisory boards, and Federal 
agency oversight that emphasizes connections are all part of the 
solution. There are connections in the bill, but these could be 
expanded.
    Enhancement--Connecting the Other R&D Agencies: NSF is not going to 
be the only agency doing work on the 11 ``key technology focus 
areas''--we have other mission R&D agencies that are doing important 
work as well. DOD must continue working on AI and Quantum, for example. 
We need to find ways to get them contributing together with this new 
NSF thrust. Agency collaboration is hard in our decentralized science 
system. And Congress is part of the problem because the appropriations 
process doesn't cross agencies. We need a mechanism for agency 
cooperation and sharing. The Office of Science and Technology Policy 
(OSTP) has its National Science and Technology Coordination (NSTC) 
mechanism. Better is the mechanism developed for the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).\8\ It has a coordination office and, 
while participating agencies don't share funding with each other, they 
work on common strategies and attack common R&D problems, cross-
fertilizing ideas. We will need such a mechanism here. In addition, we 
have already created 16 Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which 
provide another critical ingredient, and, as discussed below, they need 
to be further tied in, including into the Regional Innovation Hubs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Nanotechnology Initiative, https://www.nano.gov/about-
nni
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enhancement--Assuring Adequate Resources for R&D at the Technology 
Directorate: The legislation makes generous percentage allocations to 
the various program it authorizes--to the University Research Centers, 
to existing NSF directorates, testbeds, etc. But only a limited amount 
appears to remain after all those allocations for all the remaining 
purposes. I believe the new Directorate needs more flexibility than 
that; a significant percentage should be set to support research awards 
from Directorate itself. Much of the initial work resulting from the 
legislation will need to happen through the new Directorate's 
substantial competitive research portfolio in later stage R&D--these 
advances will feed all the other follow-on elements in the new system. 
We will need more breakthroughs to build on, so adequate support here 
will be a keystone for the system. In addition, I believe the 
Directorate should use a strong program-manager model aimed at the 
major technology challenges in the new technology areas, setting 
milestones for its research portfolios. It has been granted DARPA-like 
authorities and that is fully appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The DARPA model is relevant to the proposed Directorate. See, 
Bonvillian, Windham and VanAtta (eds.), The DARPA Model for 
Transformative Technologies (Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishing 2020), 
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Regional Innovation
    Innovation is like real estate: location matters. Some regions move 
ahead, some are left behind--why? How can we bring more growth to more 
areas? The Regional Innovation Hubs in the bill, to be set up through 
the Commerce Department's EDA and NIST programs, could be a way to 
encourage regional innovation. How do we make regional innovation work?
    We have been studying this for years--Michael Porter's work on 
innovation clusters dates back over two decades.\10\ There has been 
much regional experimentation--we have many kitchens trying many 
ingredients and there is no exact recipe. Different regions can make 
different recipes work. Throwing innovation tasks at struggling 
regions, however, often does not work. Yet there are examples now of 
places that have become hubs of activity. Let me try to summarize a 
large literature in a few words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See, for example, Michael Porter, Clusters and the New 
Economics of Competition, Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998, 
https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition. 
For a summary of limitations in the theory, see, for example, Yasuyui 
Motoyama, What was New About Cluster Theory? Economic Development 
Quarterly, V. 22, n. 4, Nov. 2008, 355-363, https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.910.884&rep=rep1&type=
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most believe we need regional ecosystems for innovation to 
thrive.\11\ Typically, such an ecosystem includes an area education and 
research institution as an anchor for tech research and talent. 
Ecosystems also seem to need an organized public sector \12\ engaged 
with the private sector--including companies and area business groups--
pursuing a joint strategy. Solid larger firms linked to solid supply 
chains of smaller firms are another ingredient. Regions need to build 
on their existing regional strengths--not every area is going to be a 
biotech hub. Workforce education has become an increasingly significant 
component of a solid regional ecosystem--a number of regions are now 
encouraging companies and startups to come to or stay in their location 
because they can offer a trained and skilled workforce tied to employer 
needs. This mean strong workforce programs for new skills at area 
community or technical colleges are also a component. Another feature 
of the legislation is grants to communities to help them build 
strategies for their regional assets. To summarize a few key points, 
there needs to a broad engagement in innovation--a big tent--not a 
narrow single-innovation focus; strong locally-based firms need to be 
engaged as ``anchor tenants;'' a connection is needed to the talent 
pipeline--state university and skills education programs, for example--
which will be key to companies; and state and local governments need to 
be strongly supporting the effort.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See, for example, R. Atkinson, M. Muro and J. Whiton, The Case 
for Growth Centers, ITIF and the Brookings Institution, Dec. 2019, 
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Full-Report-
Growth-Centers_PDF_BrookingsMetro-BassCenter-ITIF.pdf; Jonathan Gruber 
and Simon Johnson, Jumpstarting America, How Breakthrough Science can 
Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream (NY: Public Affairs 
Publishing 2019).
    \12\ Ben Armstrong, Brass cities: Innovation policy and local 
economic transformation, MIT Department of Political Science (thesis), 
2019, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122404.
    \13\ Ben Armstrong Industrial Policy and Local Economic 
Transformation, Economic Development Quarterly (Aug. 2021) 
(forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pittsburgh, is an example of a regional success story.\14\ It was 
famously dependent on one industry, and when that steel sector 
declined, much of the city's well-being was affected. Starting in the 
1980s, it was able to leverage existing assets--including strong area 
universities and state governments that developed on a bipartisan basis 
a long-term, continuing economic strategy. This combined state and 
local government, education institutions and heavily-involved business 
interests, that together advanced high-growth industries and higher-
wage jobs. And it included grass-roots citizen involvement. A series of 
advanced technology centers were formed with area universities, which 
were at the core of the strategy. So, an advanced technology strategy, 
building on existing assets, can work for regional innovation. And 
significant technology advances in areas like computing, robotics and 
health care followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Armstrong, Brass Cities,143-176
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If the Regional Innovation Hubs anticipated in the legislation take 
on the innovation scale-up role they will need to be located in 
regional ecosystems that can pull together existing assets like those 
listed above. To effectively compete for these, they will need to have 
firms interested in implementing one or a mix of the new technologies 
and be able to muster their regional actors to show how they can help 
implement them.
    The Regional Hubs (funded through the Commerce Department in the 
bill) are not the same as the NSF University Tech Centers the bill will 
create--and that is as it should be. The University Centers will 
primarily be for R&D through prototyping. More is needed beyond that 
for successful innovation, and those further steps are outside the NSF 
role. Additional actors are then needed to move from those research-to-
prototyping stages for work on the scale-up of new technologies. Not 
only universities are needed but regional industry associations, with 
both small and larger firms and their supply chains, community and 
technical colleges, and support from area government and economic 
development organizations. The Hubs are mechanisms to bring this 
additional combination of actors together. To apply an analogy to the 
role of the Regional Hubs, once you have the prototype for a new 
airplane wing, someone has to make sure there's an airplane to put it 
on and an airline to use it. University Tech Centers can be tied to 
follw-on Hubs. Are there enough of these Hubs to reach enough areas? 
While these regional efforts won't work unless adequately funded, the 
Committee might consider a larger number of Hubs with somewhat less 
funding for each to stretch regional innovation opportunities further. 
Not every area will be in a position to compete for these now, so 
importantly the bill also includes support for regions to develop their 
own innovation strategies. I saw a similar effort by the Commerce 
Department to support state manufacturing strategies, as the initial 
advanced manufacturing institute ideas were being considered, and it 
provided states with a major boost in developing state manufacturing 
strategies.
    Enhancement--The link to manufacturing: The Hubs also have a 
different role from the Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which are 
focused on particular production technologies, while the Hubs will 
pursue broader technology advances. In particular, the Hubs will need 
to help bring the new technologies into area companies for actual 
production. But a key asset they should take advantage of is the 16 
existing advanced manufacturing institutes. These Institutes are each 
focused on one advanced manufacturing area, but regional companies and 
regional economies will have to adopt a series--they will have to adopt 
a combination of, for example, 3D printing, digital production, AI, 
robotics, etc., to optimize production for the new technologies. Many 
other nations will be after the same advanced technologies listed in 
this bill--unless we have the most efficient production systems, they 
won't be made here. The bill calls for coordination between the 
Regional Hubs and the Institutes, but the Hubs should be required to 
link to a mix of manufacturing institutes to that can bring their 
expertise to bear on the groups of advanced production technologies 
that will be needed for the new tech development areas. The Hubs can be 
enablers in a broader technology context for the advances the 
Institutes are nurturing in manufacturing.
    The legislation also provides for a significant expansion of the 
Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which should be viewed as 
complementary to the Hubs. These Institutes are both national and 
regional, the Hubs more regional. The Institutes must develop new 
production technologies available nationally, and implemented 
regionally, and the Hubs can help with that regional introduction. The 
Manufacturing Institutes are organized around particular technology 
topic areas, and while the bill calls for many more Institutes, there 
are really not that many different new manufacturing technology topic 
areas. Yes, we need some more institutes around additional technology 
topics, but we also need to deepen the efforts around existing 
manufacturing technologies, to give existing Institutes better ability 
to better reach not just industry leaders but bring their technologies 
to small and mid-sized manufacturers and enable new manufacturing 
skills. The legislation should call not simply for new Institutes, but 
funding should be broadened for manufacturing technology demonstration 
and training centers, strengthened small company and workforce 
programs, and satellite centers for existing institutes in additional 
locations. The legislation also expands the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program, another important and complementary program, to 
play a role in the introduction of the new technologies and to work 
with the Manufacturing Institutes and the new HUBs.
III. Workforce Education
    We know that R&D advances require a robust talent development 
system--so the bill has funding for STEM talent to be educated in the 
new technology areas. We need this. But one area that needs more 
emphasis is not only science and engineering researchers but the 
technical workforce. Technologies will never go into production unless 
there is a strong technical talent base to implement and produce them.
    The U.S. doesn't really have a workforce education system--it is 
missing.\15\ Ask an American what high school or college look like and 
they know, but ask what our workforce education system is and you get a 
blank stare. Ask many Europeans, and they know--they benefit from 
systems that closely link work and learning. Our workforce needs to 
upskill--new IT technologies have entered many sectors, for example -
and we don't have an adequate system to train our workers for it. Jobs 
that require these higher skills are now going begging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ William B. Bonvillian and Sanjay E. Sarma, Workforce 
Education, A New Roadmap (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, some regions are starting to use workforce 
education as a core economic development strategy. For example, South 
Carolina is using its state-wide apprenticeship program built around 
its system of technical colleges to appeal to new and keep existing 
employers. And now it is developing a new youth apprenticeship program 
that starts in the junior year of high school--led by the Charleston 
area.\16\ These and efforts in other states reflect a new reality--we 
have a demographic shift, an aging workforce with a smaller number of 
new entrant workers. And we have a growing skills gap in the new skills 
employers increasingly need. When we start to add the new technology 
this bill envisions, this problem will get worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Bonvillian and Sarma, Workforce Education, 199-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Workforce education is an area where both the NSF and Commerce 
programs have a role, building on their existing work. In all these 
programs, the agencies need to work with both business and labor to 
ensure success.
    Enhancement--The Regional Technology Hubs can help take on the 
workforce task: Talent, including technical talent, will be a key 
element for successful regional innovation. While the bill allows Hubs 
to have workforce programs, this should be a major Hubs effort, working 
with area community and technical colleges, with state colleges and 
secondary schools, to train for the new skills required.
    Enhancement--The Apprenticeship Program: The draft of the bill I 
was provided calls for an apprenticeship program in the new skill areas 
sponsored by the Commerce Department. One approach would be for these 
apprenticeships to be tied to the Regional Hubs to help in their skill 
building in the new technologies.
    Enhancement--Can NSF's ATE program help with technician talent in 
the new technologies? NSF already has a strong Advanced Technical 
Education (ATE) program; it plays a critical role in updating community 
college curricula and programs in advanced skills. As noted, the 
Technology Directorate's education program needs a technical workforce 
education component in addition to its STEM element--let's take 
advantage of ATE and include a stronger workforce education element for 
the technicians and technologists we will need in these new and 
emerging fields. The bill has a set-aside for community colleges and 
calls out the ATE program, but the bill could give more guidance on how 
ATE can contribute, in support of both the new Directorate and the Hub 
programs.
Summary
    Overall, as I said in my opening comment, this is important 
legislation that will play a key role in renewing our innovation 
leadership. It speaks directly to our national and economic security in 
ways no other recent legislation has. The U.S. innovation system is at 
a crossroads, and this bill presents an opportunity to take a strong 
new path.
    Concerning the organizational elements in the bill, the pieces are 
there that can take us through the stages of innovation--

   R&D in critical technology areas at existing NSF 
        directorates and the new Technology Directorate.

   Development and prototyping--at University Technology 
        Centers, which can be consortia, including industry 
        participants, and in the tech transfer program.

   Testing and demonstration--with new test beds.

   Scale-up--assisted by the Regional Innovation. Hubs

    We also need to make sure the new pieces form a system, that there 
are links to other R&D agencies working in these areas, and ensure the 
right resources and organization for the new Technology Directorate.
    Concerning regional innovation, since innovation has to be 
implemented and scaled-up in regions, the Regional Hubs can play this 
role. They, in turn, can link to the Advanced Manufacturing Institutes 
which can assist them with the new production systems and processes to 
turn critical technologies into products.
    Concerning the workforce, the technical workforce along with the 
STEM workforce will play a key role in the emergence of the critical 
technologies. That technical workforce can be supported through the 
Technology Directorate, working with NSF's existing ATE program. The 
Regional Hubs can also play a key role in regions on workforce 
readiness for the critical technologies--the workforce will be vital to 
scale-up. And the apprenticeships can be linked to the Hubs as well.
    The Endless Frontier Act offers a very important, indeed historic, 
opportunity for the U.S. to build up its innovation system based on the 
critical technologies we must have for our national and economic 
security.

    Chair Cantwell. Thank you so much, Mr. Bonvillian. Thank 
you for your testimony today. I am going to defer my round to a 
colleague who needs to get somewhere urgently, Senator Tester. 
Thank you so much.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member for having this hearing. It is really important. 
I want to thank Senator Young for the work he has done on this 
bill.
    Mr. Bonvillian, you're on the clock right now. You talked 
about structure, you talked about workforce, and I think how we 
spend the money is critically important, if we are going to get 
maximum bang for the buck. But let us just give you a few 
numbers that you already know, by the way. The Endless Frontier 
Act provides $100 billion investment in basic research. NSF 
receives $8.5 billion for FY21. The Chinese government is 
approved to spend $1.4 trillion over the next five to 6 years 
on new communications tech and infrastructure, to accelerate 
China's progress in smart manufacturing. They also--China also 
plans to spend $150 billion in reducing its microelectronic 
dependence on foreign firms. The U.S. invests about 1 percent 
of GDP into Federal R&D. China invests 2.15 and has plans to 
invest 2.5 percent.
    Do you think the amount we are spending on R&D right now, 
Mr. Bonvillian, is adequate, or are we behind the curve from 
the beginning? And if somebody else wants to respond to it, 
after Mr. Bonvillian, you can. Mr. Bonvillian.
    Mr. Bonvillian. You pointed out the disparity between--you 
know, the levels of R&D spending that we are making now are 
still the same percentage of GDP that we have maintained for an 
extended period of time. So, we are going to need to increase 
those levels of investment. But equally important is not only 
to undertake the right levels of investment, but we have got to 
make sure that we have got the system to take great advantage. 
Put the different stages into place here. And that is one of 
the reasons why I appreciate this legislation. It attempts--it 
is an attempt to build in the stages that we are going to need, 
to make these investments, to start to scale up.
    But we cannot afford to lose leadership in these critical 
technologies. You know, our economic security and our national 
security are really going to be dependent on this list. And 
those are not different problems. Our economic security and our 
national security are now deeply interrelated.
    So, Senator Tester, I concur that we have got an issue with 
the investment levels that we are making in R&D. We are going 
to need to expand those, and we are going to need a focus on 
the critical areas that we have got to have.
    Senator Tester. So--and this goes to anybody who wants to 
respond to this. I just got off the phone with Southwest 
Airlines today and they are very concerned about climate 
change, as we all are. And they were talking about the lack of 
biofuels. And I think we have learned that it is not probably 
going to be smart to put food into biofuels. But there are 
other opportunities out there. We have got a forest in Montana 
that has been attacked by beetles. The trees are virtually 
laying on the ground. So, there is stock.
    And then, I went to another plant last week where they are 
building products for our fighter jets that needs germanium. 
And by the way, the only place we get it, as you guys know, is 
Russia and China. It does not seem to be very smart, from a 
national security standpoint.
    Could you guys touch on, number one, how we address--how we 
prioritize to address some of the issues that I think are 
really important, like climate change and national defense in 
an R&D structure with this Endless Frontier Act? Anybody want 
to speak to it?
    Chair Cantwell. I think Dr. Miranda----
    Dr. Miranda. Senator Tester, on your first question, if we 
are investing enough, I--oh, sorry. On your first question on 
whether we are investing enough, I would--I would just like to 
give the simple answer, no and I think the Endless Frontier Act 
is incredibly important for us to do that.
    I am from the University of Notre Dame, so we like to use 
football analogies there. So, the way that I would describe it 
is, we have a world class football program. Our R&D program in 
the United States, it is world class. There is no doubt about 
it. It is the envy--the way that we built up our research and 
development, in the post-World War II period, is the envy of 
the rest of the world, and many people--many other countries 
were copying it. But even as we have a world class football 
program, every team in the league has gotten better. And so, 
the competition on the field is much more fierce. It is much 
more intense. And therefore, this kind of, doubling down on 
investment and thinking about our level of R&D investment, 
relative to the percent of GDP, I think is an excellent way to 
think about it.
    Senator Tester. OK. What about investment and things with 
the deal with climate change and national security? How do we 
direct those and does this Act help in that direction?
    Dr. Miranda. So, if I were up to me, of the 10 focus areas 
named in the Endless Frontier Act, climate change would be one 
of them.
    Senator Tester. OK. All right. Sounds good. I just want to 
thank you all for testifying. This is a committee meeting where 
we could ask questions for 30 minutes and not even come close 
to the number we have. I want to thank the Chairman for your 
courtesy.
    Chair Cantwell. Well, thank you, Senator Tester. You know, 
we might go a second round, who knows here. But clearly the 
subject matter deserves a lot more attention and getting this 
right is important, I think, as everybody has pointed out. 
Senator Wicker.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. Very good testimony 
from everyone of you. Dr. Butler, is there a valley of death 
between conducting research and actually developing 
commercially viable products? What went right with Camgian and 
what deficiencies do you see in the proposed legislative 
concept, or in what we are doing now?
    Dr. Butler. Very good question and thank you for asking. I 
think there is a model to be had where there is tight coupling 
between the high-tech entrepreneurs in the country and the 
universities. And we have actually executed this model at 
Camgian, and I will speak to some of the benefits of it.
    But just speaking on behalf of an entrepreneur, the only 
thing that matters to us is what I would call product market 
fit. Nothing else matters in our business. And that is building 
a product that will gain adoption in the marketplace in scale. 
So, that is all we do every day. That is our focus. And as we 
think about opportunities in the market, we are constantly 
looking for those underserved needs. We are constantly trying 
to understand how we build a product to address those 
underserved needs, and then, how we scale those products 
accordingly.
    Universities think very differently. Universities think 
about innovating, or inventing, new technologies that can have 
groundbreaking impact on society. And I think when you couple 
those two together, you have a very good model for getting 
these technologies to market.
    So, a couple of points, to your point of crossing the 
valley of death. So, there is one model where a company like 
Camgian can engage with the university and look at new 
inventions, new research that is coming out of the university, 
and work with them on identifying those underserved market 
needs and putting a plan in place to get a product to market.
    There is a second model that we have also been very 
successful with, and that is the model of us teaming with the 
university, to go after a new product, or a new capability in 
the market. And we have done this at Camgian with Mississippi 
State University, where we have acquired applied research 
funding from the DOD, and the DOD has asked us to build a new 
capability. And we put a product development plan, or a 
capability development plan in place to do that, but then, we 
look to our university partners and say, here is a component of 
this plan that is the high risk, high payoff piece of this. And 
if you can accomplish that goal of delivering that, as part of 
a research program, we can then incorporate it in the system 
that we ultimately deliver to our war fighter. And we have 
actually done that successfully in a partnership with 
Mississippi State.
    So, I think there are two models, but I would--I would 
advocate that, as part of this bill, we find ways of bringing 
the entrepreneurs together with the universities, because we 
have very different skill sets. But I think the skill sets are 
tremendously complimentary and it will result in an increase in 
the success of moving research to innovation to product to 
market. Because again, if we do not do that as entrepreneurs, 
we do not survive. So, it is really the drive, determination, 
everything that goes along with getting a product to market 
that we would bring to the table, in such a relationship.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you much. Dr. Shaw, of course, we 
read your prepared testimony. Nearly half of Federal research 
dollars, over the last 20 years, went to just six states, with 
more than one-third just to two states, California and 
Maryland. And I love our friends in those states, but we are 
going to need expertise, talent, and capabilities of all 
Americans. What specific steps should we take--and let me just 
say, Madam Chair, I am really not interested in advancing a 
bill that does not address this disparity. I think Indiana and 
the State of Washington, and even Minnesota, are not getting 
their fair share.
    So, Dr. Shaw I have taken part of your time to answer this, 
but perhaps the chair will indulge me.
    Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Wicker, for the question. And 
as I mentioned, both in my oral and my written testimony, this 
is a vital question that needs to be dealt with as we consider 
the changes that are being proposed.
    As I mentioned, the opportunities that we have in 
Mississippi, just like in all of the other parts of this 
Nation, to be able to address the challenges, but also the 
opportunities, are vital for our future. From our standpoint, 
at Mississippi State University, we have taken full advantage 
of the opportunities that have been created in programs, such 
as the EPSCoR program, with the National Science Foundation. 
And frankly, I applaud Congress and the Foundation for the 
creation and the expansion of that program. So, I think that is 
one vital aspect of the proposed legislation, is to be able to 
continue to look at how to be able to expand that program so 
that institutions, in all of the jurisdictions in the United 
States, have the opportunity.
    I think above and beyond that, there needs to be serious 
consideration about being able to provide a portion of the 
funding that is being considered for institutions that fall 
outside of the jurisdictions that, historically, have seen 
that. I think there is certainly the opportunity to be able to 
think about, beyond the EPSCoR program, ways that this 
legislation could be crafted, such that, we have an adherence 
to a high degree of competitiveness. Rather, it is in no way 
looking to be able to just dissect the program and provide it 
on a per capita basis, but rather fund competitive research. 
But at the same time, ensure, through legislation, that we have 
the opportunity to see institutions, like Mississippi State 
University, like the University of Notre Dame, like so many 
other institutions that have a tremendous pool of talent. Not 
only in our faculty, but especially in our students as the 
workforce of the future, to be able to have the opportunity to 
be exposed to the research opportunities in our laboratories 
and with our researchers, and to be able to, ultimately, create 
the economic development that we want to see across the entire 
United States.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir, and I thank the Chair for 
indulging me on allowing me to make a little speech there. I 
yield.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Well, I just want to assure you, 
I definitely think the Information Age economy should take 
place everywhere. And that is what is the secret of it, is that 
development and information can flow lots of places, and so 
should the R&D. Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. I thank you very much, Chair Cantwell. 
Thank you, Senator Wicker, and thanks to everyone that is 
working on all of this Endless Frontier of issues. So, I am 
very focused on manufacturing. My state is the state that 
brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it 
note. And one of the proposals that I have, actually in a bill 
introduced with Senator Wicker, along with Senator Coons and 
Portman, focuses with the companion--bipartisan companion in 
the House with Marcy Kaptur, focuses on an Office of 
Manufacturing and Industrial and Innovation Policy, in the 
Executive Office of the President, to help strengthen America's 
manufacturing industry.
    And I guess I would turn to you, Mr. Bonvillian. In your 
testimony, you highlighted the importance of agency 
collaboration for technological innovation. Can you speak to 
the importance of Federal coordination between agencies in 
developing measures to solidify U.S. leadership in scientific 
and technological advancement?
    Mr. Bonvillian. [Transmission broken] I share your interest 
and concern in getting a strong focus on manufacturing into the 
White House, to coordinate the activities that are going on 
with different agencies. You know, in general, we describe 
innovation as a team sport and it truly is. And there are some 
issues that we need to address in this legislation to be sure 
that the bill tackles this, in terms of coordination between 
agencies.
    You know, one issue is that we need to look into is that 
the coordination mechanisms set out between what this new NSF 
directorate is going to be undertaking, in a serious of 
advanced technologies, is happening with the other agencies 
that are already working on these territories, right? 
Obviously, DOD is doing a tremendous amount of work on the AI. 
They are doing tremendous work on Quantum.
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
    Mr. Bonvillian. We need to coordinate these pieces. And 
look, the U.S. system, it is a very decentralized system for 
science and tech development, right? And frankly, that is, 
historically, going to strengthen. But there are times when you 
need to pull the pieces together and get them to act in 
coordination with each other. We have a hard time doing that 
with our decentralized agency system.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK.
    Mr. Bonvillian. One mechanism, when we worked on 
nanotechnology, was to create an office around that topic, that 
the different participating agencies could join into and 
develop common strategies and share ideas across and make sure 
that they were understanding each other's advances and 
developments. I think that kind of mechanism might be very 
useful in this bill, in these different technology areas, to 
assure Federal agencies are pulling together and that what has 
been going on--what will go on if the new directorate will 
enhance what is going on some of the other locations?
    Senator Klobuchar. OK.
    Mr. Bonvillian. We also need----
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I am going to--you know what 
I am going to do? I am going to--because I have such limited 
time, I want to ask a few other questions. Do you want to just 
say your second point in a few seconds here?
    Mr. Bonvillian. Linking to the advanced manufacturing 
institutes is another important piece.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. That is exactly right. Thank you 
very much.
    Dr. Shaw, workforce training, as I look at, what we call 
in--I was just in Duluth. The Mayor of Duluth said, the 
lighthouse on the horizon, as opposed to light at the end of 
the tunnel with the ending of this pandemic. So much of this is 
going to be about, again--somewhat because of the pandemic, but 
what we had before the pandemic. Making sure we have people 
trained to do the jobs of tomorrow. As I often said on the 
campaign I ran, about a year or two ago, that we are not going 
to have a shortage of Sports Marketing degrees in this country. 
We are going to have a shortage of plumbers, electricians, 
construction workers. Could you talk about making sure we are 
training people for the various skill levels of the jobs that 
we need, and how we get there?
    Dr. Shaw. Thank you for the question. And it is spot on 
with things that we need to be considering, as a part of the 
legislation that is being considered. You know, Mississippi 
State University, for example, works very closely with the 
community colleges in the State--throughout the State of 
Mississippi, to be sure that we are addressing all of the needs 
in the state, and not just in a particular area, or a 
particular discipline. And the opportunity that we see, for 
example, with the program that we just created this last year, 
through what is called a Bachelor of Applied Sciences, to be 
able to allow students to go down a technical track, at a 
community college. But then, to be able to have a new degree 
program that they can now move into as they are participating 
in the workforce, but now they are looking for a bachelor's 
degree, to be able to advance to become a supervisor.
    Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
    Dr. Shaw. To get a promotion. Now they have that track at 
Mississippi State.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
    Dr. Shaw. And this is--this is a model, by which we see the 
opportunity, through that very close partnership, to be able to 
address all skill sets, rather than a particular segment.
    Senator Klobuchar. And I know I am out of time, and I will 
ask this in writing, but I know, Dr. Miranda, you would agree. 
Part of this is also advancing women, people of color, in 
getting into this market for the skills that we need, and there 
are a lot of different ways we can do that. And I appreciate 
everyone's work on that.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Chair Cantwell. Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, and thank you to 
all the witnesses for being here today as this committee 
considers the Endless Frontier Act. Especially with the rise in 
scientific prowess of China and other nations, it is imperative 
that the United States maintain its global leadership, in the 
development, commercialization, and standardization of 
innovative technologies.
    During my time as Chairman of this Committee, we 
successfully enacted the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act, to better coordinate R&D efforts at the 
Department of Commerce and the NSF, as well as the National 
Quantum Initiative Act, to strengthen and unify the focus of 
the Federal Government on developing Quantum technologies. Both 
of these bills were bipartisan and drew broad support from 
industry and the scientific community.
    As a move to consider any potential opportunities the 
Endless Frontier Act presents to further enhance U.S. 
technological leadership, let me start by saying that I would 
have appreciated the chance to review an updated version of the 
legislation before this hearing. As I understand it makes 
substantial changes from the version introduced last Congress. 
And legislation, obviously, of this scope and importance, with 
such profound implications for the Federal research enterprise, 
needs thorough review by this committee.
    I also want to make a few additional points, quickly, 
before I move to questions. First, NSF certainly plays a key 
role in fundamental research. But there are several other 
government agencies with substantial experience in technology 
development and applied research. With such a substantial 
authorization of funding in the Endless Frontier Act, greater 
incorporation of other science focused agencies merit strong 
consideration and would even more substantially contribute to 
U.S. technological leadership.
    Second, I believe that the private sector plays a critical 
role in the pipeline from fundamental research to 
commercialization. My home state of South Dakota, our 
universities have successfully patented technologies that 
started with basic research and the State's economy has 
benefited, as a result. Any solutions that strengthen that 
partnership will greatly improve this bill's effectiveness.
    And finally, it is crucial that states like South Dakota 
are not left behind by this bill. Much of Federal research 
funding is concentrated in a just a few states, and this bill 
should seek to change that model. So, I want to thank you again 
for holding this hearing, Madam Chair, and appreciate the 
witnesses being here, panelists in providing their expertise.
    Dr. Droegemeier, you mentioned in your testimony, the 
directives to USF made by this legislation should not duplicate 
activities undertaken by other Federal agencies. And given the 
substantial investments already made in research infrastructure 
at other agencies like DOE, I share this view. Could you 
elaborate on how a framework like that contemplated under the 
Endless Frontier Act could be modified to better recognize and 
incorporate the role of other Federal research efforts?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Senator Thune, thank you so much for the 
question and for the excellent work that you have done, as you 
just described, with the Quantum and many other areas.
    You know, we have been talking about all the important 
activities associated with the bill and we have mentioned the 
importance of working together, but we really need to talk 
about the how of that. As you say, Department of Energy 
laboratories have extraordinary capabilities. South Dakota 
itself benefits from a lot of that kind of work. We have other 
laboratories, Federal and national laboratories both. We have 
private sector facilities. The question is, how do we bring all 
of them together in a way to where, each time we do it it is 
not a new one off all the time? You know, Mississippi State 
working with a small startup company, that takes a lot of work 
to get that thing going, and we cannot just keep doing the one 
offs all the time.
    So, what we really need is a broader framework. And one 
was, in fact, recommended by the President's Council of 
Advisors in Science Technology, issued, in fact, just a few 
months ago. Talking about a framework that would bring all of 
these activities together in ways far different than what we 
have done in the past, with the exception, perhaps, of Bell 
Laboratories, which was really a unique model that does not 
really exist today in the way that it used to.
    And really, the whole point is to go from fundamental 
curiosity driven research, all the way to product scale up, and 
pre-production prototype development, all within the same 
framework. We suffer from what I, kind of, call the ``hand off 
and hope model.'' There are many points of hand off in this 
process, but we do not really have the capability to do a 
seamless front to back system, you know, all the way across. 
So, that really leverages all of the facilities that you are 
talking about.
    So, I think the bill, if we could think about it in the 
context of that language in the bill, of taking these pieces 
and bringing them together. As our friend from MIT mentioned, 
sometimes we have to bring things together, not in a 
necessarily formally structured way, but in a way that allows 
us to have people move across organizational boundaries. To 
have intellectual property negotiations done right up front, to 
where we can really accelerate the innovation. This is what 
China does, but we do not want to do it like China does. We 
want to leverage the capabilities of our enterprise in a way 
far different, more ethical, and more appropriately so. And I 
think we could really do a lot to compete in that way.
    So, the pieces are there, but I think the question is how 
do we bring them together and that, I think, is something we 
ought to contemplate for the bill.
    Senator Thune. OK, very quickly, Dr. Shaw, you had noted, 
and I--this has been asked, I think, already, but in the latest 
version of the bill, there are more considerations to--meant to 
improve rural areas. But what would you recommend to ensure 
that universities in states like South Dakota and Mississippi 
are not left out?
    Dr. Shaw. Well, thank you. I think the--as you indicate, 
the opportunities need to be across the entire spectrum. Zip 
code does not need to be determining how we are successful. I 
think there are several different direction that could possibly 
be taken. You know, South Dakota, as Mississippi, is a 
portion--is a member of the EPSCoR program. And I think that is 
a vital program and I think seeing it expand is a very 
important aspect of that.
    I think the second part of it, though, really--which may be 
even more important, is the recognition that there are pockets 
of excellence at institutions across the entire nation. 
Institutions in South Dakota, as well as institutions like min, 
have excellent programs in--for example, in our program, such 
as the high-performance computing aspects of what we have. We 
are a leader in unmanned aircraft systems. So, there are a 
number of those types of programs. And I think the National 
Science Foundation, through the legislation that is being 
considered, should be able to more adequately and appropriately 
recognize those pockets of expertise and allow them to be able 
to expand. So that we have tremendous opportunities that get 
created across the entire United States.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. I am going to ask questions now 
because I want to follow on what Senator Thune and some of the 
other questioners have been asking, which is really to get to 
crux of this issue of, how do we grow ecosystems where they are 
not as robust? And how do we take advantage of ecosystems that 
are already pretty robust and continue to grow them, as well?
    And so, my question I think, to Linden Rhoads, is, you 
know, when you did five or six things at the University of 
Washington, which was basically to bring the entrepreneur 
ecosystem into the university, is really what you did and help 
fund it, whether that was writing patents or helping with 
various ways. How applicable is that model to other 
institutions across the United States, and should we be giving 
some of the R&D money to that, building capacity at 
universities?
    To the rest of the witnesses, to what degree, Dr. Shaw or 
Dr. Miranda, or Dr. Droegemeier, to what degree does the Rose-
Hulman model work, where you are basically a fee-for-service 
model--you have a regional hub where everybody is going to that 
hub and basically saying, solve my next generation technology 
problem. And in that case, there is not a big, you know, NSF 
dollar amount. I mean, there is some but, you know, people 
teach there because they want to teach. People do not teach 
there because they are going to publish their next NSF 
research. And yet, they have become a hub for solving a lot of 
regional, very great innovation programs. Or to what degree 
does Dr. Butler's point about having a DARPA model work, where 
basically you are giving contracts to companies to help solve 
that problem?
    So, I do not know which one of you now in the testimony, 
basically said, start at a higher level. Get the companies and 
the sectors communicating at the higher level of NSF funding, 
and DOE funding, for that matter. And then, keep the 
relationship going throughout the system.
    So, my question is, there are three different things that 
we already know, right now, that are working. The DARPA model 
is working. A fee-for-service model and helping big research 
institutions do more R&D by bringing the entrepreneurship is 
working.
    So, Linden, I am going to start with you. How much do you 
think the University of Washington model could be translated to 
other institutions?
    Ms. Rhoads. Well, I think it is a very perspicacious 
question because, unfortunately, there is not a cookie cutter 
model that fits for every region or university, depending on 
its starting point and its issues and gates. And by way of 
example, when I started at UW, several experts told--mostly in 
computer science, told me, this is simple. Fly down to 
Stanford, meet with their head of tech transfer, just do 
exactly what they do. But Stanford was located a mile from the 
largest constellation of venture capitalists in the history of 
the world. And their challenges are different from our 
challenges, at the University of Washington, where we are in 
the remote, northwest corner of the continent, and a flight 
away for most investors. And even though we have many vital 
industries, we do not have anywhere near the kind of nexus 
between industry and investors, and our researchers could not 
have been more different. And we needed much more heavy 
lifting, therefore, for our researchers.
    So, what was working for this one, you know, very 
accomplished university, in terms of translation, would not 
have been sufficient for us. And so, I think--I do not know 
that there is an easy answer, but I do not think that 
everything that works in one place works elsewhere. And I do 
think, unfortunately, that you need this full panoply of 
services to synergistically interact between funding and 
mentorship and IP support, to really get the results we are 
looking for. And so, in some cases, one university may be able 
to, with substantial--adequate funding, provide those for 
itself and in other cases, you may need regional collaboration 
and support.
    And last, I would just like to say, apropos of one of the 
things you just mentioned, I think the I-Corps program--the I-
Corps hubs program the NSF has launched, my colleagues in tech 
transfer really laud those programs in that they train 
researchers to pursue customer-directed discovery and focus on 
the end user. And I think that any programs that do that are 
very helpful to what we are all looking to see happen.
    Chair Cantwell. Quickly.
    Dr. Shaw. I would certainly, whole-heartedly agree with 
everything----
    Chair Cantwell. Linden just said.
    Dr. Shaw. That our previous witness just said. The three 
things that I would touch on quickly, in addition to that is, I 
think the call for closer coordination with other agencies. You 
know, for example, the Department of Commerce funds our Calves 
Extension Center, to be able to work with manufacturing 
entities to do problem solving and to be able to grow 
manufacturing capacity in our State. I think it is a really 
important aspect that needs to be covered as we consider this.
    You know, I think the very fact that Camgian Microsystems 
is located in our Thad Cochran Research and Technology Park, 
the creation of that ecosystem in which developing businesses 
can have the opportunity to work closely in partnership with 
our faculty is incredibly important.
    And then, finally, the Entrepreneurship Center that we have 
located on our campus that really is focused on student 
entrepreneurship and the opportunity to bring business students 
and engineering students, to be able to create new businesses, 
is incredibly exciting and needs to be recognized as a part of 
this effort.
    Chair Cantwell. Dr. Droegemeier, anything to add?
    Dr. Droegemeier. No, thank you.
    Chair Cantwell. OK. Anybody else? OK, I think Senator 
Fischer is next.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. While we do 
not have any legislative text in front of us at this moment, I 
do appreciate the witnesses here today who have spoken to core 
issues of how lawmakers can both strengthen and preserve the 
integrity of our Federal scientific research.
    Dr. Droegemeier, in your testimony you compared the Endless 
Frontier Act focus on use inspired research and technology 
domains with the fundamental, or curiosity based, research that 
the National Science Foundation is based on. Given a proposal 
that would dedicate significant funding to NSF in the context 
of a new technology directorate, how do you believe that this 
could affect NSF's mission, positively or negatively, to 
support fundamental research?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator, it is a great 
question. I think it could be very complimentary, in fact. As I 
mentioned earlier, NSF actually already does fund quite a bit 
of use inspired research, even in my own field in meteorology. 
Some of the work that we do in trying to develop more effective 
radars and things like that, is very much inspired by more 
accurate forecasts and so on, and so forth. So, it is not a 
foreign concept to NSF.
    So, I think that the notion of curiosity driven research 
and, sort of, use inspired research, they can be very much 
mutually reinforcing. So, I think a new technology directorate 
could--could really do a couple of things. One, it could, kind 
of, weave together and provide connective tissue from 
fundamental research and the other directorates into the 
technology domains that are mentioned in the bill.
    But more importantly, I think the technology directorate 
could then build the connective tissue linkages with the 
private sector, at the institutional level, as Chair mentioned 
just a moment ago, to where, in fact, you do not just have 
individual faculty and individual awards taking a lot of time 
to try to build bridges and build relationships with private 
sector. But you actually have the head of a major foundation 
that has been around for 70 plus years, working with the head 
of other companies to build those strategic partnerships. So 
that when--when we actually go out and start to do 
translation--transition from basic research to applied to so on 
and so forth, though the valley of death to product and service 
at scale, it is a seamless framework. The thing has already 
been put in place.
    And so, I think, in that sense, we are reinforcing 
fundamental discovery type of research at NSF by creating a 
technology directorate. And I know there are some who fear that 
technology could overtake, you know, the fundamental research. 
But I think we can do this in a careful, thoughtful way to 
where, in fact, they are much more mutually reinforcing.
    As we have heard before, from our friend from--from Notre 
Dame here, the fact that, you know, her work depended upon 
basic research, but she worked in the applied domain. But it is 
not a single pathway. It is a reentrant, multiple of circuitous 
pathways. So, I think this could, in fact, work quite well. And 
I really believe that a tech directorate at NSF could really 
strengthen the foundation overall. But we certainly want to 
make sure that NSF does not lose its fundamental underpinnings 
of discovery research as being its true--true foundation.
    Senator Fischer. OK. You know, as we look at America's 
competitiveness, and the scope of our technology readiness to 
determine where we invest Federal dollars, there are of course 
a variety of agencies and programs with key roles, here in the 
Commerce Department, and beyond that. Dr. Droegemeier, I know 
you referenced this with Senator Thune, but would you agree 
with this sentiment?
    Dr. Droegemeier. With--Senator, I am sorry, of what, 
specifically?
    Senator Fischer. You know, as lawmakers seek to advance 
America's competitiveness in emerging technologies, especially 
when we consider the foreign threats, do you think agencies 
besides Commerce Department--outside of Commerce Department, 
like DOD or DOE, the national labs, should they also be a part 
of this conversation?
    Dr. Droegemeier. They absolutely have a great deal to 
offer, Senator. I think, to me--you know, in my written 
testimony and also I mentioned orally that NSF has really been 
overlooked for a long time. And what is unique about it is it 
funds, you know, many, many domains of science outside of 
medical, clinical research and it is, in fact, the largest 
funder. So, it is really critically important that, in and of 
itself, NSF get a very substantial increase in funding. But 
yet, on the other hand, it is not a zero-sum game. So, I think 
collaborating with, say, DOE national labs and Federal 
laboratories and other agencies like NIST, and so on, very, 
very important.
    And that ecosystem is really what makes America so powerful 
and when we talk about the China threat, they do not operate 
that way. And frankly, I am a huge fan of the DOE's 17 national 
labs and I think that, in some sense, they are our X factor, 
and they can play a terrific role, as they are already doing, 
in so many of these domains and Quantum and artificial 
intelligence in advanced manufacturing, as well.
    Senator Fischer. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Next is Senator Schatz.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. Thank you to the 
Ranking Member. Thank you for this really interesting panel.
    You know, newly minted PhDs and post-docs drive science and 
technology innovation and, consequently, the economy itself. 
And yet, I understand we lose many of them because of how hard 
it is to get a faculty or research position after graduate 
school. And so, my first question is for Dr. Miranda. We 
recognize the importance of emerging researchers. Can you speak 
to the importance of emerging researchers, and specifically, we 
are considering legislation to establish a grant program to 
help these emerging researchers to continue their research and 
to publish? In other words, to kind of open up an alternative 
pathway for some of these newly minted PhDs and post-docs.
    Dr. Miranda. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, first 
of all, I would say that there are a whole series of mechanisms 
that the NSF and other federally funding agencies could 
implement. One, we have the National Science Foundation 
Graduate Research Fellowships, if you thought about some 
equivalent kind of program that operates at the post-doctoral 
level. So, there is--we talk about the valley of death and 
commercialization. There is a valley that researchers travel, 
as well, where they move from being a graduate student to 
establishing an independent research career. So, a GRF-like 
program at the post-doctoral level, I think, would be 
incredibly effective at helping with this problem.
    The second thing I would say, there is a very nice program 
that exists within the National Institutes of Health, which is 
the Early Investigators which addresses all sorts of problems, 
all these K awards. In the National Science Foundation, we have 
career awards. I would tell you that there are many more--I 
think all of us who have been spending time at universities, 
will tell you that there are many more people who are deserving 
of an NSF career award than the NSF is able to offer. So, 
beefing up and adding funding to the NSF career program, which 
is already a proven program would be incredibly helpful since 
we already know that the ROI on it is good.
    The other thing that I would say is that, speaking to some 
of these points about the collaboration between universities 
and industry, it is actually pretty common in science and 
engineering that we--we have lots of our students who go on and 
become professors. And we always like it when our kids grow up 
to be like us, right? But we are actually really happy when our 
students--when our science and engineering students go on to 
work at companies. And I think that we have to do a better job, 
in the academy, and we are starting to do that.
    And I could imagine a whole network system that NSF could 
set up, to help teach students about how to be prepared to be 
effective in industry. And I think about some public 
university--some company or industry-university partnerships, 
where our graduate students go and do a--one of their research 
rotations. Not just doing research rotations around labs around 
the university, but doing research rotations at industry 
locations, so that we get a better sense of how does industry 
work? How does academia work? And I actually think that it 
would really help--that type of a program would really help 
build the kind of partnerships that my colleagues from 
Mississippi were talking about, where the university is deeply 
tied to a whole series of regional corporate partners.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you. This is--these are really good 
insights and look forward to working with you and all the 
panelists on developing, at least, our portion of this 
legislation. You know, recent reports show that, in spite of 
decades of efforts to increase diversity, the workforce remains 
largely homogenous. And I think that is partly because you do 
not have these, sort of, institutional networks available for 
people who are new to these fields. But also, because the 
requirement, if you are going to, sort of, climb the ladder, is 
to work for so little that not everybody can swing that. Not 
everybody can carry a debt load and get paid very, very little.
    And so, it works like a reverse sieve, where people who are 
already plugged into institutional networks, where people whose 
parents can subsidize their post-doctoral research, are able 
to, kind of, hang in there all the way until they climb the 
ladder. And I am wondering if you might speak to the need for 
institutional support, and whether you think that is a real 
issue, in terms of where someone comes from economically, 
actually impeding their progress up the research ladder and 
into a profession where they can land doing where they--land 
doing what they want to do.
    Dr. Miranda. I think that was for me.
    Senator Schatz. Yes, Dr. Miranda.
    Dr. Miranda. So, first of all, for those of us who live in 
flyover territory, we are a little bit tired of being referred 
to as flyover territory. There are an enormous number of 
incredibly talented people from across the geography of the 
United States and from across the income span of the United 
States and from across the great racial and ethnic diversity we 
have in our country.
    I do think that we need to ensure that we have a large 
enough, and diverse enough, workforce--both of those are 
important. And I define diversity across many metrics. For us 
to have a large enough and a diverse enough workforce, and to 
keep people in the program, these kinds of things, like the 
GRF, which definitely help--I had an NSF GRF. I never had to 
take out a loan when I was in graduate school. Having similar 
programs at the post-doctoral level, having more of these Early 
Investigator awards, makes a huge difference.
    It is also the case that while, I do agree that money does 
not buy happiness, but it does buy lab equipment and travel to 
conferences, and those sorts of things. But the other thing 
that these--that we need to ensure the true, full diversity, is 
a series of networks that are built across--you know, so, we 
have all kinds of programs. We have all kinds of organizations 
like the Association of Women in Mathematics, the Association 
of Women in Science, the Black Physicist Organization, the 
National--NSBE, the National Society of Black Engineers. We 
have a whole series of these organizations, which are meant to 
provide networks and advice and guidance and mentoring and 
support----
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, I am a bit over time.
    Dr. Miranda. Oh, sorry.
    Senator Schatz. No, that was great. I just want to respect 
the other members. Thank you very much. Look forward to working 
with all of you.
    Chair Cantwell. Yes, we will let people elaborate on this 
in their written answers, too. So, Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you so 
much for holding this hearing. Thank you to my colleagues for 
their probing questions. I see a lot of commonality, as I am 
listening to my colleagues and the answers that are provided. 
We just need to find ways to get the pieces to fit together in 
a more comprehensive fashion.
    So, we introduced the Endless Frontier Act last year and we 
are improving significantly on it, with your counsel and that 
of others around the country. So, in coming weeks, I think we 
will have a product that we can all rally around, which will be 
really important because this is not just about innovation, 
sort of in vacuum. This is about advancing the common good. And 
it is about our competitiveness, vis a vis, the Communist Party 
of China.
    We have done this successfully in the past as a country, as 
we think about the Cold War and the examples to be learned from 
there. In the 20th century, the United States led the world 
with investments in science and technology and infrastructure, 
that would highlight the crucial role of the Federal Government 
in catalyzing innovation in national defense and economic 
security and American prosperity. The Apollo program may be one 
of the greatest examples. In response to Sputnik, the Federal 
Government spent, in today's dollars, $140 billion to land a 
man on the moon and to win the space race. The success of NASA 
would lead to spinoffs in hundreds of new industries. New 
products came online. And American leadership in aerospace was 
realized. By 2018, U.S. dominance in aerospace alone 
contributed $2.3 trillion--that is 1 year--in GDP to the U.S. 
economy. The seeds were planted back through Federal 
investments. That is not an unusual model. This is not a 
distorted reading of economic history.
    I believe we are starting another Sputnik moment right 
here. Only this time it will be with China's investments in 
research into emerging technologies taking place along side 
this. We have a different model. We should harness our unique 
talents and ensure that we are harnessing the talents of people 
across every state and across our various universities and labs 
and so forth.
    So, as we introduced this bill, which we are aiming on 
proposing $100 billion in investment in R&D over a 5-year 
period, in 10 key emerging technology areas, perhaps others 
will be added, we recognize and embrace the global challenge 
that China presents. These funds would be used to crowd in--I 
want to emphasize this--the expertise of private industry, but 
also, of our global partners and allies. So, as China looks to 
develop an illiberal sphere of autocratic, authoritarian 
regimes, we need to cement our relationships with partners and 
allies, their expertise, their ideas, their private capital. 
The Trump Administration estimated we could get $5 crowded in 
for every single taxpayer dollar. Let us say they were way off. 
Let us say it is $2. That is a pretty strong lever of 
investment.
    Dr. Droegemeier, what are the risks to the United States if 
we are not successful in this competition over technology and 
innovation with China? In short order, what happens if we get 
this wrong and fail to act?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator Young, for your 
tremendous work on the bill. I think we lose out in many ways. 
We lose out on economic security. We lose out on national 
security. We lose out on our ability to innovate and really 
stay strong in the world. We are a beacon, not only of freedom, 
but of progress, of prosperity, and also, of ethical behavior. 
The research of values that we use in the research process are 
exactly our American values. So, when we lead in research, we 
lead with our American values, and that is such a powerful 
statement to the world.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Dr. I think it is also important 
that this be a fairly broadly bipartisan effort, as China's 
narrative, emerging from the pandemic is that autocratic 
regimes are very efficient and effective at dealing with 
situations like this. We are divided, in many respects, as a 
country. I think we could be united around this effort.
    Very quickly, Dr. Miranda, as my time runs out. We both 
know how important relations--relationships between academia 
and front-line Federal customers, and State and local 
government have been, in our own state of Indiana, in fostering 
innovation and creating opportunities for commercialization and 
making our state a unique sort of place where scientists want 
to live and work on cutting edge projects. In your testimony, 
you alluded to the success Indiana has had in this domain. So, 
can you briefly elaborate on how our state's success with 
research consortia should educate our discussions about 
regional tech hubs?
    Chair Cantwell. Go ahead, quickly.
    Dr. Miranda. So, I think what--I think what we are learning 
in Indiana is that you--if you bring together partnerships 
where you have the leading research universities, and they are 
partnered up, as well, with the community colleges, you are 
thinking about training--not just training PhDs, but training 
associate degrees who are not going to invent the cybersecurity 
systems but manage the cybersecurity systems on a daily basis.
    So, we have this collaboration between universities--
research universities, community colleges, and technical 
universities. But then, we also have these partnerships that 
have been developed with local, regional companies, many of 
which are trying to make this transition from the sort of, 
traditional manufacturing economy that existed 50 years ago, to 
the advanced manufacturing economy. And where universities and 
colleges and companies have come together, as we have seen in 
Indianapolis, as we have seen in northern Indiana and in other 
places across the state, you see this enormous opportunity for 
creating these regional tech hubs, where the capacity is there. 
The ground is fertile, the capacity is there, the kind of 
funding that the Endless Frontier Act would bring, would just 
light it all on fire.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I have a couple 
questions relating to early career researchers. In fact, I have 
sponsored a bill that is called ``Supporting Early Career 
Researchers.'' The pandemic has up ended life for a lot of 
people. This measure would create a new post-doctoral 
fellowship program to support the next generation of STEM 
talent through the NSF.
    And in connection with that measure, which supports 
careers, especially women and underrepresented minorities, I 
also have introduced a bill--or I will, Combating Sexual 
Harassment in Science Act. This legislation was previously 
championed by myself and Senator Harris--then, Senator Harris. 
It passed the House last session, but not the Senate. And it 
would direct NSF to award grants to further study the causes 
and consequences of sexual harassment. We know that sexual 
harassment is common to many aspects of American life these 
days, but in the sciences it seems to, still exist. I have just 
started reading Walter Isaacsons' book on Jennifer Doudna, 
which is fascinating. It recounts the story of her being told, 
early in her career, women do not do science. And we would like 
to think that those days are behind us, but maybe not.
    So, I would be interested in your perspectives. First, Dr. 
Miranda and Dr. Shaw, do you think sexual discrimination or 
harassment has hindered careers of women and underserved 
communities? And do you think we need to do more about it?
    Dr. Miranda. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, first 
of all, thank you for the proposal on the post-doctoral 
program. I think you are right on target of that being a 
critical thing for us to do for R&D in the United States. 
Second, I thank you, as well, for your concern in interest in 
issues of sexual harassment or hostile environments or--I also 
worry a lot about the awful impact of low expectations of women 
and minorities, in the areas of science and--especially in 
science and engineering. So, I do think it is something that is 
worth investigating.
    And you emphasize causes and consequences. I would love for 
us to supplement that with real, serious evaluation of what 
kinds of intervention programs actually work to change the 
local environment, to improve the experience for women. So, we 
have a whole series of things that we are doing at Notre Dame 
to create a--to promote a better environment for our minority 
faculty, for our women faculty, same thing for our graduate 
students. But we regularly go in and assess, OK, we did these 
things, how much difference did it make? We asked the people 
who are most affected by these circumstances, which of these 
changes, which of these programs made a difference to you?
    So, it is both about supporting them, but also about 
educating people who sometimes--you know, sometimes there is--
there is deep intention in what people are saying and doing, 
and sometimes there is not deep intention. And we have to help 
them to understand why what they are saying and doing is so 
destructive for the careers of these--destructive for their 
individual careers, but also destructive for the university, 
destructive for science and engineering in this country.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. That is a great answer. Dr. 
Shaw?
    Dr. Shaw. I would certainly echo the comments of my 
colleague and, therefore, will not repeat them. But just to 
expand on a couple of things related to your question, and 
actually would also refer back to something that Chair Cantwell 
said in some of her opening remarks.
    Certainly the--I think the pandemic has had a 
disproportionate impact, in many cases. And I can tell you, on 
our campus, we are in the midst of conversations as we speak 
about trying to really reevaluate things like the promotion and 
tenure process and the impact that the pandemic has had, 
disproportionately in ways that we can ensure that our--
especially our women faculty, are negatively impacted in a 
disproportionate way.
    I think there is--that opens up a larger conversation, 
obviously, that we need to be doing all that we can 
proactively, to be sure that we are not only following Federal 
legislation--laws, policies, that had been established to 
eliminate sexual harassment, but be much more proactive in our 
education programs, so that we can be much more preventive in 
nature, as opposed to addressing the situations after the fact. 
And I think--we are certainly open to the conversations that 
are being held nationally and thank you for your leadership in 
addressing this vitally important topic. And I think, for the 
future, the opportunities that we have seen coming out of this 
terrible situation, actually open up a much larger 
conversation. So, thank you, Chair Cantwell----
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
    Dr. Shaw.--for bringing this up today.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Chair Cantwell. Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to each of 
the witnesses. It seems that a lot of the proposals being 
considered for combatting China include substantially 
increasing funding for U.S. research and development. China, 
for years, has engaged in espionage campaigns at universities 
and at technology companies, to steal trade secrets and to 
steal intellectual property. Would all of you agree that the 
Chinese Communist Party has, and continues to engage in the 
systematic theft of American IP and American technology?
    Voice. Yes.
    Senator Cruz. Would you also agree that the Chinese 
Communist Party has, and continues to engage in the systematic 
human rights abuses and an ongoing genocide against Muslim 
Uyghurs?
    [Silence]
    Senator Cruz. The intersection of those two threats is a 
concerning area. Theft alone is not the only problem. The CCP 
has and continues to use legally acquired technology and stolen 
technology to carry out some of its most reprehensible 
activities, like the ongoing genocide of Muslim Uyghurs. If we 
are going to massively increase the Federal investment in 
science and technology, as Senator Schumer's Endless Frontier 
Act proposes, should we not also be taking steps to both 
safeguard that investment? That is, to ensure that the CCP is 
not able to steal IP and advance technology developed as a 
result of the Federal investment--and also to ensure that the 
technologies that will arise are not sold to the CCP or its 
proxies, to be used in furtherance of human rights abuses and 
an ongoing genocide. And that is a question to all the members 
of the panel.
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Cruz. There is guidance 
now, from the White House to all Federal Executive Branch 
agencies to implement policies that will help safeguard our 
research, in terms of providing guidance regarding disclosures 
and other types of actions that researchers need to take. 
Second thing is, educating the community, universities, and so 
on, in terms of what to look for, how to be prepared, how to 
evaluate, and so on. But it is--we are only at the beginning 
stages of this, I think as you well know.
    Having been at the White House and getting classified 
briefings, I agree with you completely. There are some 
atrocities that--terrible things that are happening. We are 
very, very vulnerable to this. And so, what we need to make 
sure that we do is have a balanced approach where we have the 
openness that is important for research, but we also protect 
our assets. So, we have a strong offense and a strong defense, 
at the same time.
    So, I think these actions that are being taken, other work 
that is now underway, and some of the discussions we have had 
with Congress when I was in the White House, were very, very 
productive. But I think Congress continues to need to look at 
this, continually, work with universities, the law enforcement 
community, intelligence community, and so on. Truly a whole of 
nation approach, which is the only way I think we can really 
address this problem.
    But I thank you for bringing this up. It is extraordinary 
important for us and, as a nation, both from a science 
technology point of view, a competitiveness point of view, 
national security, but also from the point of view of our 
American values and what we hold dear.
    Dr. Miranda. So, I would agree entirely that there are huge 
adjustments going on across--in universities across the United 
States regarding how to think about issues of the stealing of 
intellectual property, how to safeguard things, how do we think 
about having watch systems and monitoring systems, and all of 
that. I agree, as well, that we are, sort of, at the beginning 
of that process. We are getting better. When I think of how we 
were 5 years ago compared to how we are now, it is--it is 
lightyears ahead.
    At the same time, I do want to emphasize that some of our 
most talented graduate students, some of our most talented 
faculty, people who are contributing in enormous ways to the 
productivity of the United States, are coming from other 
countries, including from China, other parts of Asia. My family 
is an immigrant family, and I was the first one in my family 
born in the United States. My father spent time doing research 
that was all about civil engineering research, to contribute to 
this country.
    So, I do want to make sure--I agree with you, Senator, that 
these issues of espionage, the carefulness with which we have 
to protect our intellectual property, the systems that we have 
to build, are so critically important. But I want to make sure 
we build those in a way where we still welcome the most 
talented people from across the world, to come and study here 
and stay here. This is the place where the very best 
researchers want to live because of the American, democratic 
system and the values that are here and the way that our 
research enterprise works.
    Dr. Shaw. Senator Cruz, thank you for the question and 
thank you for diligence on this vital issue. And I can tell you 
that, from our standpoint, we have worked incredibly closely 
with the Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as our State 
agencies, to ensure that we, as my colleague has indicated, 
have upped our game substantially.
    We are now going through a really stringent review process, 
not only for students and faculty, but also for any visitor 
that comes to our campus. And those--that--those policies have 
been developed because of the guidance that we have received 
with Federal law enforcement agencies. A briefing that was held 
as late as last week on our campus is a part of the regular 
series of briefings that we have on potential threats and known 
information, in that regard.
    We are planning on hosting a conference on this very topic, 
on our campus this fall to address--to be sure that we are 
providing all of the education and information that is needed 
to ensure that we are keeping things safe.
    Dr. Butler. And I will just make one comment on the point. 
Coming from an industry perspective, and specifically, the work 
that we do in national security is critically important for us. 
And it is built into the DNA of our company. And so, as we 
think about opportunities to engage in a program like this, to 
take our technology more into the commercial market, we would 
think about it the same way. We have to maintain some degree of 
competitive edge. And so, that would--that would mean any 
technology being built that--through applied research, that is 
funded to a private company, needs to be protected. And we need 
to implement the same types of policies that--and procedures, 
that we have on the DOD side, from an industry perspective, you 
know, to ensure that we maintain a competitive edge and that 
that investment that is made by the government is, indeed, 
protected for the long term.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    Senator Cruz. And, Mr. Bonvillian. Can I get his response 
also? Who is remote.
    Chair Cantwell. We have two other witnesses. If they want 
to give a quick----
    Senator Cruz. OK, sure.
    Chair Cantwell. If they wanted to give a quick add-in or 
for the record, either one. We have a----
    Senator Cruz. OK.
    Chair Cantwell. So, yes, let us take their comments in 
writing and let us go to Senator Baldwin. If--I think Senator 
Peters will be here to take over the gavel. I am going to go 
and vote. We are going to continue this effort, because there 
are lots of questions for members to ask. And I think, after 
that--after Senator Baldwin, Senator Blackburn. So, with that, 
Senator Baldwin.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to start 
off with a few opening comments before I ask my questions.
    As many on this committee know, I strongly support the use 
of Buy America provisions to boost domestic manufacturing. And 
I believe that we really need to close gaps in our supply 
chains. So, I am pleased that the Endless Frontier Act includes 
a supply chain resiliency program and give the Commerce 
Secretary the authority to make purchasing commitments, that 
will further encourage domestic production of critically needed 
products. In addition, I recently introduced the Made in 
America Act, with my colleague Senator Braun, to apply Buy 
America rules to all Federal infrastructure programs, and to a 
wide variety of construction materials.
    As we look ahead to markup and floor consideration of the 
Endless Frontiers Act, I am going to continue to push for Buy 
America provisions and language to ensure that the significant 
funds included in the Endless Frontier Act, support American 
manufacturers and American workers.
    Now, to my questions. I am going to start with a question 
for Dr. Droegemeier. Successfully university--successful 
university-led technology innovation and transition have 
included robust partnering with industry to ensure 
commercialization and sustainable market applicability. For 
example, the University of Wisconsin has worked with a local 
small business to develop innovative electrolyte additives, to 
increase the importance and safety of lithium-ion batteries. 
This partnership has brought new products to market using 
Federal investment. But it has also helped develop a leading 
research and development capability that could support domestic 
efforts to discover and validate new battery chemistries and 
technologies. Currently, most of that innovation, as we all 
know, and the resulting intellectual property, is happening in 
Asia by private industry.
    I believe that we need to ensure that this legislation 
builds on this successful model and allows for continued 
partnership between research institutions and industry. So, Dr. 
Droegemeier, what, in your view, is the proper role of industry 
to ensure that the innovations of the universities get 
transitioned to the market?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator, it is an 
excellent question. In fact, what you just described is a 
beautiful example of how, you know, research comes to product 
and product inspires additional research to lead to 
improvements. So, it is not just a one-way from basic research 
to product and then, that is where it ends. So, that is very, 
very important.
    I think the role of research in--or excuse me, the role of 
private companies working with universities is many-fold. One 
is--one real great value proposition for universities and 
working with industry is the funding by industry of the 
research, of the students, of post-docs, and things like that. 
That is a great, sort of, direct benefit. The other thing is 
bringing the culture of the private sector to the university 
environment is a great experiential learning opportunity for 
students--for graduate and undergraduate students, and so on.
    I think the real challenge, of course, arises when we look 
to license intellectual property, from a university to a 
private company. That is where, sometimes, things kind of grind 
to a halt, partly because of differences of culture, difference 
of value proposition, and so on. And I think some of what would 
be helpful here, to really streamline that process, is perhaps 
some of the changes to the IRS revenue proclamations have been 
talked about in the past that allow greater flexibility in 
universities to negotiate intellectual property value up front, 
versus actually having to wait until the IP exists, at the very 
end of the game. Because really, what we are saying to a 
private company is, you know, we are going to give you a right 
to use this, but we cannot tell you how much it is going to 
cost you. And by the way, please give us your money. That is 
not, of course, how it really ought to work.
    So, I think there are a lot of innovative ways--we have 
seen this from other universities, like Minnesota and Illinois 
and Indiana, and other universities that have come up with very 
creative ways. But I think, systemically, we need to drive some 
important changes that will really streamline the ability of 
universities to move their research outcomes to the private 
sector. And then, continue working with the private sector to 
develop and innovate on them, and scale up, as you described.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I am going to try to squeeze in 
one more quick question for Mr. Bonvillian. I am a strong 
supporter of the manufacturing extension partnership, which 
delivers a high return of investment for taxpayers, almost $14 
for every $1 of Federal money invested. How can MEPs help small 
and medium manufacturers compete better in the global economy, 
not only with what their current mission is now, but what would 
you add on to give them an even more robust role?
    Mr. Bonvillian. You know, Senator, they do play a very 
important role. They have become an important part of, kind of, 
our innovation ecosystem as we start to understand that 
manufacturing has got to be part of that ecosystem. The MEP 
task really originated, as you know, in competition with Japan, 
you know, back in the 70s and 80s. That is really when this 
program originated. And we move toward trying to meet Japan on 
quality production. The MEP program did a good job on that, but 
now we are moving toward bringing in new technologies--new 
technology advances into the production system. And there is a 
key role, I think, for the MEPs in bringing those advances into 
small and mid-size firms. How can they help bring advanced 
manufacturing into the SMEs, who are typically slower and more 
reluctant to adapt that?
    And then, second, there is a very important workforce role 
for the MEPs. We need a lot of workforce training to get those 
to those advanced manufacturing technologies. And the MEPs can 
really help their small company members in bringing workforce 
training, workforce education programs, probably in 
collaboration with area community colleges, to their members. 
That can be another major member service.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, and I yield back.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Mr. Bonvillian, it is great to have you and 
the other folks here testifying. My first question is for you, 
though, Mr. Bonvillian. In 2019, before the COVID crisis 
occurred, I published a report out of Homeland Security 
Committee, which I was the Ranking Member, at the time, and now 
chairing. I looked at high drug cost in the country and 
potential supply problems with critical medical supplies. One 
thing that became very clear through that report, is that we 
were overly dependent on foreign sources for our supply chain. 
In fact, if you looked at the precursors of drugs, nearly all 
the drugs that we used, the precursors that go into those drugs 
are predominantly from China, but certainly places all across 
the globe--India and other places. And medical supplies come 
from the same place. And so, our report concluded that--and 
this is the conclusion in 2019. When there is a pandemic in 
this country, we are going to find ourselves in a very 
precarious situation. Little did I know that that was going to 
happen just a few months afterward.
    So, now this is no longer an academic exercise. This is 
real, very, very tangible. And we continue to see supply chain 
disruptions. We are seeing that with silicon chips now, and the 
impact that it has had. In my state, with the auto industry, is 
very clear, as well, of the resilience of that we do not have 
in those chains.
    And when you think about critical supplies for national 
security, we understand that, when it comes to the Department 
of Defense, we make sure that we make things here in the United 
States for that. An example, we have a shipyard in Wisconsin. 
Senator Baldwin was on just before. It is actually in her 
State, but it is right on the border. Half the workers there 
are Michiganders that work there. But it is very clear that we 
understand that we have to be in a position that we will never, 
ever buy warships from China, or any other country. We make 
sure we have the industrial capacity in the country to do that, 
and most importantly we have the skilled workers that are 
trained and ready to go. That is not something you can build 
very, very quickly.
    And so, we are faced with this incredibly challenging 
problem and the Biden Administration has proposed creating a 
new office, at the Department of Commerce, ``dedicated to 
monitoring domestic industrial capacity and funding investment 
to support the production of critical goods''. And certainly, 
the Endless Frontiers Act presents an opportunity to be able to 
put that idea into law.
    So, my question is, based on your experience, can you 
comment on how creating an office to help manage supply chain 
risk, if it is empowered with robust tools to tackle these 
challenges, could benefit technological innovation in the U.S., 
as well as domestic manufacturers and the broader economy? Sir, 
I will start with you, but I am sure other panelists would like 
to weigh in on that, as well.
    Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, thanks for the question. I think 
it is a very important one. We certainly learned from the 
pandemic that we have got deep supply chain issues in many 
sectors of our economy. And they also became very apparent in 
the pharmaceuticals sector. We thought we had, you know, 
fabulous global leadership of the biopharma sector, but it was 
a rude awakening when we realized how much of it has now been 
dispersed at the production stage.
    So, an office to do an assessment and to monitor what these 
supply chain risks are and to understand those in a better 
level of detail, not just for the primes but reaching down to 
the tiers of the supplier system, I think, is going to be 
crucial. Obviously, DOD does a substantial amount of this 
already in its fields. But even DOD has trouble reaching third 
tier or even fourth tier suppliers and understanding where 
those supplies are coming from. So, we deeply need more 
monitoring.
    There is going to be an issue that we are going to have to 
face, which is that we are not going to, necessarily, have the 
industrial capacity to fill these gaps. And in certain critical 
areas, we may want to think about a financing mechanism that 
would help us to scale up production in some very critical 
fields.
    Senator Peters. Right. I was going to ask other panelists, 
but I am running out of time. So, I have another question, but 
I would love to have your comments. Perhaps we can get that in 
writing, too, of other support for that.
    But, Mr. Droegemeier, this question is for you. As someone 
who believes in manufacturing and the power of manufacturing in 
the country as I do, I have found that, unfortunately, we do 
not have a very coordinated manufacturing policy in this 
country. In fact, if you look at manufacturing programs, that 
exist to help manufacturers, there are 58 of those. Which is a 
great number, but they are spread across 11 different Federal 
agencies. There is no coordination. There is no one specific 
voice for manufacturing, to move it forward.
    And if you think about our major global competitors, who do 
a very good job of focusing on manufacturers, the Germans, for 
example, the South Koreans, others that do it. They get it. 
They understand you need a coordinated strategy supporting 
local manufacturing, local businesses, particularly smaller 
manufacturing. And that is why I have proposed a National 
Institute of Manufacturing, modeled like the National Institute 
of Health, that is focused on manufacturing, as opposed to 
health. But looking at public-private partnerships, how we make 
sure government is leveraging what private industry can do, let 
private industry do what they do best, but figure out where the 
gaps are and how we work in that area.
    So, my question is to you is, can you speak to the 
coordination, or the lack thereof, that exists in Federal 
manufacturing? And would something like a National Institute of 
Manufacturing make imminent sense?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator Peters. And I 
have to tell you, when I read your report on the supply chain 
for drugs, I was stunned. I mean, that was an eye opener.
    You are absolutely right in how you portray this. We do 
have a lot of things that are out there--Manufacturing USA, the 
Hollings Partnerships, and so on. And of course, the National 
Institutes of Standards and Technology kind of--is really, I 
would say the Federal laboratory to the private sector 
manufacturers. But we do not really have a whole of government 
approach. And I think it--you know, it really would make sense 
to try to coordinate that.
    We also do not really have, I think, a national industrial 
policy, per se. And that is something else that, I think, that 
you are mentioning, which I have not read what you are talking 
about. But it just--off the top of my head, it seems to make a 
lot of sense. Because this is really critical to our future, 
where the supply chain and things like critical mineral, for 
which there might be synthetic substitutes, or things more 
traditional, or advanced manufacturing. It really is a bit part 
of the future. So, it sure makes sense, as I sit here today.
    Senator Peters. Right. Well, thank you. My time is expired. 
Senator Blackburn, you are recognized for your questions.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Peters. And thank you all 
for this today. We appreciate having the hearing and I--I think 
that looking at the future and deciding how we move forward is 
something vitally important. I see Senator Rosen on the screen. 
She and I had an advanced manufacturing bill that we have 
worked on now for over 2 years. So, we are pleased to see 
attention given to this issue. Senator Cortez Masto and I have 
an entrepreneurship bill that, again, would put more attention 
on this. And Senator Menendez and I have the SAM-C legislation 
that, believe it or not, we filed before COVID, which would 
repatriate active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing back 
to the United States, where these critical supply chains need 
to be. We need to bring that back. And I do think that is one 
of the lessons from COVID.
    But I would like to hear from each of you, and Dr. Shaw, 
first to you, Dr. Droegemeier, and then, Dr. Butler. What I 
would like to look at is workforce, because this is an area 
where China says they possess a crucial advantage. And it is 
the reason we have done these various pieces of legislation, to 
train the workforce to equip them and to have the type jobs 
here, in advanced manufacturing. So, here is my question to 
each of you, and then, answer in that order as I have stated. 
How can the NSF partner with their private sector allies to 
grow a workforce that will excel in advanced manufacturing 
capabilities? And what focus should physics programs have on 
chip fabrication programs, to help with a base of knowledge of 
chip manufacturing? Dr. Shaw? Go ahead.
    Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. It is a fabulous 
question and one that has a number of different aspects that I 
think we need to be much more prepared to speak to than we are 
today.
    In earlier comments I made, you know, Mississippi State 
works very, very closely with our community college system in 
the State of Mississippi and, I believe it is one of the better 
ones in the nation, in terms of workforce preparedness. And I 
think part of the recognition is that we need to be able to 
develop the entire workforce. And so, 4-year institutions and 
graduate institutions do not need to be just focusing on trying 
to have everyone graduate with a bachelor's or a PhD, but 
rather, need to recognize that those kinds of partnerships.
    And so, I think the opportunity that we have, through the 
consideration of the technology directorate at NSF, is not only 
focusing on graduate degrees or even undergraduate 4-year 
degrees, but a partnership that goes from high schools to 
community colleges to 4-year institutions to graduate programs 
working in a very holistic manner to be able to recognize the 
workforce needs that are across the entire spectrum. What that 
also means is that is not unidirectional. It also means that 
institutions, such as ours, that develop PhDs and post-docs, 
need to be working very closely with the community colleges and 
with high school, to be able to be sure that the training that 
is going on now is the most relevant. And so, if I take 
advantage of the example that you gave us in chip and advanced 
manufacturing, we need to be sure that the workforce that is 
being developed, especially in the community college system, is 
really adequately prepared for jobs of the future and not jobs 
of the past.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, thank you. And full disclosure, I 
attended Mississippi State. I still serve on the Advisory Board 
for the College of Business. And, Dr. Shaw, I appreciate the 
maroon tie. Dr. Droegemeier?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Certainly, 
with NSF partnering with the private sector means there are 
huge opportunities to leverage, in a partnership sense, things 
like internships and externships where you actually have 
private companies coming to research facilities at 
universities. So, sort of, a bidirectional sharing. You know, 
huge opportunities that the private companies have that you do 
not find in a university environment.
    So, it is, kind of, a multi-generational, multi-
institutional, multi-disciplinary, sort of--sort of, activity. 
And I think it is not just about the scientific training that 
we are doing, but it is about the technological training. The 
people that are actually building vacuum pumps and doing 
things, you know, the work that is so critically important--the 
technological work that does not necessarily involve a degree. 
That sometimes gets marginalized. But we need a seamless 
framework, all the way from, say, career-technical, and K-12, 
and post-high school, all the way through the doctoral 
programs. And we really do not have that now. There is a lot 
of--I, kind of, call it 1,000 flowers blooming everywhere, but 
there are not a lot of lush gardens that are being planted. So, 
we really need to make sure that we have this seamless 
framework.
    To your point about, you know, Physics departments, and 
things like that, with regard to chips, I think there is 
extraordinary innovation happening in things like thin film 
devices and phononics that is being funded both by NSF and by 
the private sector. And also, private foundations do a lot of 
interesting work there. And I think it is so critically 
important that we continue to innovate in that space because 
our economy, our national security, and our real quality of 
life is going to depend on that.
    So, I just want to tip my hat to DOE labs, especially Oak 
Ridge, there in your state, Senator, that has an extraordinary 
facility for advanced manufacturing. It involves some 60 
different companies doing amazing things, all working 
collaboratively with the national lab and with local 
universities. It is really a success story and a role model, I 
believe.
    Senator Blackburn. Yes, it is, and UT has established Oak 
Ridge Institute. Go ahead, Dr. Butler.
    Dr. Butler. Yes, thank you, Senator Blackburn, for that 
question. And I will just speak to one area of manufacturing 
that I am familiar with and that is, the manufacturing of data. 
And that is one of the things that we do at Camgian, is we--we 
think of manufacturing in the context of data in building AI 
factories, if you will. And that is the process of being able 
to take very large volumes of data, apply algorithms to that 
data to improve operational efficiency for companies, or build 
the next generation technology firm military.
    And one of the things that has been of great--of great 
success for us in Starkville is the ability to bring in people, 
in that entire supply chain, to help curate data, to help 
process that information, to develop the algorithms. The 
combination of our work with the university to produce very 
innovative products. Not only--information products I should 
say. Not only for our military, but also our commercial 
partners, as well. And that is not just engineers. That is a 
broad range of people that it takes to facilitate that process 
from tip to tail. And in doing that in place like Mississippi 
and places in the center of the United States, I think, is 
going to be very important for us to be competitive. Because 
this type of workforce for the future has to be distributed 
across the country, not just in certain tech hubs in the United 
States.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
    Senator Blackburn. Got it, thank you.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you for your questions, Senator 
Blackburn. Senator Rosen.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and for all the witnesses for being here today for what 
you are working. And I do want to build a little bit upon what 
Senator Blackburn is talking about with advanced manufacturing. 
We have great bills out there. We need to develop that 
workforce. It is really important.
    But we also need to develop a diverse workforce, right? And 
so, I am a former computer programmer and I spent decades 
working in a traditionally male-dominated field. And so, I am 
thrilled to see the emphasis on increasing representation in 
STEM for women and for underrepresented communities and 
communities of color. And of course, the legislation that we 
are doing today expands STEM apprenticeship programs and is 
committed to serving women, minorities, veterans, tribal 
members, individuals with disabilities, and so many more.
    But I think it is important--think about how we measure for 
success. The data does tell a story. I say this over and over 
again, if you are smart enough to listen to it. So, how are 
existing NSF government programs--how are they working to close 
the gaps in our STEM workforce? Because that is going to 
increase our opportunities for folks and ensure that employers 
have the workforce that they need.
    So, Dr. Droegemeier, under the OSTP STEM Education 
Strategic Plan, you prioritize groups that have historically 
been underrepresented in STEM fields. Do you believe that the 
OSTP has been successful? How are you measuring that? And where 
do you think--what do you need to do to fill in--what do we 
need to do to fill in those gaps, where we are not reaching out 
and getting people?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator, very much. That 
report that you mentioned actually has three pillars to it. One 
is a STEM literate society. Another one is creating a STEM 
workforce, and the other one is, very importantly, the 
broadening participation dimension.
    One thing that I did not get to with I was at OSTP, but I 
think we need to do as a nation, is really understand our bench 
strength. We do not really have a good handle on all the 
individuals that are out there, across all of America, who have 
the capability, the capacity, the desire to actually come in, 
if they were given the opportunity. We talk about that a lot 
but, you know, where are they? Let us go find them. And there 
are lots of ways that we could--that we could identify them, 
but we have not really, I think, done that. So, we know they 
exist, but we really need to go out and identify them and bring 
them in.
    So, increasing the diversity is very important. I think NSF 
has a whole bunch of different programs that have done this, 
have worked on this. We are seeing progress. It is not as slow 
as we all would like. But I think there are innovations, in 
terms of certain programs that are brining more women and 
underrepresented minorities, into positions of leadership, 
where others can be inspired by them and they can help mentor 
those. But frankly, it is going to take folks like myself and 
other folks that, you know, are not ethnic minorities, to come 
in and be champions of these kinds of activities, to help do 
the same thing.
    And so, we really need a whole of nation approach to do 
this. And I think, pardon me, that is something very important 
to be happening. NSF finally has a committee called the 
Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering that 
responds to Congress, submits a report. And they are mapping 
out a real important national strategy for doing this, as well.
    So, I think--I think we are poised to do even more. We have 
a long way to go yet, but I think we are making progress.
    Senator Rosen. Well, I think you are right. And I would 
further say that I think we need to collect data before the 
grants and after the grants, like you said, to build out what 
our bench strength is.
    But I would like to move on quickly to Ms. Rhoads and give 
you a chance to comment on this, as well, since the W Fund 
evaluates the inclusivity of women at the companies where it 
invests. And so, how do you measure inclusivity?
    Ms. Rhoads. Well, we are a small and very boutique fund, 
directed exclusively at companies that are spinning out of 
research institutions--public non-profit research institutions 
and I do not think that inclusivity was part of our original 
mandate. That said, we have been the beneficiary of efforts 
within universities to promote women entrepreneurship. And so, 
of our 19 companies, I think that five of them have women in 
the C-suite or the founding team, and that was a wonderful 
thing. But it is a big problem and on most of the company 
boards on which I serve, I am the only woman and there is not a 
woman in management.
    Senator Rosen. I think we need to work on that, for sure. I 
only have a few seconds left. I just would like to ask Dr. 
Miranda, perhaps, if you want to talk about the role that 
broadband plays--expanded broadband, in leveling the playing 
field access for American economic competitiveness over the 
next decade, in order for us to do all of these things. So, 
perhaps you could just speak broadly to broadband. I guess that 
is a little pun there. But maybe you could tell us how you 
think us investing in broadband will help us move all of this 
forward? Dr. Miranda?
    Dr. Miranda. Thank you. I think one of the things we need 
to do, as a country, is make sure that there is universal 
access and universal high-quality access, to Internet services 
in every corner of the country. So, the impact of the COVID-19 
pandemic is huge on our children--our school-aged children. It 
is much bigger on children who live in rural areas, or children 
who live in urban areas that have poor Internet service.
    I will tell you; we bought a farm in Indiana. We are 17 
miles outside of South Bend. And I do not have good Internet 
service. It is not because I am not willing to pay for it. It 
is not because I cannot figure out the technology. I simply do 
not have good Internet service. I worry daily about all the 
kids who live in the farming communities around me, such as 
their ability to continue to make progress in their schooling, 
under the conditions of the pandemic.
    Aside from the pandemic, the whole notion of, if we really 
want a STEM literate workforce, we want a workforce that 
reaches the entire country, and not just certain pockets here 
and there, we have to make sure that Internet is universal--it 
is like a utility now. And we would not be satisfied with water 
service that sometimes worked and sometimes did not. Or 
electricity that sometimes worked and sometimes did not. And 
that is how we need to think about broadband access in this 
country.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator 
Rosen.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Senator Scott.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Scott. First, I want to thank Chair Cantwell and 
Ranking Member Wicker for holding this important hearing. 
Communist China has shown it is eager to assert its power 
across the globe, undermine democracy and human rights, violate 
U.S. sanctions, and prop up dictators. The United States must 
now recognize that we are in a new Cold War with China--
Communist China. And we need to confront this threat using 
every diplomatic and military option at our disposal. The 
position we are in today is because of decades of appeasement 
by Washington politicians, an attitude that is carried forward 
by many.
    My concern is whether President Biden will do what is 
needed in this critical moment. His words and actions have only 
emboldened Communist China in his administration's weakness 
toward General Secretary Xi is gravely concerning. We cannot be 
naive in thinking that Communist China wants to operate in the 
modern world order and cooperate with other world powers.
    I have sponsored and supported legislation focused on 
addressing the security of our supply chains, holding Communist 
China fully responsible for its genocide against the Uyghurs, 
enhancing their ability to innovate new technology, and 
countering Beijing for its unfair trade practices.
    This is where our legislative efforts must begin. We need 
to strategically decouple in critical technologies and out and 
cut Communist China off from the American economy that it 
relies so heavily upon, to feed the Communist oppressive 
machine. Now is the time to display the true resolve of the 
United States in addressing Communist China's destabilizing 
actions and finally put policy in place that truly places 
American interest first.
    Dr. Droegemeier, last Congress I joined Senator Portman on 
his Safeguarding American Innovation Act to provide a better 
framework to keep Communist China's influence out of our 
research programs at our universities. Last year, Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs Committee--Governmental Affairs 
Committee Subcommittee report exposed the National Science 
Foundation's inability to protect Federal investments from 
going to universities or researchers with ties to Communist 
China's 1000 Talents program. Does this bill include any 
measures to prevent that?
    In addition, is the National Science Foundation equipped to 
combat Communist China's attempts to steal and spy on U.S. 
research and intellectual property? And is there any Federal 
agency that might be better equipped?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Scott. At the moment, I 
do not think the bill contains any language regarding research 
security. With regard to NSF, they have a really wonderful 
research security officer that they brought on board, I think 
about a year ago. And the White House issued, in January, 
guidance to Federal agencies, through a National Security 
Presidential Memorandum, of a policy to really help safeguard 
and secure ourselves against foreign threats, broadly defined, 
especially with regard to things like disclosure of those who 
are receiving public funds through any Federal agency, disclose 
certain kinds of things including relationships to talent 
programs, and so on.
    The trick is now, having--it is a uniform policy. The trick 
is to get it implemented uniformly. I can tell you that NSF 
takes this very, very seriously, as do other agencies. In fact, 
they were--NSF and other agencies were putting forth their own 
different policies and we wanted them to hold off just a little 
bit, until we, kind of, created a uniform policy. But I do 
believe that they are reacting very strongly, as are our 
universities. They are taking actions, many actions, again, to 
combat these threats. They recognize the challenges.
    And so, I think, by working together with the Federal 
Government, the universities, the private companies, with our 
law enforcement or national security sector, we are going to 
make, and are making, tremendous progress. But as I said before 
you arrived, we are still on the early phases of this. There is 
a lot of work to be done. And the work that you have done and 
that other Members of Congress, are greatly appreciated. And I 
think we still need to really be on top of this.
    Senator Scott. Thank you. Ms. Rhoads, I have serious doubts 
that direct government payments to universities is the best 
answer to meet China's advancing technology, or an efficient 
return on investment for taxpayers. I come from the business 
community and my view is, what we ought to do is, if the 
government wants to accomplish something, what we ought to do 
is, we ought to bid it out and see who can do the job, and 
then, hold them accountable if they do not. So, Ms. Rhoads, how 
can we instead empower, rather than using our universities, 
empower private sector to create, innovate, and advance 
technology, so the United States can reduce its reliance on our 
adversaries, especially Communist China?
    Ms. Rhoads. Well, I guess I would just like to first say 
that apropos of your point, but also something that Senator 
Cruz mentioned was, while illicit theft of university IP is a 
huge concern, it is a terrible shame that Congress provides 
universities with billions for research and not the single 
digit millions to speculatively patent and protect the 
resultant IP.
    So that now, especially now that we are a first to file 
country, we are inviting legal theft of our IP. So, that, in 
and of itself, costs, especially for large universities doing 
over a billion dollars of research a year, probably a couple 
million dollars a year. And without those funds, we are 
inviting other countries to take advantage of the innovation 
that we create and then, go to colloquia and symposia and, even 
if we are sophisticated about how to safeguard it without 
patent funds we discuss.
    But to your point, specifically about, I guess, customer-
directed or government-directed discovery, I think, while there 
is a place for that, one of the magical things about university 
innovation is that these researchers are often volcanos of 
innovation. And there are so many different kinds of things 
that they might innovate around and not all of them we can 
foresee.
    So, there is a place for directed innovation programs, with 
results that we know that we want, and there is also a place 
for having more open-ended research. And I definitely think 
that programs where, perhaps, we match industry dollars with 
non-dilutive dollars will tend to inspire industry and 
companies and private investors to, depending on the stage of 
the research, to be willing to either invest in the research 
itself, or its outcomes. Because even when you have a research 
result, these are so early that they are often too risky to 
warrant return on investment dollars, unless there is non-
dilutive funding alongside.
    So, I think there is a variety of forms programmatically 
that those programs can take.
    Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, for 
holding this hearing.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Lujan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. First, I want to thank Chair Cantwell and 
Ranking Member Wicker. I also want to recognize Leader Schumer 
and Senator Young for prioritizing science and research and 
development right out of the gate.
    New Mexico is home to two world class Department of Energy 
laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National 
Laboratory, and also, DOD Air Force Research Labs. From the 
Manhattan Project to the Human Genome Project, our labs have 
been at the forefront of scientific discovery, to address our 
Nation's and the world's greatest challenges.
    Thanks to our national labs, the United States continues to 
lead the world in pushing for boundaries in space-based 
activities. For example, Los Alamos recently played a major 
role in our mission to Mars. It was Los Alamos who manufactured 
the fuel that propelled the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover. 
Sandia National Labs, the first clean room, providing the chips 
and circuitry that power computing and the internet.
    In many of the areas that we are discussing today, 
artificial intelligence, Quantum information sciences, biotech, 
advanced manufacturing, high performance computing, and others, 
the Department of Energy leads America's scientific efforts. 
The Department and our labs perform open and collaborative 
science and brings together academics, industries, and a wide 
range of partners.
    Let me offer a few additional examples. Currently, our 
national labs lead five DOE funded national Quantum information 
science research hubs. These hubs bring together industry, 
universities, national labs, NSF, NIST, and others, to 
strengthen our security, competitiveness, and scientific 
leadership. Regarding high performance computing and artificial 
intelligence, our Department of Energy labs currently operate 
two out of the top three fastest supercomputers in the world, 
and more coming online through the Exascale Computing 
Initiative--the Exascale.
    These machines serve as the infrastructure that powers the 
most advanced artificial intelligence in the world. From 
biotech to nomics, synthetic biology to advanced energy 
batteries, industrial efficiency and material science, our 
national labs support collaborative science in these areas and 
are helping to create the industries of the future. As Congress 
continues to invest and look forward to the R&D landscape, it 
must prioritize investments across key agencies and improve 
coordination across the Federal Government, including at our 
Department of Energy labs.
    I believe that the Committee's decision to focus on our 
international competitiveness is timely, and our competitors 
are increasing their investments, as they are looking at our 
DOE labs as a model. We have already heard from adversaries, 
including China, who have a deep interest in the United States 
R&D system. And they have singled out and looked at large scale 
national laboratories, which are at the center of our 
scientific capabilities and our ability to meet urgent national 
priorities. The President of China even characterized Los 
Alamos, Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley as indispensable momentum 
for the development and innovation of science and technology.
    So, as you can see, I support the Department of Energy's 
National Labs across the country and I believe that we need to 
be driving investment in both areas, National Science 
Foundation, as well as the Department of Energy. And I want to 
join my colleagues who have shared that with us today.
    Dr. Droegemeier, when you were Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology and Policy, you led efforts to develop a 
report that examined how to increase American leadership in the 
industries of the future. What do you see as the role of our 
national labs and the Department of Energy in this effort?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, Senator, thank you very much and I 
think you have really accurately characterized the tremendous 
role that DOE plays, and especially the 17 national labs. They 
truly are a crown jewel of America. I think that, in this bill, 
strengthening the National Science Foundation, because of its 
unique capabilities of funding the preponderance of fundamental 
non-medical and clinical, basic research in this country, very, 
very important.
    But certainly, the national labs have a role to play, as 
well. And in that report you mentioned, the national labs were, 
kind of, the centerpiece, really, of looking to leverage their 
tremendous existing capabilities in computing and in facilities 
and equipment and test beds, and things like that. And really 
creating an infrastructure and a framework, I would call it, 
that really goes all the way from fundamental research, all the 
way to preproduction prototype development, and truly, scale 
up. And frankly, the national labs are such a characteristic to 
really help do that.
    So, when I think you bring them into the mix with the 
National Science Foundation, NIST, and other organizations that 
you mentioned, we truly have the capability to do things in a 
holistic, collaborative way. And we heard this from Chair 
Cantwell earlier, that really is the critical thing, in my 
view, to making this all work for America. So, it truly is not 
a zero-sum game, as you say. There is plenty of room for NSF 
enhancement, DOE lab involvement, and perhaps, enhancement, as 
well.
    You know, I think we all just need to recognize that we 
have got a whole of nation strategy that is unlike anything 
China can yield--can wield. And so, we really need to get in 
there and make this work better for America and there are so 
many things, I think, that we can do better, that do not take 
massive investments, but they take more collaborations. It is 
easy to create. It is tough to collaborate. We need to do both.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. And, Chair Cantwell, I 
would like to ask unanimous consent to submit, for the record, 
a letter from the directors of 17 national labs, which calls on 
Congress to strengthen and increase investments across the 
entire U.S. ecosystem.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, without objections.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Senator Lujan. I yield back, thank you.
    Chair Cantwell. And certainly, agree that whatever 
investments we make should, just as we did with COMPETES, 
include something for our national labs and the great work that 
they do. I think, unless Senator Lee is joining us remotely, I 
think we next have Senator Markey.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Yes, 
this is just such an important hearing, and it really just goes 
to our future, the future of our country. Research is a field 
of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give hope 
that we are going to make the huge breakthroughs in just so 
many critical areas of our existence. So, thank you for having 
this very important hearing.
    This committee, last year actually, passed out a piece of 
legislation that was authored by myself, Senator Tillis, 
Senator Collins, and Senator Peters. And that authorized $25 
billion to be used for research at NIH, at DOE, at NOAA, at 
NIST, at EPA--across the board. All these agencies that had 
seen real fundamental hits made on their personnel and on their 
ability to do research. And it did pass out of the Committee 
last year and I would like to see it included in any package 
that moves this year, obviously. And just wondering, Mr. 
Bonvillian, if you could agree that the Endless Frontier Act 
should include the provisions from the RISE Act, we called it. 
That was Research Investment to Spark the Economy Act, which 
has already passed out of our committee. Do you think that 
should be included in the Endless Frontiers Act?
    Chair Cantwell. Senator Markey, who was that directed 
toward?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Bonvillian. Mr. Bonvillian.
    Chair Cantwell. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Bonvillian. Can you hear me now?
    Senator Markey. Yes.
    Mr. Bonvillian. I just want to note, Senator, that the 
university community and the university associations have been 
very strongly supportive of your RISE legislation. The whole 
research system took a major hit during COVID. Lots of research 
projects had to be cut back. Graduate student careers were all 
pushed back a year. Faculty and researchers were affected in 
many, many ways. So, I know that there is very substantial 
support for this legislation, and I am sure that the Committee, 
having passed it out already, will be happy to reconsider this 
here.
    Some of my colleagues here on the panel are university 
provosts, so I just want to note they may have some thoughts 
about this, too.
    Senator Markey. Is there anyone who would like to add their 
comment on it, who is a university provost?
    Chair Cantwell. You might have to tell them a little bit 
about the--what was in the bill, Senator.
    Senator Markey. OK, well, I think--I heard from Mr. 
Bonvillian. I think that is great and speaks to what the 
university community, writ large, was interested in when they 
endorsed that legislation last year, as it came out of our 
committee. And so, I thank you for that. And again, it is just 
research funding across the board.
    And I would like to just ask Mr. Bonvillian one final 
question, and that is, a piece of legislation called the Cyber 
Shield Act, which would create a program for IOT manufacturers 
to voluntarily certify that their products meet industry-
leading cyber security benchmarks. They can display them with a 
Cyber Shield label, that will help consumers to identify and 
purchase more secure technology for their homes. Do you think 
makes sense, Mr. Bonvillian, as something that we should be 
including in this legislation?
    Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, there is a genuine problem here, 
obviously, as we are all understanding, about cybersecurity and 
Internet security. There is an increasingly deep societal set 
of issues here and it obviously affects consumers and the 
public in a profound kind of way.
    So, you know, one of the things about research and the 
development of technology is, technology is always a two-edged 
sword, right? There are going to be great things that come out 
of technology, but there are going to be problems as well, as 
you have recognized in this legislation. And we have got to 
anticipate that, make sure that we are developing solutions in 
parallel, as the technology evolves.
    So, one of the obligations that we are going to have, if 
this legislation moves, is to ensure that, in these critical 
technologies, the other side of that two-edged sword is being 
anticipated, thought about, and responded to. So, your Cyber 
secure Shield legislation is, kind of, part of that story, I 
believe.
    Senator Markey. Oh, thank you. Yes, so we have to build in 
the safeguards, the seatbelts, right up front, as we move 
forward. There is a Dickensian quality to all these 
technologies. They are the best of technologies and the worst 
of technologies, simultaneously. They are only as good as the 
human values that we animate them with. And so, having this 
kind of a rating system for a Cyber Shield gives consumers the 
ability to protect their families.
    So, I thank you, Mr. Bonvillian, and I thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Markey. For the 
witnesses, we are getting to the end, but we do have a very 
large committee. We also have a vote going on. But we will try 
to get through this in the next 15 minutes, or so. So, Senator 
Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of you 
for joining us today. Today's hearing is on the Endless 
Frontier Act and it is part of an important debate about our 
country's future and about our country's mobilization to defend 
ourselves against China's threat to the U.S. homeland, to a 
free and open Indo-Pacific, and to our democratic allies 
abroad.
    Properly counteracting the Chinese Communist Party is 
necessarily going to require the United States to carefully 
assess the threat and to consider how best to respond. Rushing 
to enact government policy without review, and without adequate 
debate, could really harm American interest. And if we are not 
careful, it could end up having the opposite of the effect we 
want, one where we harm our own interest and that harm, somehow 
endures to the benefit of China.
    It is important for us not to lose sight of how American 
values, values of freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship, 
market-based solutions, our commitment to free market 
economics, make us a global leader. As we have this 
conversation, I think we should not abandon these principals in 
some sort of an attempt to compete with China by trying to beat 
China at China's own game. We will lose that effort. But we 
will win efforts if we focus on what has fostered the 
development of the greatest civilization the world has ever 
known.
    China's communist approach centralizes the power of the 
state and it harnesses that power, in order to control its own 
people. What China pursues is nothing less than, and nothing 
more than an authoritarian command and control industrial 
policy. One in which ideas and innovation are subject to the 
whims of the Communist Party officials, themselves. So, we 
should not try to counter China by imitating China. It simply 
does not work.
    Dr. Droegemeier, I am concerned that our response to 
increased Chinese investment in R&D is, or might become, just 
to outspend China. Will, outspending China, or being like 
China, in that regard, through Federal Government, actually 
counter the Chinese threat?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Lee. I think--I think 
we really, certainly, do not want to operate like China. We 
have our American values, that you so thoughtfully expressed. 
But what I love about research is, they are very much the same 
as research values--ethical behavior, mutual respect, and so 
on--bold thinking.
    No, I do not think outspending China--in fact, I think the 
key thing is that, as we have talked about before, we really 
have to do things differently. I think just pouring a lot of 
money into existing frameworks is not going to get us there. 
Now, we do need to increase funding. There is no question about 
that. But I think to--you know, one of the things that we 
talked about with the bill is to be smart and to look at 
creating frameworks for allowing collaboration and interaction 
across all the sectors of our research enterprise in ways that 
we do not now do. And frankly, I think the pandemic gave us the 
best use case for how we can accelerate, how we can really not 
be completely hands tied behind our back in terms of certain 
regulations that really impede progress and do not provide 
value.
    And so, I think, leading with our own values, but also 
doing things smarter than China, better than China, and with 
increased funding, I think that is really the solution for 
success. It is not easy. But they take the easy route by just 
doing stuff and without regard to a lot of things that we care 
deeply about. We do not have to forsake those things. We can 
actually use our capabilities in just the opposite way, I 
think, to really lead the world, and with our values shining 
brightly.
    Senator Lee. That is a fair point. So, following up on 
that, how much should the U.S. Government--the Federal 
Government of this country, how much should it itself, not the 
private sector in the United States--how much should the 
Federal Government spend on R&D? 100 billion? 250 billion? Why 
not a trillion dollars? Is there a point at which Federal 
Government spending, in this area, becomes counterproductive?
    Dr. Droegemeier. That is a great question that I have had. 
As a scientist, I like look at data and say, OK, what do we 
really need? What are the right numbers? And I think, you know, 
we do not really have, in this country, a comprehensive science 
of science policy framework to go by. I think we take the 
baseline budget and say, let us add on top of it. What is it we 
really need? We do have some hard data. NSF now fails to fund 
about $4 billion of research every year that it could fund, if 
it had the funds to do it. So, that is an important data point.
    So, I do think that it is important to continue investing 
in the fundamental discovery research that really is a primary 
domain of the--of the Federal Government, and then, work 
together with these other sectors. I think that question really 
needs some serious thought, to say, what is the right number. I 
do not, honestly, know what it is. And I think we, as a nation, 
need to come to grips with that and we can.
    I think we have the tools to really understand what it 
would take to do certain levels of--of, you know, 
competitiveness or achievement, if we have a long-term plan, 
which we also do not have. We need a 50-year horizon, look 
ahead in this country. China thinks very, very long-term. We 
think the next budget cycle. We have got to think beyond--I 
know it sounds weird for a meteorologist to say this. We need a 
50-year--not a forecast, but a projection. An arc that allows 
us to think about America over that 50-year time period.
    Senator Lee. Madam Chair, I see my time has expired. Can I 
just ask just one very brief follow-up question to that?
    You would agree then, that there is a point--I am not sure 
where it is, but there is a point beyond which Federal 
Government spending might well be crowding out private 
investment? And I think it is safe to say, is it not, that it 
would end up spending money less efficiently than the private 
sector would?
    Dr. Droegemeier. I think that is right. Plus, it also can 
change, I think, human behavior and expectations. It might make 
people far less hungry to come up with innovative ideas. We do 
not want to do that. We want people to be hungry and to work 
really hard for the money they get. That is one of the 
hallmarks of our system. But there is a balance point of that 
and then, starving people because there is not enough funding 
available.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Warnock.

              STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL WARNOCK, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

    Senator Warnock. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think it 
is pretty clear that we are not invested nearly enough in our 
country's Federal research and development. And as a result, we 
are seeing the impact of that. Certainly, I am seeing it in the 
State of Georgia. West Point, Georgia is home of Kia Motors, 
the only manufacturing facility for Kia in our country. It is a 
factory that runs 24-hours a day. It employees more than 2,700 
people, and it produces 340,000 vehicles per year. Yet, last 
week, the Kia factory almost had to suspend production, for 2 
days, due to the global semiconductor shortage.
    The Endless Frontier Act would increase research at the 
semiconductor design and fabrication, as well as protect 
America's supply chains, which is also a national security 
issue. So, for America to remain competitive, we have to build 
public and private partnerships, and we have to invest in 
research and development.
    Mr. Bonvillian, how would investments in regional 
innovation hubs take on some of our toughest challenges, such 
as the global semiconductor shortage, as well as other issues 
that can potentially cripple our manufacturing, in a state like 
Georgia? You are muted.
    Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, as you understand well, we need to 
get through a series of stages before we get to that magical 
production moment, in a way. And the role of regional 
innovation is the seed bed where product, you know, can 
actually materialize. You take the prototyping that has come 
out of the earlier stages, including through these university 
development centers and the test beds that the bill envisions. 
But, you know, it is like making an airplane wing. Somebody has 
got to put that wing onto an airplane, and somebody has got to 
put the airplane into an airline.
    The regional focus in the bill enables us to start building 
innovation in-depth. It should not be focused on a few centers. 
We need to broaden that innovation base across the country. And 
a study that I cited in my testimony indicates there is 
probably 102 different regions with the necessary assets of 
university research, of community colleges and educational 
institution mix, of strong businesses, both small and large, of 
committed State and local government support, that can build 
these ecosystems that we are going to need for regional 
innovation.
    So, I think that is our key element in this system that we 
need to build here, if we are going to get to that production 
moment. And it is true, not simply in fields like 
semiconductors. It is true in the range of critical 
technologies that we are discussing here. So, the regional 
piece, I think, is a very important element.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so much. Another provision of 
this Act is that it will dramatically increase the amount of 
Federal funding and R&D available to colleges and universities. 
But we know that all colleges and universities are not equally 
equipped to apply for large Federal grants. Historically, such 
funding has disproportionately accrued in a small handful of 
large universities with very large endowments.
    A recent report from the National Science Foundation found 
that just 30 institutions account for 42 percent of all R&D 
spending by colleges and universities across America. And none 
of these 30 institutions were HBCUs--Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, or minority-serving institutions. 
When the National Academies of Science examined the 
underrepresentation of people of color in STEM fields. They 
concluded that HBCUs and minority-serving institutions play a 
critical role in training students of color for careers in 
STEM. They also recommended that the Federal Government offer 
grants to HBCUs and minority-serving institutions to help build 
institutional research capacity, so that they can compete for 
these large grants.
    I would like to ask Dr. Droegemeier, what is the role of 
HBCUs and MSIs in educating America's STEM workforce? And do 
you see that as a big part of the issue around research and 
development and its impact on supply chains?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Warnock. Absolutely. 
MSIs, HBCUs have a great role to play, and I think, in fact I 
made a couple of suggestions in my written testimony in that 
regard. The first one was that, as you say, a lot of these 
institutions did not have the research administrative 
infrastructures to support increased funding by sponsored 
programs--externally sponsored research programs. So, I think 
some of the funding in the bill ought to be directed to that 
purpose. Because, in some cases, the worst thing you can do is 
provide a lot of additional funding but not provide the 
underlying infrastructure to manage it. And then, you open up 
those very institutions to vulnerabilities of mismanagement of 
funds, or whatever, through no fault of their own, simply 
because they do not have the resources necessary to do it.
    The second point is, a lot of those institutions have very 
strong histories, very positive histories of teaching and 
additional research funding could change, fundamentally, some 
of their philosophies about how they handle, you know, 
promotion and tenure guidelines, and things like that. So, I 
think the presidents and chancellors of HBCUs, which meet 
together as a group every year, they and others need to be 
brought into the conversation early on to really understand how 
the cultures of their institutions might change, were they to 
get involved in additional research.
    And certainly, with regard to supply chain, as you 
mentioned, it is a very, very critical factor, and we need all 
hands on deck. And I can tell you, I have worked with a lot of 
HBCUs and minority-serving institutions, and also in small 
institutions throughout the country. And when you go visit 
those places, you find extraordinary talent doing extraordinary 
things. So, by bringing them all to the table, I think we, as a 
Nation, will realize a much greater return on the investment of 
our talent than we are right now, simply because some of these 
institutions, historically, have not been major players in 
research, but have the capability to. We just need to help 
empower them.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. We have to go to 
Senator Lummis. Thank you so much, Senator Warnock.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thanks to our 
panel. Really appreciate your time today. Mr. Shaw, one of the 
concerns I have about NSF funding, in general, is the disparity 
in funding allocation. In 2018, seven states received half of 
all NSF funding and the bottom 10 states shared 3 percent of 
funding. So, to put a finer point on it, California, in 2018, 
received $774 million from NSF and Wyoming received $49 
million. So, what can we do to alleviate this disparity and 
make sure rural America has a fair shot at funding?
    Dr. Shaw. Senator, thank you for the question. That is 
certainly a great question and I spoke to that in some of my 
opening remarks and have expanded on that in some of the 
written comments that I have provided.
    I think you have laid your finger on something that really 
is critical if we are going to be able to move forward as a 
Nation. The opportunity that we see in the--some of the 
proposed language that I have seen, that highlights the EPSCoR, 
the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, is 
very heartening to see. And as a participant in that in our 
state and, frankly, as the previous principle investigator for 
our statewide EPSCoR program, I can speak very directly to the 
benefits of that program.
    I think we need to be looking at how we can use those 
EPSCoR funds and funds like that, to be able to use it to 
enhance the research infrastructure in our states. And frankly, 
one of the things that we have seen in our state is, that it 
also enhances something else that we have talked about a lot 
during the hearing today, and that is collaboration. All of the 
research institutions in the States, for Track 1 programs 
within EPSCoR, are required to work together. And that is 
something that has been extraordinarily beneficial in our 
State, and I know in all of the other 28 jurisdictions that 
fall within the EPSCoR program.
    I think, above and beyond that, we need to be thinking very 
broadly about some of the other programs that are outlined in 
this, and that have been under discussion for quite some time. 
Everything from undergraduate research programs that are very 
strongly supported by NSF, but I think we need to be thinking 
about that in regard to the technology directorate and ways 
that we can involve undergraduate students much more directly 
and broadly. All the way to some of the support that has been 
suggested that we provide for, not only PhD students, but in 
particular, post-graduate programs.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Shaw. In a former life I was 
on University of Wyoming's EPSCoR coordinating committee. So, 
when you are talking about EPSCoR, you are near and dear to my 
heart.
    Mr. Droegemeier, the Endless Frontier Act plans to 
establish regional technology hubs to focus on research and 
commercialization of new and emerging technology. Now, keeping 
in mind the disparity in NSF funding, it is important to ensure 
geographic diversity in the placement of these technology hubs, 
too, to see that rural states, like, Wyoming, Montana, and 
North Dakota receive some locations. So, how can the bill be 
updated to ensure rural and frontier states will host some of 
these technology hubs and not just spoked around the big cities 
and the big universities?
    Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator. Coming from 
Oklahoma, I could not agree more. As I mentioned, these sorts 
of states have tremendous capabilities and, in fact, I think we 
talked earlier about expanding. I think it said at least one of 
those would be in an EPSCoR jurisdiction. And as Dr. Shaw just 
mentioned, the one beautiful thing about EPSCoR, as you well 
know, it brings the entire state together. All the different 
institutions working together. So, I would see that they would 
be especially competitive to put forth proposals to create 
these innovation ecosystems. And frankly, if you look up and 
down the middle part of the country, at all the--you know, all 
the way from the Dakotas down to the Gulf Coast, you find some 
of the major corporations in America, not just energy 
companies, but Tyson Foods, and other companies like that.
    So, I think we are--and of course, they depend a lot upon 
technology. So, I think those states are really poised to do 
this. And I think the bill needs to be stronger, as we heard 
suggested earlier, to bring in some of these other 
jurisdictions that do not historically perform as well, as far 
as sponsored research to do these innovation hubs. It really 
should not be a one size fits all program, frankly. A 
different--a hub that is going to be, say, in one part of the 
country is not going to look like a hub in another. And so, 
they ought to not really be competed against one another, but 
competed against what is best for America.
    Senator Lummis. OK. Loved your answers. Thank you so much. 
I yield back.
    Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Lummis. Excuse me. Thank 
you, Senator Lummis and I think that concludes our questions. I 
just want to thank our witnesses, both here in the Capitol--I 
mean, here in the building and those virtually attending. It 
was such a great discussion today. We know there is a lot of 
depth and breadth here to cover.
    We ask you to respond to questions that members will be 
submitting in writing. I plan to submit some. I think Ms. 
Rhoads made a great point about whether we should be funding 
patent filings, or not, for universities. I think that is a 
really great way to protect our intellectual property, and 
maybe you can give us comments on that.
    We had a lot of conversations about STEM. I am definitely 
going to submit something to ask about where we really should 
we be with STEM funding, because you have all made suggestions 
from fellowships to diversity, and I think this is one aspect 
of it we need to focus on. And obviously, we need some more 
work on the regionalism component.
    But I cannot thank you enough. This has been very 
illuminating and I can see from this panel, which I think does 
represent diverse geography, as well as diverse interest. I 
think if we left it to the people who were on this panel, we 
could come up with a resolution to our questions and move 
forward on getting this legislation on the Senate floor.
    So, thank you very much. The hearing record will remain 
open for two weeks, until April 28. Any Senators who would like 
to submit questions for the record, please do so by the 21st. 
Then, we ask witnesses to respond to the Committee by the 28th. 
But that concludes the hearing. Thank you again for everybody's 
participation. We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                       Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
    Question 1. Fundamental research has enabled the technologies that 
drive the modern world, from the Internet and web browsers to GPS 
navigation, and led to the creation of a new digital economy. What 
steps should NSF take to protect its basic research portfolio while 
ensuring that we continue to create and prepare for technological 
change?
    Answer. Your points are exactly correct, and as I mentioned in my 
written testimony, oral testimony, and response to questions at the 
hearing, it is crucial NSF not lose its foundational mandate and 
exceptional track record of funding curiosity-driven discovery (aka 
basic) research. I do believe, however, NSF can indeed continue this 
history-changing mandate while also embracing a larger role within its 
organization of supporting additional use-inspired research that is 
linked to specific areas of technology vital to American interests (as 
mentioned in my written testimony, NSF already supports use-inspired 
research in all of its seven directorates).
    To your specific questions about actions NSF can take to protect 
its basic research portfolio in balance with supporting use-inspired 
technology research, I recommend the following:

  1.  To the extent NSF has the flexibility to do so via funds 
        appropriated within its Research and Related Activities (R&RA) 
        Account, NSF should increase significantly funding of the other 
        seven directorates to a) support the $4 billion or so of 
        unfunded projects judged each year to be as meritorious as 
        those which are funded, b) support new projects within the 
        other directorates that are especially of high intellectual 
        risk and potentially high societal reward, c) create a new 
        Industry Graduate Research Fellowship that is funded 1/3rd by 
        NSF and 2/3rds by industry, thereby greatly increasing the flow 
        of students into the system. Importantly, these fellowships 
        would not be of the traditional nature in focusing solely on 
        creating future researchers and faculty members, but rather 
        have a broader perspective of helping train students, via the 
        industry and other sector engagements in the Regional 
        Technology Hubs, in entrepreneurship, IP, business practices, 
        etc. That would set them apart from traditional NSF Graduate 
        Research Fellowships and be highly complementary to them.

  2.  NSF should make the new directorate specifically dependent upon 
        basic research funded by other parts of the Foundation. 
        Additionally, NSF should require the new directorate to spend a 
        significant fraction of its budget funding work in partnership 
        with other directorates, and also partner with external 
        interests, such as private sector companies at the 
        institutional strategic level, to leverage Federal resources 
        and create a true, tightly knit multi-sector ecosystem. This 
        will ensure the new directorate is always dependent upon basic 
        research in other parts of NSF and does not become a self-
        sufficient entity unto itself.

  3.  To improve the engagement of all parts of America in basic 
        research, NSF should undertake an effort to create a strategic 
        plan for EPSCoR that is bold and contextualized by a new 
        directorate and the various things the bill seeks to 
        accomplish. Given NSF's strong capability to drive change in 
        the community, a stronger and more visionary EPSCoR program at 
        NSF likewise would create needed change in associated 
        universities, both tangible and culturally.

    Question 2. What would you describe as the key characteristics that 
NSF now requires to be successful?
    Answer. This is a good and very important question, and I believe 
NSF, going forward, needs to be an organization that (arbitrary order):

   1.  Does not rest on its laurels or is driven by historical inertia, 
        but rather leverages its powerful reputation to try new things, 
        such as innovative frameworks for partnering across all sectors 
        of the research ecosystem (industry, academia, for-profit 
        companies, and non-profit research foundations);

   2.  Funds bold, curiosity-driven research that might overturn 
        established paradigms but, if successful, could be 
        transformational--balanced with support of more use-inspired 
        research linked to specific societal problems;

   3.  Is adroit at moving certain types of research outcomes into 
        products and services for the benefit of society;

   4.  Sets the standard for innovative partnerships with private 
        industry at the institutional level, i.e., via direct 
        interaction between the NSF Director and leaders of various 
        companies;

   5.  Adjusts its internal policies and procedures (e.g., budgetary 
        thresholds requiring NSB approval) in ways that allow it to 
        move more quickly in designing and executing programs;

   6.  Has employees, up and down the line, who think as boldly and 
        transformatively as NSF and NSB leadership;

   7.  Engages effectively with its international counterparts, 
        creating bold new alliances that leverage funding, facilities, 
        and human capital;

   8.  Leads among Federal agencies in its approach to securing 
        research assets in a manner balanced with the open sort of 
        environment--including supporting researchers who come to 
        America to study--that is needed for America to continue 
        leading research globally;

   9.  Sets the standard for broadening participation in science and 
        engineering research, education and technology, both within NSF 
        and within the external community, in the most expansive way in 
        which the phrase can be defined;

  10.  Sets the standard for reducing administrative workload on 
        researchers and eliminating compliance activities that show no 
        real value; and

  11.  Promotes very strongly the values of research (e.g., honesty, 
        integrity, collaboration, sharing, openness, rigorous civil 
        debate, etc), the importance of adhering to them, and the 
        manner in which they reflect American values as a means for 
        promoting America as a collaborative partner around the world.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by the Hon. Shelley Moore 
                                Capito 
                      to Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
    Question 1. The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (EPSCoR) Program is a critically important program for small, 
rural states like mine. EPSCoR helps states like mine build research 
capacity. Even during the COVID-pandemic, funding through EPSCoR has 
allowed West Virginia to continue with various research projects in 
areas ranging from advanced materials to robotics. How can Congress 
better leverage the potential in EPSCoR jurisdictions?
    Answer. Coming from an EPSCoR jurisdiction and having chaired the 
committee that developed Oklahoma's EPSCoR Strategic Plan, I agree 
completely with your statement about the importance of EPSCoR. 
Unfortunately, studies have shown that, although EPSCoR has enabled 
states such as West Virginia to keep pace with non-EPSCoR states (e.g., 
California, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois), it has not narrowed 
the gap between them. EPSCoR's fundamental role is to increase the 
competitiveness of its jurisdictions, which I interpret to mean 
improving their capabilities relative to their peers. That is not 
happening for many reasons.
    I believe Congress can be helpful by taking the following actions:

  (1)  Tasking the National Science Foundation (NSF) to undertake a 
        strategic planning effort for the EPSCoR program that 
        specifically recognizes the heterogeneity of EPSCoR 
        jurisdictions and the importance of allowing them to play to 
        their unique strengths. The current NSF grants program to 
        EPSCoR jurisdictions (especially the Track 1 program), in my 
        view, takes too much of a ``one size fits all'' approach. 
        Although the word ``experimental'' is now gone from the EPSCoR 
        definition, I believe Congress should encourage NSF to allow 
        much greater flexibility in what EPSCoR states propose and use 
        them as test beds for experimenting with new approaches to 
        research, e.g., engagements with industry, partnerships with 
        indigenous peoples.

  (2)  Provide waivers to EPSCoR jurisdictions of certain 
        administrative compliance requirements that have little to no 
        practical benefit but consume enormous amounts of researcher 
        time. Three separate surveys, conducted roughly 7 years apart 
        over the past 20 years, show that, on average, university 
        faculty funded by Federal research grants spend 42 percent to 
        44 percent of their time on administrative activities unrelated 
        to the research itself. This is an enormous waste of 
        intellectual horsepower not to mention taxpayer funds. Many 
        other studies show how these numbers can be reduced without 
        sacrificing transparency and accountability. Consequently, 
        Congress should ``run an experiment'' with EPSCoR jurisdictions 
        to demonstrate how greater efficiency and cost savings can be 
        achieved, collect data on outcomes, and carefully evaluate the 
        results. The COVID pandemic clearly demonstrated that America's 
        research enterprise can move with much greater speed and 
        efficiency than most thought possible if certain regulations 
        are streamlined or suspended--all without losing integrity or 
        compromising quality or accountability. Those lessons learned 
        should be harvested and applied more broadly, and the EPSCoR 
        program is the perfect place to begin with an experiment.

    Question 2. Last Congress, this Committee and President Trump 
signed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act into law. 
Also known as ``rip and replace,'' this legislation authorized funding 
for smaller providers to ``rip'' vulnerable equipment in their 
communications networks and replace it with secure alternatives. In 
December, Congress was also able to provide $1.9 billion to fund this 
legislation. It is for this reason--I believe--we need to reduce our 
reliance on foreign production, especially in critical systems, and 
encourage a more diverse supply chain. How can we encourage smaller 
companies, like rural Internet service providers, to incentivize the 
diversification of their supply chains over more expedient choices?
    Answer. Thank you very much for supporting the TCNA. As former 
Director of OSTP, I am keenly aware of the extraordinary threats posed 
by malevolent actors in our communications systems and strongly believe 
in securing supply chains and enhancing domestic providers. With regard 
to smaller companies, especially those servicing rural areas, operating 
on very thin margins provides little capability for them to address the 
important problem you mention. Yet those very same areas are the ones 
typically left behind by bigger carriers for the same reason. I believe 
a Federal grant program might work best, in which smaller and rural-
provider companies could compete for funds, sharing some of the costs 
themselves. In comparison to a pure Federal subsidy, a competition 
would require such companies to take a more entrepreneurial approach, 
putting skin in the game and perhaps teaming with other local providers 
to maximize capability while not compromising quality of service that 
rural communities rightly expect.
    Additionally, agricultural extension offices at Land-grant 
institutions could play an important role here as the new Land-grant 
concept involves supporting not only agriculture, but also rural 
technological development. As you know, each Land-grant institution has 
extension offices in every county, and that connective tissue can be 
leveraged to build out from agricultural support to technology and 
other areas of economic development. Your staff may wish to speak with 
University of West Virginia President, Dr. Gordon Gee, who is an 
exceptional leader and may have additional thoughts about how Land-
grants can assist in addressing your good question. In fact, having 
Land-grants coordinate the funding I mentioned above, working with 
rural telecommunications providers, would be a powerful mechanism for 
leveraging the assets of public university investment in ensuring 
national security.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                       Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
    Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that iNDustry Labs at 
the University of Notre Dame works to link faculty, students, and R&D 
capabilities with companies in the region to enhance the local 
innovation ecosystem. Which elements of that program can be replicated 
at other universities?
    Answer. INDustry Labs at the University of Notre Dame operates in a 
way that is similar to land grant universities' agricultural extension 
programs and the manufacturing extension programs (MEPs) mentioned 
during the hearing that are administered by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. The iNDustry Lab team works with regional 
partners to identify opportunities to apply modern strategies, advanced 
technologies, and business management processes, helping them to remain 
competitive and meet dynamically changing market needs.
    As Notre Dame's mechanism for collaboration with local industry, 
iNDustry Labs has dedicated resources and streamlined processes to 
assist small-and medium-sized businesses unfamiliar with navigating the 
opportunities presented by an R1 research institution. Its goal is to 
lower the barriers to collaboration and benefit all parties.
    At the heart of iNDustry Labs is an experienced staff that is savvy 
in both technology and business to serve as the interface with regional 
industry. These experts include ``engineers in residence''--
practitioners with strong regional ties and extensive industry 
experience who match business needs with university resources, 
including sophisticated labs and instrumentation as well as STEM 
students and faculty members. In doing so, they function as an 
innovation and transformation program for regional businesses.
    The beauty of this model is that it helps modernize and grow 
regional businesses, creating employment in rural areas and small 
cities, while also providing university students and faculty with a 
laboratory in which to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world 
problems, strengthening our region and university. Connecting students 
with local industry partners also creates relationships that can lead 
to post-graduate employment--a win for both students and regions that 
compete to attract the talented workforce they need to modernize. 
INDustry Labs' broader scope--extending beyond the manufacturing 
sector--distinguishes it from the MEP model. By design, iNDustry Labs 
programs complement, and do not compete with or duplicate, programs run 
by Purdue MEP.
    Other colleges and universities can apply and adopt every aspect of 
this program to help identify and address regional needs. What would be 
required is a grants program funded through federal, state, and county 
partnerships, similar to the mechanisms that currently fund 
agricultural extension programs--or possibly by expanding the scope of 
the MEP charter to increase their flexibility to both serve regionally 
targeted industries beyond the manufacturing sector and draw more 
substantively from the resources of regional universities. Ideally, any 
of these partnerships would also involve (as Notre Dame's program does) 
community colleges so that they can offer a full range of educational 
and workforce development programs.

    STEM Diversity. In your testimony, you spoke to the value of 
broadening participation in STEM fields and the importance of both the 
Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates program at universities across the Nation.

    Question 2. What can the Federal government do to increase the 
total number of people going into STEM fields?
    Answer. First, it is important not to view the many careers in 
STEMM fields as a single pipeline, but instead as a variety of pathways 
that lead to many different careers within a STEMM-enabled workforce. 
The diverse workforce required to ensure our security and global 
competitiveness includes those working in STEMM fields ranging from 
basic discovery science to design, development, and deployment of new 
technologies such as precision agriculture, medical diagnostics, and 
tele-education, to advanced manufacturing, for example.
    What these pathways have in common is a fundamental understanding 
and ability to apply basic science and mathematics concepts that most 
students should gain in K-12 education programs. From this foundation, 
pathways diverge. Some students will pursue bachelor, masters or 
Ph.D.s, discovering, designing, and developing our future. Others may 
pursue an associate degree, apprenticeships, or training in skilled 
trade, serving as the users, deployers, and managers of advanced 
technology applications. Some will identify these career paths early in 
their academic training, others only after they have had real-world 
experience to help them discover a fulfilling career goal.
    We need all of these people and career pathways, and we should 
encourage all students to pursue the level and field that best suits 
them. We should also guard against the tyranny of low expectations. 
Instead, we should enable and encourage all students to pursue their 
highest aspirations.
    To do so, we need to create funding and support mechanisms that 
encourage research institutions to collaborate with middle schools and 
high schools at scale, including professional development of middle and 
high school science teachers who deliver STEMM curricula and support 
for science-focused after school programs and summer programs at 
universities. We need these students to gain meaningful on-campus STEMM 
experiences. We should separately fund a full-scale analysis of the 
effectiveness of different approaches.
    In parallel, we should fund the development and maintenance of 
networks designed to provide mentorship, research rotations, 
internships, shadowing programs, support systems, and career 
advancement in STEMM fields at all levels, especially as they are 
relevant to gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.
    For those pursuing higher-level STEMM degrees, we should seed-fund 
the development of wrap-around services for first-generation students 
and those from low resource backgrounds to ensure they can prosper in 
STEMM fields. The Notre Dame Scholars program provides a good model for 
such efforts, offering smaller classes, STEMM enrichment activities, 
and programs that teach these students how to study and prepare more 
effectively to succeed in rigorous STEMM curricula. Separately we 
should fund a full-scale analysis to assess effectiveness of different 
interventions and different elements of interventions, preferably as 
randomized controlled trials.
    At the highest educational levels, we should dramatically expand 
funding for NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs) and Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), programs that are incredibly 
effective at attracting and retaining young scholars in STEMM. We 
should also craft and fund similar programs for high school students 
and masters-level students, allowing them to gain on-campus experiences 
at universities to show them what is possible for them via the pursuit 
of higher-level education.

    Question 3. Are there steps the Federal government should take to 
ensure universities have capacity to absorb additional STEM students?
    Answer. Significantly increasing the number and diversity of 
university students who pursue STEMM education will require a 
consequent increase in the number of faculty members required to teach 
them. Moreover, as we have learned at Notre Dame, encouraging first-
generation and underrepresented minority students--who are very capable 
yet often are not as well prepared coming out of high school as other 
students--to persist in their chosen majors requires smaller class 
sizes and additional enrichment efforts, including exposure to research 
and learning skills development. Again, these students are very 
capable--but once their grades (and esteem) meet the reality of 
college-level chemistry and calculus, they all-too-frequently change 
majors, costing our Nation talented STEMM graduates.
    The Federal government could address this issue by:

  (1)  Providing 3-5 year grants to universities to develop the wrap-
        around services that students from low resource backgrounds 
        require to achieve high STEMM persistence rates.

  (2)  Supporting serious evaluations of what works and what does not 
        work to develop the best practice evidence basis for 
        dissemination across higher education.

  (3)  Helping fund additional STEMM faculty members through a 5-year 
        program in which the government pays a portion of a new STEMM 
        faculty member's salary. This would create the ``ramp'' to 
        follow-on endowment or other faculty funding mechanisms that 
        could include industry partnerships or other public-private 
        funding. The same program should be available to community 
        colleges. NSF funded a similar effort in 2018 to stimulate 
        advances in quantum computing.

    Question 4. What are the best metrics to use when evaluating 
interventions aimed at improving STEM diversity?
    Answer. The more specific the metrics, the better. We should seek 
to measure intervention and program effectiveness by their impact on 
the following:

   Number and demographics of those who intend/declare STEMM 
        majors

   Year-by-year persistence in STEMM both in total and 
        disaggregated by demographics

   Year-by-year progress toward a STEMM degree as measured by 
        courses taken both in total and disaggregated by demographics

   Number and percentage of students who engage in STEMM 
        research both in total and disaggregated by demographics

   Number and percentage of students who engage in a STEMM-
        related summer experience both in total and disaggregated by 
        demographics

   Number and percentage of students who graduate with a STEMM 
        degree both in total and disaggregated by demographics

   Number and percentage of students intending to pursue STEMM 
        careers both in total and disaggregated by demographics

   Year-by-year evaluation of student satisfaction with STEMM 
        courses, STEMM majors, research experiences, advising, 
        internship opportunities, and supportiveness of the environment 
        for diverse students

    At the macro level, we should also measure the number and 
characterize the nature of the STEMM jobs available nationally, 
regionally, and locally, so that we can tailor programs to meet demand.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                       Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
    Diversity in STEM. Ensuring diversity in STEM education is a top 
priority for me. One study found that women's authorship of scientific 
journal papers declined 23 percent during the pandemic.

    Question 1. Can you speak to the trends you are seeing on your 
college campus of women and minorities' engagement in STEM related 
research and studies?
    Answer. Pandemic Impacts on Women: Evidence from a grant and 
teaching relief program Notre Dame established to assist faculty whose 
research and creative endeavors were disrupted by the pandemic suggests 
that the pandemic negatively affected women faculty members more than 
men. To be clear, we were not trying to assess gender-specific pandemic 
impacts. However, women, who comprise 33 percent of our faculty, 
represented 44 percent of those who applied for assistance grants and 
57 percent of applications for relief from teaching courses.
    Women Pursuing STEMM Education: The University of Notre Dame is a 
private, residential Catholic research university with about 8,500 
undergraduate students and 3,700 graduate and professional students. 
Roughly 10 percent of our undergraduates attend medical schools after 
graduation. As such, we have long enjoyed an above average percentage 
of women pursuing science, engineering, and mathematics degrees 
compared with large public research universities. In recent years, we 
also have seen increased female enrollment in mathematics-heavy 
programs such as neuro-biology, psychology, and economics, a field long 
dominated by men.
    The percentage of women undergraduates in our College of 
Engineering (33 percent) is above the national average (22.5 percent). 
However, this percentage has not increased during the past five years, 
despite national data indicating that women increasingly graduate high 
school more ``STEMM-ready'' for college than men, and we are working to 
change this.
    During the past five years, we have seen a 40 percent increase in 
the number of women declaring majors in our College of Science. Women 
currently comprise about 60 percent of our science majors even as the 
overall number of students in our College of Science has increased by 
roughly 43 percent. The number and percentage of women undergraduate 
students receiving summer research fellowships in science has remained 
roughly constant during this same time.
    Underrepresented Minorities Pursuing STEMM Education: In recent 
years, an increasing number of underrepresented minorities have 
enrolled at Notre Dame intending to pursue a STEMM degree. However, 
many of these very capable students have not had the benefit of 
advanced high school science, engineering, and mathematics enrichment 
courses and programs that their white counterparts have experienced. As 
a result, the confidence and self-esteem of these first-generation and 
underrepresented minority students suffer when they encounter the 
rigors of college-level science and engineering curricula, and many 
choose to transfer to other academic degree programs.
    To address this concern, in 2018 Notre Dame created a STEMM 
Scholars Program to support, encourage, and mentor first-year students 
pursuing STEMM degrees who may not be as well-prepared as other 
students. We assign them to carefully designed cohorts with smaller 
classes and provide them with enrichment programs that feature selected 
faculty members, who are often underrepresented minorities or were 
first-generation students themselves. Through multiple years of data 
collection and analyses, we know that these students can succeed in 
STEMM fields and that they bring important diversity to our university 
community. Data collected to assess the effectiveness of this program 
indicate that students taking part in the program are more likely to be 
``on track'' toward STEMM degree completion. In the first cohort, 80 
percent of program participants were taking appropriate courses in 
sequence compared to 69 percent of similar students in a control group. 
In the second cohort, 96 percent of program participants were on track 
compared with 90 percent of the control group. Moreover, 86 percent of 
program participants have a grade point average above 3.0, compared 
with 69 percent of students in the control group. Though the results of 
this program are encouraging, this effort suffered a setback during the 
pandemic when restrictions limited in-person student engagement with 
faculty members and peers. Though we have yet to conduct a detailed 
analysis of the effects, we have seen an increase in the number of 
first-year women and minority students who transferred from STEMM to 
other degree programs during 2021. We will redouble our efforts to 
reverse this decline starting in the fall of 2021.

    Question 2. In your view, what more can be done to help increase 
women and minorities pursuing careers in STEM?
    Answer. The importance of women and underrepresented minority role 
models in STEMM fields cannot be overstated. We need to help young 
women and minority students see others who look like themselves leading 
and succeeding in STEMM careers so that they believe it is possible for 
them to succeed as well.
    It also is important not to view the many careers in STEMM fields 
as a single ``pipeline,'' but rather as a variety of pathways that lead 
to many different STEMM careers. What these pathways have in common is 
a fundamental understanding and ability to apply basic science and 
mathematics concepts that students should begin gaining in K-12 
education programs.
    From this foundation, pathways diverge. Some students will pursue a 
bachelor's, master's, or Ph.D., discovering, designing, and developing 
our future. Others may pursue an associate's degree, apprenticeships, 
or training in a skilled trade, serving as the users, deployers, and 
managers of advanced technology applications. Some identify these 
career paths early in their academic training, others only after they 
have had real-world experience to help them discover a fulfilling 
career goal. We must guard against the tyranny of low expectations. 
Instead, we should enable and encourage all students to pursue their 
highest aspirations. In my written testimony, I highlighted the need to 
fund and support mechanisms that encourage research institutions to 
collaborate with middle schools and high schools at scale, including 
professional development of middle and high school science teachers who 
deliver STEMM curricula and support for science-focused after-school 
programs and summer programs at universities. We need these students to 
gain meaningful on-campus STEMM experiences. We should separately fund 
a full-scale analysis of the effectiveness of different approaches. In 
parallel, we should fund the development and maintenance of networks 
designed to provide mentorship, research rotations, internships, 
shadowing programs, support systems, and career advancement in STEMM 
fields at all levels, especially as they are relevant to gender, 
racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                       Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
    Question 1. Last Congress, I join my colleague Senator Rosen in 
introducing the Building Blocks of STEM Act. Among other things, this 
legislation modified NSF's Discovery Research PreK-12 program to more 
equitably distribute funding to elementary and prekindergarten 
education. Last Congress, we were able to get this legislation passed 
and signed into law. I was proud to work with Senator Rosen on this 
bipartisan legislation to encourage more young women to explore STEM 
fields. How important is it to instill creativity and curiosity in 
younger students--and especially young girls?
    Answer. I commend Senator Capito, Senator Rosen, and their 
colleagues for their bipartisan efforts to pass the Building Blocks of 
STEM Act during the 116th Congress. Curiosity, creativity, and problem-
solving skills are all essential building blocks for anyone pursuing 
STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine) careers, 
and this is especially true for Pre-K girls and underrepresented 
minority students.
    Just as we know from literacy studies that reading interventions 
for kindergarten students result, on average, in a 15 percent higher 
reading score in the 3rd grade \1\, so too do we know that mathematics 
interventions targeted to 3-to-5-year-olds, such as Rightstart, Pre-K 
Mathematics, and Building Blocks, help students develop numerical and 
spatial/geometric reasoning. Large scale studies of these curricula 
have shown that low-income students participating in these programs 
out-performed not only a control group of similar peers, but also 
students from middle-class backgrounds embedded in a mathematics 
enriched environment. Other non-achievement-based outcomes also are 
shaped in critical ways at this age level \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., 
Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of 
intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning 
Disabilities, 51(6), 612-624.
    \2\ Clement, D., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics 
intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968-970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In one study, children ages 3 to 7, working with a curriculum using 
engineering storybooks more strongly identified themselves as potential 
engineers following the experience \3\. Promising early childhood 
interventions, therefore, address both cognitive development and the 
development of STEMM identities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Pantoya, M. L., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Hunt, E. M. (2015). 
Developing an engineering identity in early childhood. American Journal 
of Engineering Education, 6(2), 61-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importantly, as we look at representation across the STEMM 
disciplines, it is necessary to take a nuanced approach to analyzing 
the conditions that are fertile for the flourishing of women in STEMM 
pathways. While data reported by the National Science Foundation 
indicate that women now earn the majority of degrees in certain STEMM 
fields (e.g., at least 60 percent of bachelors and master's degrees, 
and more than half of doctoral degrees in biological sciences), women 
remain persistently underrepresented in a number of disciplines, 
including computer science, engineering, and mathematics, and 
statistics \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report/field-of-degree-
women#overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, it is important to identify ways in which young people 
can be exposed to a range of experiences in underrepresented sectors of 
STEMM at an early age, so that we foster their interest, help them 
construct a positive identity toward these disciplines, and reduce the 
potential for them to form negative stereotypes.
    There is growing evidence that young children, even in pre-school, 
develop persistent and individualized interest in activities and topics 
that impact subsequent learning and development \5\. Early 
opportunities to engage in meaningful STEMM, such as the types of 
experiences in pre-kindergarten and the elementary grades that you 
advocated for in your legislation, can have powerful and formative 
impacts on young students that can prime them for the ongoing 
development of creativity and curiosity during future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2015). Early science learning 
experiences: Triggered and maintained interest. In Renninger K. A., 
Nieswandt M., Hidi S. (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science 
learning (pp. 17-32). American Educational Research Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At Notre Dame, we recognize the importance of early childhood 
interventions and the roles they play in the flourishing of children. 
For example, the Head Start on Engineering project, co-directed by Dr. 
Gina Navoa Svarovsky at Notre Dame's Center for STEM Education, looks 
at how 4-and 5-year-old children and their families engage with 
appropriate engineering activities as a way to build early engineering 
interest and understanding.
    Findings from Dr. Svarovsky's work suggest that an early interest 
in STEMM education for young children is not only an individual 
phenomenon, but also one that occurs at the family level--thereby 
pointing to new avenues and pathways that may lead to increased 
curiosity and creativity, and ultimately, more students pursuing STEMM 
careers \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Pattison, S., Svarovsky, G., Ramos-Montanez, S., Gontan, I., 
Weiss, S., Nunez, V., Corrie, P., Smith, C., & Benne, M. (2020). 
Understanding early childhood engineering interest development as a 
family-level systems phenomenon: Findings from the Head Start on 
Engineering Project. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education 
Research (J-PEER), 10(1), 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, it is the combination of interest and identity--formed by 
curiosity and creativity at a young age--that lead children to pursue 
STEMM education and careers. It starts with children asking questions, 
seeking answers, and constructing meaning about the world around them, 
all practices that are foundational to science, mathematics, 
engineering, and computer science.
    Moreover, we see evidence from large data sets of high school 
students that these motivational variables, interest and identity, are 
the strongest predictors of an individual's desire to pursue a STEMM 
career. This is particularly important for underrepresented populations 
in STEMM, like women and minorities \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Andersen, L., & Ward, T. (2014). Expectancy-value models for 
the STEM persistence plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A 
comparison between black, Hispanic, and white students. Science 
Education, 98(2), 216-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Dr. David Shaw
    Question. I recently visited the Rose-Hulman Institute of 
Technology in Indiana, which has adopted a unique model of partnering 
with local industry to give students real world engineering and 
entrepreneurship experience. You talked about the importance of 
entrepreneurship in your testimony. What can we learn about teaching 
engineering and entrepreneurship from your experience at Mississippi 
State?
    Answer. Mississippi State University's Entrepreneurship Center (E-
Center) is an award-winning program that is led by the College of 
Business but with student and faculty participation from across the 
university. The E-Center is responsible for a number of successful 
student startup companies. Its primary location is on the MSU campus, 
but has opened up an Idea Shop in downtown Starkville as well as a 
Maker Space downtown. The E-Center participates in the National Science 
Foundation's I-Corps program, which provides training to learn the 
fundamentals of building business models, along with travel funds, and 
access to follow-on grants from the NSF in excess of $1M. The E-Center 
has created a comprehensive, co-curricular program for MSU's students 
and faculty who are interested in starting a successful, investor-
backed company called VentureCatalyst.
    What continually amazes me is the creativity of our students when 
given the opportunity to collaborate across disciplines, generating 
ideas that engender enthusiasm from our alumni supporters as well as 
the venture capital community. Entrepreneurship can happen anywhere in 
the U.S. where innovation is fostered and encouraged.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                             Dr. David Shaw
    Question 1. The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (EPSCoR) Program is a critically important program for small, 
rural states like mine. EPSCoR helps states like mine build research 
capacity. Even during the COVID-pandemic, funding through EPSCoR has 
allowed West Virginia to continue with various research projects in 
areas ranging from advanced materials to robotics. How can Congress 
better leverage the potential in EPSCoR jurisdictions?
    Answer. The EPSCoR program does in fact play a vital role in 
building research capacity in qualifying jurisdictions. EPSCoR states 
are blessed with highly competent researchers, and we simply need to be 
given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in order to 
maximize the scientific benefits derived from these investments. 
Currently there is discussion about 20 percent provision to the EPSCoR 
program; this would be a substantial and appropriate level of funding 
to ensure the geographic diversity that all recognize is needed.
    It is exciting to see some of the ideas put forth in the Endless 
Frontier Act language that recognizes the need to give students, 
regardless of geography, the opportunity to participate in cutting edge 
scientific endeavors. However, the language does not go far enough in 
ensuring that the same few major research institutions do not yet again 
receive most of this funding. That is not to say that high-quality, 
peer-reviewed science should not be funded. Rather, specifying that a 
substantial portion of the funds be set aside for competition among 
institutions who are not in the top 1 percent of NSF funding would 
accomplish this effectively, ensuring geographic diversity and 
maximizing impact on our Nation.
    In addition, the concept of additional funding for technology 
development research, with a portion set aside for the EPSCoR program, 
is very encouraging. Ensuring additional funding targeted for EPSCoR 
jurisdictions will provide tremendous benefit to our states. This 
program will, in many instances, dramatically benefit EPSCoR states, 
since our institutions often are very focused on applied science and 
technology development for our states, since this is a often a pressing 
need.

    Question 2. In 2018, my home state of West Virginia received $280 
million out of the total $125 billion Federal investment in research 
and development. Dr. Shaw, I agree with your sentiments that Congress 
should address the disparity between states. How can Congress ensure a 
more balanced geographic distribution of Federal research funding?
    Answer. Several suggestions have been given above, all of which 
would greatly aid in a more equitable geographic distribution of NSF 
funding. In addition, Regional Hubs, Manufacturing USA consortia, and 
Innovation Centers all contain language that gives a nod to the 
involvement of universities in EPSCoR jurisdictions, and to geographic 
diversity. However, this simply is not enough. In many past instances, 
the same few universities that receive the vast majority of funds 
simply add an institution in an EPSCoR jurisdiction, without providing 
significant funding or leadership roles. To balance this, NSF should be 
required to have a substantial number of these various consortia and 
centers to be led by institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                         William B. Bonvillian
    Question 1. Investing in cybersecurity workforce development on a 
broad scale is a priority for me and for the Washington State economy. 
During the New Deal era, Washington workers benefitted from public 
works programs that included job training. How can today's Federal 
government leverage existing programs and, as appropriate, establish 
new programs to rapidly and substantially grow the cybersecurity 
workforce?
    Answer. I noted in my testimony to the Committee on April 14th the 
important role played by NSF's Advanced Technological Education (ATE) 
Program. This program is already playing a significant role in the 
massive task of training a skilled cybersecurity workforce, and could 
be further expanded. As the Committee knows, the ATE program provides 
grants for the development of innovative workforce education efforts 
for educated highly skilled technicians for industries important to the 
future of our economy. Cybersecurity is one of those fields. Because 
they are nation's key mechanism for skilled workforce education, 
educators at 2-year institutions--community and technical colleges--are 
the major recipients of ATE funding, and the program encourages 
consortia led by these schools that include industry and universities. 
The 2-year schools offer career pathways with certificates and degrees 
that can lead to jobs in key technical fields. ATE funds both Centers 
of Excellence in advanced fields, as well as smaller more focused 
project grants. In cybersecurity education, ATE has funded five 
Centers, and each in turn, helps create cybersecurity programs at 
numerous participating schools (see, Mariacopa CC and NSF, ATE Centers 
for Cybersecurity Education, 2016 (updated)). To cite one example, the 
center in Daytona, Florida developed curricula and five fully 
accessible cybersecurity courses for 2-year institutions with video and 
scenarios that promote ``real life'' technical skills and technical 
report-writing, it developed online courses for cybersecurity faculty 
training at 58 institutions in 25 states, and it held and enabled high 
school-level cyber camps to encourage participation in this new field. 
The other four centers have launched comparable innovative programs.
    In my view, further expansion of ATE programs, and ensuring close 
connections and linked programs between ATE and the new Technology 
Directorate proposed in the Endless Frontier Act, as well as the 
proposed university tech development centers and the proposed regional 
innovation centers, could further improve technical education in 
critical new technology areas. A workforce education component should 
be built into their roles.
    In addition, a new Advanced Manufacturing Institute (CyManII--
https://cymanii.org/about-us/) for cybersecurity in manufacturing has 
recently been established through DOE. Headquartered in Texas, its 59 
initial members include major companies and universities. Workforce 
education along with technology development is a specific mission for 
Institutes. While this institute is starting up, other Institutes have 
created workforce education programs that:

   Develop competencies and ``Knowledge, Skill and Abilities'' 
        (KSA) in the Institute's technology area that can be used by 
        employers and education institutions.

   Develop demonstration and training centers for workforces to 
        train on new equipment and processes--and for student training 
        programs.

   Engage in training efforts with regional industry, community 
        colleges and high schools.

   Map skill demands and develop skill roadmaps in their 
        technology areas and tie these to their technology development 
        roadmaps

   Track evidence of trends in workforce skill development in 
        the technology area affected by the Institute's programs.

   Develop online education in their technology area (and in 
        some cases, computer gaming and VR/AR for hands on learning), 
        which is key to scaling.

   Certify education programs in their technology area and 
        develop, as needed, with their industry members, new industry-
        approved credentials, so educators and workers know what to 
        train for.

    Thus, the Manufacturing Institutes are developing an important 
workforce education role in advanced technologies, as well, and merit 
further support, as the Endless Frontier Act proposes.

    Question 2. Innovation requires an ecosystem and that ecosystem 
can't work without trained workers. You have previously reviewed the 
Manufacturing USA program, which is experimenting with new ways to 
train the workforce, and work at MIT, a leader in online education. 
Given your experience with those efforts, what elements and best 
practices are necessary to build a workforce that's ready to lead the 
way on new technologies, particularly to train individuals who 
typically do not have access to other educational programs?
    Answer. Drawing from the specific findings from a benchmarking 
study for the State of Massachusetts on best practices for advanced 
manufacturing education (see, MIT Open Learning, MassBridge: Advanced 
Manufacturing Education Workforce Education Program, 44-46 (April 
2021)), which I prepared with MIT colleagues, as well as from a new 
book (see, Workforce Education, A New Roadmap, 207-235 (2021), with 
Sanjay Sarma), below are a series of recommendations that exemplify 
some of the best practices in workforce education, which may be useful 
to the committee:

  1.  Break down the work/learn barrier. Employers and educational 
        institutions need collaborate closely on content development 
        and content delivery for workforce education. Strong programs 
        offer a work component for students, which can range from 
        internships to formal apprenticeships, along with academic 
        instruction.

  2.  Employers should collaborate with each other. Stand-alone 
        programs where individual firms provide their own training tend 
        to be inefficient; it is better if groups of firms share the 
        costs and risks of workforce education. Better still is where 
        larger firms and their regional suppliers can band together 
        since efficient workforce education requires adoption across 
        supply chains. These employers in turn need to work with area 
        educational institutions and state education and labor 
        programs, in offering programs and in designing and updating 
        curricula to meet workplace needs. Education institutions can 
        help manage the infrastructure for these consortia, shouldering 
        much of the administrative burden.

  3.  Reach new entrant, underemployed, and incumbent workers. 
        Educational institutions need to adapt their program mix to 
        reach all of these participants. If an institution--a community 
        college and/or employer consortia--can reach all three groups, 
        the elements become reinforcing. A program for incumbent 
        workers requires close contact with employers, which helps keep 
        programs for all students current with industry needs. 
        Community college or employer programs can also reach high 
        school students, helping to break down the work/learn barrier 
        and link high school students to college opportunities.

  4.  Embrace certificates and shorter-term programs. In addition to 
        offering only full degrees earned in a fixed period of time, 
        educational institutions should be encouraged to provide 
        shorter-term certificates, based on acquired competencies, that 
        be stacked and can accumulate toward degrees. Certificate 
        programs can help workforce education fit students with limited 
        time availability and employers with particular skill 
        requirements. Degrees that take two years or more will still be 
        needed but can be based on a series of related, stackable 
        credentials. This, in turn, can enable short programs that help 
        workers get to required skills and employment earlier, plus 
        there is a pathway toward additional skills or a degree, as 
        desired.

  5.  Embed an industry-recognized credential into education 
        institutions' certificates. Academic credentials are not 
        enough. Many employers increasingly want the assurance of skill 
        knowledge that an industry-approved and accepted credential 
        provides. It creates an additional and parallel pathway to help 
        students toward employment. It also ensures that academic 
        programs are relevant to actual industry needs.

  6.  Ensure access to advanced manufacturing equipment. Employers want 
        students who have actual experience with the latest production 
        technologies. Because of the cost of equipment, there is a 
        significant challenge in getting students hands-on learning, 
        particularly for advanced equipment. One approach is for a 
        state to create regional technology centers shared by consortia 
        of community colleges, high schools, and employers. In addition 
        to providing efficient student access to equipment, providing 
        companies access can help them test and experiment with new 
        equipment, evaluating how it can improve their production 
        process, and assist in training for their workers.

  7.  Apply new education technologies that can scale. We are not 
        educating adequate numbers of workers with skills required for 
        the new technologies, so online education, which can scale 
        rapidly, will be a key step. Education offerings with new 
        content can be blended, combining face-to-face with online 
        education, which can help expand their reach to much higher 
        numbers of students. Hands-on learning remains critical, but 
        actual equipment can be supplemented with advanced 
        technologies, including computer gaming-based courses and 
        Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) technologies.

  8.  Create cross-state industry and community college coordination 
        mechanisms. A state-wide organization for employers in key 
        industrial sectors, as well as working consortia of the state's 
        community colleges, that work together to implement workforce 
        education programs for new technologies, is needed. This 
        ongoing industry and school collaboration is key to developing 
        new programs and keeping them current.