[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATION
OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S
PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 16, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-627PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. MIKE COLLINS, Georgia, Chairman
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,
DARRELL ISSA, California Ranking Member
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida KEVIN MULLIN, California
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
TOM KEAN, New Jersey SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
C O N T E N T S
May 16, 2024
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mike Collins, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 24
Dr. Dan Reed, Former Chair, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Discussion....................................................... 54
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 76
Dr. Dan Reed, Former Chair, National Science Board............... 102
OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATION
OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S
PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike
Collins [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Collins. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Research and Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Committee at any time.
I want to welcome you to today's hearing entitled
``Oversight and Examination of the National Science
Foundation's (NSF's) Priorities for 2025 and Beyond.'' I'm
going to recognize myself now for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Good morning. Welcome, Director Panch and Dr. Reed. Thank
you for taking the time to be with us today. I'm looking
forward to hearing your testimony and thoughts on where the
future of the National Science Foundation is headed.
As the primary authorizing Committee for the National
Science Foundation, we have a key responsibility to oversee the
Foundation, ensuring it continues to support American
innovation while spending taxpayers' funding wisely. Today's
hearing ensures we fully--we will fulfill that responsibility.
America has long led the world in science and technology
(S&T). Our strength lies in the curiosity, ingenuity, and
entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. From the development of
the first computer to the sequencing of the codes that drive
automated trucks, American scientists, engineers, and
innovators continually push the limits, and we reap these
benefits every day.
The National Science Foundation has played a vital role in
these innovations by advancing basic scientific tech knowledge
and training that underpins these technologies. Such
investments in fundamental research are critical for
maintaining American competitiveness.
Today, we face threats from the Chinese Communist Party to
our global leadership in science and technology. NSF has a
crucial role in helping us address that competition, both by
supporting innovation and by helping to secure our research
from theft. We must continue to drive progress while
maintaining a secure environment.
Beyond foreign threats, we are in the midst of a
technological revolution. The extraordinary rise of emerging
technologies such as biotechnology, artificial intelligence
(AI), and quantum computing has proven how quickly we must act
to keep pace.
Speaking from personal experience as an entrepreneur, my
trucking business has been enhanced by the application of
cutting-edge machine learning and artificial intelligence
technologies to our traditional systems. It's important that we
ensure these Federal investments don't just go to California or
New York, but also places like Athens, Georgia. I'm proud that
the University of Georgia is one of the few to be selected as a
recipient of the NSF's Regional Innovation Development Awards.
This investment provides sorely needed resources for the
Georgia academic and business communities to work together to
build an advanced agricultural infrastructure using new and
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
This Committee recognizes how the NSF's budgetary
constraints, coupled with evolving geopolitical dynamics and
shifting research priorities, underscore the importance of our
discussion today. I look forward to the discussion of how NSF
plans to prioritize funding and maximize the return on
investments for taxpayers.
Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Collins follows:]
Good morning. Welcome, Director Panchanathan and Dr. Reed.
Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. I'm looking
forward to hearing your testimony and thoughts on the future of
the National Science Foundation.
As the primary authorizing Committee for the National
Science Foundation, we have a key responsibility to oversee the
Foundation, ensuring it continues to support American
innovation while spending taxpayer's funding wisely. Today's
hearing ensures we fulfill that responsibility.
America has long led the world in science and technology.
Our strength lies in the curiosity, ingenuity, and
entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. From the development of
the first computer to the sequencing of code that drives
automated trucks, American scientists, engineers, and
innovators continually push the limits, and we reap these
benefits every day.
The National Science Foundation has played a vital role in
these innovations by advancing basic scientific knowledge and
training that underpins these technologies. Such investments in
fundamental research are critical for maintaining American
competitiveness.
Today we face threats from the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) to our global leadership in science and technology. NSF
has a crucial role in helping us address that competition--both
by supporting innovation and securing our research. We must
continue to drive progress while maintaining research security.
Beyond foreign threats, we are in the midst of a
technological revolution. The extraordinary rise of emerging
technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum
computing has proven how quickly we must act to keep pace.
Speaking from personal experience as an entrepreneur, my
trucking business has benefited from the artificial
intelligence revolution.
It is important we ensure these federal investments don't
just go to a couple of big cities on the East and West coasts,
but also places like Athens, Georgia. I am proud that the
University of Georgia is one of the few to be selected as a
recipient of the NSF's Regional Innovation Development Awards.
Frankly, we have a number of great institutions that are
benefitting from NSF in my home state.
This investment provides sorely needed resources for the
Georgia academic and business communities to work together to
build an advanced agriculture infrastructure using new and
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
This Committee recognizes how the NSF's budgetary
constraints, coupled with evolving geopolitical dynamics and
shifting research priorities, underscore the importance of our
discussion today. I look forward to hearing how NSF plans to
prioritize funding and maximize the return on investment for
taxpayers.
Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Collins. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Michigan, for an opening statement.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is such a delight to welcome our witnesses, Dr.
Panchanathan and Dr. Reed. Thank you for joining us here today.
And what an incredible and important Subcommittee hearing
topic, ``Oversight and Examination of the National Science
Foundation's Priorities for 2025 and Beyond,'' 2025, 25 years
into this new century in the new millennium, and we are
absolutely in the moment for NSF to shine. And we are also in
the moment to not take things for granted.
We know how vital NSF is to transformational science and
technology, expanding not only our minds through basic
research, but also strengthening economic and national security
and promoting the wellbeing of our citizens, building a STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workforce
that is representative of the full demographics and geographic
diversity of this remarkable country that we call home.
These missions are all intertwined, and we know that one
cannot exist without the other. And today, we are compelled to
ask how we will continue to make the determinations of today
and tomorrow. And in particular, we are meeting and holding
this hearing several years on from some of the original
authorization hearings that bore the CHIPS and Science
legislation that was passed and signed into law. It was in 2021
when this Committee--when I was the Subcommittee Chair for
Research and Technology--pass the science part of CHIPS and
Science, authorizing the new TIP (Technology, Innovation, and
Partnerships) Directorate, authorizing the doubling of
scientific research. We can't just say that we are competing
against China. We must put our money where our mouth is.
And, as you know, I also have the privilege of serving on
the Select Committee on Competition--Strategic Competition with
the Chinese Communist Party, and in fact, they're having
another hearing right now on the Belt and Road Initiative,
where we in that Committee, though, have spent a tremendous
amount of time discussing and evaluating the need for these
investments. And many have joined in the bipartisan effort to
shine a light on the critical role of the National Science
Foundation.
We know that China is expected to increase their science
and technology funding by 10 percent alone this year. We know
where they are moving on quantum. They are eager to dominate in
this space, and we can't just assume that our private sector is
always going to fill the role here in the United States of
America. Our private sector does remarkable things and our
entrepreneurial and innovation machine in this Nation is the
envy of the world. And yet there is the elixir for public-
private partnerships and it remains an essential and critical
role of the National Science Foundation.
An 8 percent cut from 2024 fiscal year, we know that this
is unacceptable. That must be called out in this Committee, and
we must make the pronouncement of how we will move forward
because these spends--Federal spends receive a return for the
taxpayer and a return for the Nation. We know that every time
we choose to invest in science, scientific research, invest in
the National Science Foundation, it pays dividends, not only to
the American taxpayer, but to our GDP (gross domestic product)
and to our economic progress.
We were also today very eager to hear about the TIP
program. That's just going to be absolutely critical to
diversifying our innovation base here in the United States. The
TIP program such as engines will ensure that we can continue to
build on that innovation ecosystem. CHIPS and Science was
historic, but in many ways respects we were catching up. We
must be continuing to look forward, and I hope we use today's
hearing to do just that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Collins, for hosting this hearing, and
to our witnesses Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed, for being with
us today. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing focused
on the National Science Foundation's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2025.
NSF is vital for supporting the transformational science
and technology that expands our minds, strengthens our economic
and national security, and promotes the wellbeing of our
citizens. NSF is also critical for building a STEM workforce
that represents the full demographic and geographic diversity
of this country. These missions are intertwined- one cannot not
exist without the other.
Take for example my home state of Michigan. Over $262
million of federal funds from NSF followed into Michigan in
FY23, with nearly $49 million in STEM Education. Like our
former esteemed Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson knew, ensuring
our next generation can achieve their dreams isn't just a moral
imperative but an economic and national security imperative.
We cannot continue to thrive and excel as a nation if we do
not tap into all of our nation's brainpower, no matter if they
are in Southeastern Michigan when I represent or northern
Georgia where our Subcommittee Chairman represents--we need all
Americans, every member of the missing millions, to win.
As many of you know, I am also a Member on the Select
Committee on Strategic Competition with the Chinese Communist
Party. China is investing heavily in critical emerging
technologies, such as artificial intelligence, quantum, and
biotechnology.
China is expected to increase their science and technology
funding by 10% this year alone. And yet our federal research
agencies are suffering significant cuts, specifically, NSF
received an 8% cut in FY24 from the enacted FY23 budget, an
unacceptable failure on our part in Congress. To win this race,
this critical moment in our history, we must invest in science.
Luckily, this Committee laid the groundwork for our success
with the landmark CHIPS and Science Act. The passage of CHIPS
and Science Act last Congress bolstered our nation's research
enterprise to even greater heights by authorizing regional
innovation programs, strengthening the lab-to-market pipeline,
increasing funding for research and development (R&D), and
diversifying our STEM workforce.
But for us to realize this promise, Congress needs to fully
invest in CHIPS and Science, or we are in danger of losing our
global STEM leadership to international actors. Unfortunately,
Congress failed to meet the moment in the FY 2024 funding bill.
I will continue to advocate that our Congressional
appropriations match our rhetoric to win this moment by fully
funding our sciences.
While below the CHIPS and Science authorization, President
Biden's FY25 budget for NSF represents a historic investment
into our nation's research ecosystem. A key piece of this
proposal is funding NSF's new Directorate for Technology,
Innovation, and Partnerships.
The TIP program will be essential to continuing to develop
and diversify the U.S. innovation base, including through
public-private partnerships. TIP programs, such as the ENGINES
program, will ensure we can build regional innovation ecosystem
for manufacturing, agriculture, bioeconomy, and technology,
like artificial intelligence. The TIP Directorate represents
the next frontier for NSF, ensuring that our researchers can
commercialize their groundbreaking innovations, which have been
funded by NSF for decades, right here in the United States.
The CHIPS and Science Act was a historic investment into
our economic competitiveness in science and technology
leadership and I look forward to hearing about the amazing work
that NSF is doing in standing up these programs, including its
efforts to train the vitally needed semiconductor workforce. I
also look forward to hearing more specifics about this historic
budget proposal, NSF's efforts to ensure that the agency is
protecting taxpayer dollars through robust security and
oversight efforts, and ensuring our researchers are in a safe
working environment--no matter where they are.
I look forward to the discussion. Thank you again to our
witnesses for joining us today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Collins. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
Chairman Lucas. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman
Collins and Ranking Member Stevens, for conveying--convening
today's hearing. I'd also like to thank Dr. Panch and Dr. Reed
for appearing before the Subcommittee today to discuss the
National Science Foundation's budget proposal for Fiscal Year
2025.
The NSF plays a vital role in advancing basic research
knowledge and is the gold standard for basic research across
the world. Today, 74 years after the NSF's creation, that role
has never been more important as the United States faces
enormous national and societal challenges like cybersecurity
threats, the growth of AI and automation, and the need for
exceptional computing capacity.
The CHIPS and Science Act authorized critical investments
and modernizations for NSF to address these challenges and to
reinvigorate American innovation and leadership in science and
technology. It's been 2 years since we passed the law, so I'm
eager to hear about the NSF's progress in implementing it.
I'm particularly interested in hearing about the NSF's
progress in improving the geographic diversity of our
scientific workforce. One of the goals of CHIPS and Science was
to ensure that all Americans have opportunities to participate
and excel in STEM education and employment. The bill includes a
provision to expand and sustain access to high-quality STEM
education for rural students. Capturing the geographic
diversity of talent through investments across the Nation is a
key to addressing the pressing need for a larger domestic STEM
workforce.
I'd also like our conversation today to touch on the new
Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships. This
directorate aims to take fundamental research funded by the NSF
and help apply those discoveries to solving national challenges
and advancing emerging technologies. TIP will also foster new
pathways for partnering with industry, including small
businesses and startups.
As we expand NSF's work, we must also be mindful of the
threats we face around the world. We know that research, theft,
and malign foreign influence are explicit strategies within the
Chinese Communist Party's plan to become the global leader in
science and innovation. This Committee has carefully worked
with Federal research and national security agencies, as well
as universities and other stakeholders, to determine the
appropriate steps the Federal Government should take to stop
this activity. We've worked to find solutions that address
problems identified by agencies and universities without
harming the open research system in the United States that has
attracted the best scientists in the world. Much of this work
is being done at the NSF through its research, security,
strategy, and policy activities. I look forward to hearing more
about those today.
In addition to ensuring the integrity of our research and
development enterprise, we need cutting-edge facilities for our
Federal scientists and researchers from academia and industry
to conduct big science, research that can't be done in
individual labs and requires massive equipment that industry
cannot provide. However, it is important to strike the
necessary balance between the construction of new cutting-edge
facilities, maintenance of current facilities, and
decommissioning older facilities to maintain a responsible
stewardship of taxpayers' dollars.
We also need to ensure the safety of our research--
researchers and support staff at these facilities, particularly
those in remote locations. Since the release of the sexual
assault and harassment prevention and response report in 2022,
this Committee has been investigating how NSF secures the
safety of its employees, contractors, and awardees. A safe
working environment is imperative to the success of global
research endeavors, and I appreciate both the Foundation and
the Board's willingness to work with the Committee to address
this and many other issues of importance to our scientific
research community.
As I mentioned in last year's budget hearing, I had deep
concerns about the use of supplemental funding mechanisms for
boosting investments at the Foundation. Unfortunately, this led
to a feast-and-famine situation over the last 2 years. These
were decisions made on a bipartisan basis. I'm not here to
point fingers, but we must do everything we can to avoid this
in the future. Innovation thrives on stable, predictable
funding.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to your testimonies and the discussion of
the NSF's Fiscal Year 2025 priorities.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking
Member Stevens, for convening today's hearing. I'd also like to
thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed for appearing before the
Subcommittee today to discuss the National Science Foundation's
budget proposal for fiscal year 2025.
The NSF plays a vital role in advancing basic scientific
knowledge and is the gold standard for basic research across
the world. Today, seventy-four years after NSF's creation, that
role has never been more important, as the United States faces
enormous national and societal challenges, like cybersecurity
threats, the growth of AI and automation, and the need for
exceptional computing capacity.
The CHIPS and Science Act authorized critical investments
and modernizations for NSF to address these challenges and to
reinvigorate American innovation and leadership in science and
technology.
It's been two years since we passed that law, so I'm eager
to hear about NSF's progress in implementing it.
I'm particularly interested in hearing about NSF's progress
in improving the geographic diversity of our scientific
workforce. One of the goals of CHIPS and Science was to ensure
all Americans have opportunities to participate and excel in
STEM education and employment. The bill included a provision to
expand and sustain access to high-quality STEM education for
rural students. Capturing the geographic diversity of talent
through investments across the nation is key to addressing the
pressing need for a larger domestic STEM workforce.
I'd also like our conversation today to touch on the new
Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP).
This directorate aims to take fundamental research funded by
NSF and help apply those discoveries to solving national
challenges and advancing emerging technologies. TIP will also
foster new pathways for partnering with industry, including
small businesses and startups.
As we expand NSF's work, we must also be mindful of the
threats we face from abroad. We know that research theft and
malign foreign influence are explicit strategies within the
Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) plan to become the global
leader in science and innovation.
This Committee has carefully worked with federal research
and national security agencies, as well as universities and
other stakeholders, to determine the appropriate steps the
federal government should take to stop this activity.
We have worked to find solutions that address problems
identified by agencies and universities, without harming the
open research system in the U.S. that has attracted the best
scientists in the world. Much of this work is being done at the
NSF through its Research Security Strategy and Policy
activities. I look forward to hearing more about those today.
In addition to ensuring the integrity of our research and
development enterprise, we need cutting-edge facilities for our
federal scientists and researchers from academia and industry
to conduct big science-research that can't be done in
individual labs and requires massive equipment that industry
cannot provide.
However, it is important to strike the necessary balance
between the construction of new cutting-edge facilities,
maintenance of current facilities, and decommissioning older
facilities, to maintain responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars.
We also need to ensure the safety of the researchers and
support staff at these facilities, particularly those in remote
locations. Since the release of the Sexual Assault and
Harassment Prevention and Response report in 2022, this
Committee has been investigating how NSF secures the safety of
its employees, contractors, and awardees.
A safe working environment is imperative to the success of
our global research endeavors. I appreciate both the Foundation
and the Board's willingness to work with the Committee to
address this and many other issues of importance to our
scientific research enterprise.
As I mentioned at last year's budget hearing, I had deep
concerns about the use of supplemental funding mechanisms for
boosting investments at the Foundation. Unfortunately, this led
to a feast and famine situation over the last two years. These
were decisions made on a bipartisan basis.
I am not here to point fingers, but we must do everything
we can to avoid this in the future. Innovation thrives on
stable and predictable funding.
Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to your testimonies and the discussion of NSF's FY2025
priorities.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee
for a full statement, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr.
Panchanathan and Dr. Reed for being here and for your service
to our country.
The NSF has a nearly 75-year history of discovery and
training that fuels our entire technology and innovation
economy. NSF's sustained support of foundational research over
the decades is what has led to today's critical and emerging
technologies, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology,
quantum science, and fusion energy. Scientific innovations take
time, and that's why the decisions we make here in this room
are decisions made for our grandchildren and for future
generations.
The National Science Board's recent report on the ``State
of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024'' is sobering and frank
about our country's status relative to the rest of the world.
America's global lead in R&D is rapidly shrinking, and we need
to be thoughtful and decisive about science funding, science
education, and research security so that we can continue to
nurture a scientific ecosystem that trains, attracts, and
retains the best talent.
The funding environment for our Nation's science agencies
has been difficult for years. By Fiscal Year 2024, funding for
NSF was especially difficult. It was a blow, and we've got to
do better.
You know, we talk a lot about wanting to be ahead in the
world, our competition with China, but talk is cheap. I'll give
you just an example. We--our experts mapped out the step
forward for fusion, and then we didn't fund it. China took that
map and funded it. So we need to put our money where our
intentions are, not just talk about competition with China.
I want to highlight a few specific issues for this hearing.
As the Chairman has mentioned, the CHIPS and Science Act
debated just in this room, for the TIP that was established, we
want to catalyze and implement technology. We want to advance
the national health, welfare, and prosperity through
technology, but the TIP can't come at the expense of the rest
of NSF. And so I'd like to hear about the--how they're dealing
with the cuts because that's just unacceptable and not what the
Congress intended, so we need to hear about the budget.
This is infrastructure week, so it's important to mention
that on top of the historic investments Congress made in
transportation, clean water, connectivity, green energy, we
have to be champions for the Nation's scientific
infrastructure. Earlier this month, the National Science and
Technology Council's report on Federal R&D infrastructure
painted actually a grim picture. The same is true for our
Nation's universities.
And as scientific research questions get bigger and more
complicated, the equipment and facilities' needs do as well. So
budget cuts that can lead to delay or cancelation of large-
scale projects can set back an entire generation of scientists
within a discipline. That means the United States is going to
cede leadership in key fields. So I'd like to hear about the
long-term strategic planning for NSF's state of major and mid-
scale infrastructure projects.
And finally, I just want to applaud the work that NSF has
done in advancing artificial intelligence, both in fundamental
research and as applied to other scientific disciplines such as
through the AI Research Institute and the new National AI
Research Resource (NAIRR) Pilot. I also want to mention the
work that you've done with quantum, the meeting that we had
here recently. Getting to see the work that has been done and
funded through NSF was enlightening, exciting, and inspiring.
So, Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed, I look forward to
hearing about your plans to continue your good work. More
broadly, I look forward to hearing about your vision for the
future of American science and what Congress needs to do to
live up to our rhetoric about advancement.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Collins, for holding today's hearing.
Thank you Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Reed for being here, and
thank you for your service in helping to lead our country's
scientific enterprise.
The National Science Foundation has a nearly 75-year
history of scientific discovery and training that fuels our
entire technology and innovation enterprise. NSF's sustained
support of foundational research over decades is what has led
to today's critical and emerging technologies, including
artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum sciences, and
fusion energy. Scientific innovations take time, and that's why
the decisions we make here in this room are decisions made for
our children and for future generations.
The National Science Board's recent report on The State of
U.S. Science and Engineering 2024 is sobering and frank about
our country's status relative to the rest of the world.
America's global lead in R&D is rapidly shrinking. We need to
be thoughtful and decisive about science funding, science
education, and research security so that we continue to nurture
a scientific ecosystem that trains, attracts, and retains the
best talent. The funding environment for our nation's science
agencies has been difficult for years. The fiscal year 2024
funding for NSF was an especially difficult blow. We must do
better.
I will highlight just a few specific issues for this
hearing. The CHIPS and Science Act--drafted and debated in this
very room-created the historic Directorate for Technology,
Innovations, and Partnerships, or TIP. Our goal was to catalyze
use-inspired and translational research and partnerships. TIP
can play a key role in NSF's mission to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; and to secure the national defense. It is important
the TIP Directorate be provided the resources to fulfill its
potential to transform American innovation, rather than be
kneecapped by Congress just a few years in. However, funding
TIP must not come at the expense of the rest of NSF. I'd like
to hear from the agency leadership how they are dealing with
the cuts in FY 2024.
And since this week is Infrastructure Week, so I'd be
remiss not to mention that, on top of the historic investments
Congress has made in transportation, clean water, connectivity,
and green energy, we must also be champions for our nation's
scientific infrastructure. Earlier this month, the National
Science and Technology Council's report on federal R&D
infrastructure painted a grim picture of 21st century R&D
conducted in 1950's-era facilities. The same is true for our
nation's universities. As scientific research questions get
bigger and more complicated, so do the equipment and facilities
needs. Budget cuts that lead to the delay or cancellation of
large-scale projects can set back an entire generation of
scientists within a discipline, and cede U.S. leadership in key
fields. I would like to hear today about long-term strategic
planning for NSF's slate of major and mid-scale infrastructure
projects.
Finally, I applaud the work that the NSF has done in
advancing artificial intelligence--in both fundamental research
and as applied to other scientific disciplines, such as through
the AI Research Institutes and the new National AI Research
Resource Pilot. I also applaud the work NSF does in STEM
education and inclusivity so that every American may have
access to STEM opportunities and careers. Dr. Panchanathan and
Dr. Reed, I look forward to hearing about your plans to
continue these goals, and more broadly, I look forward to
hearing about your vision for the future of American science.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Collins. All right, thank you.
Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is
the Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Panch. He
became the 15th Director of the Foundation in June of 2020. He
has a distinguished career with more than three decades of
experience in both higher education and government, where he
has designed and built knowledge enterprises that advance
research, innovation, strategic partnerships, entrepreneurship,
global development, and economic growth. He also served as a
member of the National Science Board before becoming Director.
Our next witness is Dr. Daniel Reed. Dr. Reed is the former
Chair of the National Science Board elected in May of 2022. He
formerly served as Provost at the University of Utah, where he
now is Presidential Professor of computational science and
Professor of computer science in electrical and computer
engineering. He has served on the U.S. President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology, the President's Information
Technology Advisory Committee, the National Academies of
Science Board on Global Science and Technology, and the
International Telecommunications Union CTO (Chief Technology
Officer) Council.
I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Panch, for 5 minutes
to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, Chairman Collins, and Ranking
Member Stevens and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to
appear before you today.
In 1950, the National Science Foundation was established to
continue the Nation's investments in science and engineering
that had begun during World War II to strengthen our economic
and national security. Seventy-four years later, we are
surrounded by advancements that have made--been made possible
by NSF's investments in people and ideas. The internet,
smartphones, wireless technologies, 3D printing, CRISPR
(clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats),
and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) technologies were all
supported by NSF. Hundreds of thousands of researchers,
entrepreneurs, and STEM educators are supported by NSF every
year, and countless startups have spun off from NSF
investments.
When we look back at an early investment in an idea that
revolutionizes an industry and yields incredible profit, we
call that a wise investment. NSF continues to be an extremely
wise investment for the United States. Every single American
benefits every day from our commitment to unleashing the
American spirit of innovation.
However, while we benefited greatly from being the first
Nation to invest heavily in fundamental research and
innovation, our competitors are rapidly catching up. Other
governments, most notably PRC (People's Republic of China),
have copied our playbook, and they are investing heavily today
in hopes of controlling the innovations of the future.
Take, for example, semiconductor production. The offshoring
of this critical sector, which happened slowly over many years,
became a national security imperative when we felt the effects
of chip shortages in automobiles and other industries. Congress
and the Administration acted quickly to invest in bringing that
capacity back to the United States.
However, we must ensure that we do not face the same
challenge in artificial intelligence, quantum information
science, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, or other
critical technologies. This is why Congress did not just pass a
CHIPS Act, but a CHIPS and Science Act, which recognized the
investments in research today are the key to a more prosperous
and secure future tomorrow.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's budget request for NSF
includes $10.2 billion as investment that is vital to the
United States' continued leadership in science, engineering,
and technology. NSF has worked quickly and with intentionality
to implement the CHIPS and Science Act, our flagship example of
this as a regional innovation engine to the TIP Directorate,
which are the largest broad-scale investments in the Nation's
history to spur place-based innovation in critical fields of
R&D and economic and societal importance.
Earlier this year, we announced the first 10 full-scale NSF
Engines, which will be the catalyst for the industries of
tomorrow and build new powerhouses of innovation and high-tech
entrepreneurship in communities throughout the country. In
addition, NSF has funded 58 planning grants for future engines
in almost every State. Chairman Collins, you will be happy to
know that this includes the University of Georgia, where they
are working on advanced agriculture.
But these investments must be sustained to be successful.
The Fiscal Year 2025 request includes $205 million for the NSF
regional innovation engines, which will be critical to the
continuation of the first 10 engines and our ability to move
forward with any of the projects currently in development.
NSF has also taken research security head on, implementing
the requirements of the CHIPS and Science to protect the
integrity of our investments. We have prohibited funding for
researchers that participate in malign foreign talent programs
and developed analytical capabilities to assess risks. In the
near future, we will begin a risk rubric that will guide the
agency in making determinations about the national security
implications of projects in sensitive technologies. Later this
summer, we will establish the information sharing and analysis
organization called for by CHIPS and Science, which will be
tremendously beneficial to both NSF and the research community.
We are grateful for the continued partnership with this
Committee and Congress on this important issue.
Our country is at a critical moment. You all said that. We
must seize the promise of technologies like AI while continuing
to invest in curiosity-driven research that seeds the
industries of tomorrow and builds the workforce of the future.
For example, standing up the National AI Research Resource,
NAIRR, is essential to democratizing access to AI research
capabilities and unlocking the potential of AI to transform
fields from healthcare to weather modeling. However, we cannot
meet this moment without also investing significantly in
curiosity-driven research, use-inspired innovations, and the
people who make them possible.
NSF greatly appreciates the support of this Committee, and
I look forward to working with you to ensure American
leadership in science, engineering, and technology for
generations to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Panchanathan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
I now recognize our second witness, Dr. Reed, for 5 minutes
to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAN REED,
FORMER CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Reed. Thank you. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member
Lofgren, Chairman Collins, and Ranking Member Stevens, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for both the opportunity
and the privilege to speak with you today.
I'm here to deliver a message of appreciation and progress,
but also one of concern. Science and technology are critical
pillars of our Nation's hard and our soft power, our national
security and our economic prosperity. Breakthroughs such as
generative AI are transforming the very fabric of our society,
but meanwhile, we face increasingly fierce competition in areas
critical to our country's future, in AI, in semiconductors,
quantum, biotechnology, and a host of others.
And although the United States is still the best place in
the world for science and technology innovation, the warning
lights are all flashing red. The modest gains that U.S.
students made in math test scores over the past 20 years, they
were all erased during the pandemic. And alarmingly, the
declines were the largest for students from groups already
underrepresented in STEM.
And with each science and engineering indicators report, as
it was mentioned a moment ago, China has outperformed the
United States yet again in another key metric. It surpassed us
in STEM doctoral production, in research publications and
patents, and it's closing the gap on R&D expenditures.
Now I, like you, remember a time when we believed anything
the United States could dream, we could do. And today, it feels
like we've lost and lowered our expectations, and we've lost
sight of what I often think of when I'm in this room, all the
wonder that could be. While other countries invest heavily in
the future, our real Federal R&D funding is flat, and we're
failing to develop the domestic STEM workforce needed to remain
globally competitive. We're simply not moving at the speed of
our competitors.
And let me be clear. Global science and technology
leadership is neither an abstraction nor an empty slogan. It's
the wellspring of our national power, safety, prosperity, and
happiness. The future remains ours to win, but only if we act
with the vision and commitment to secure it for our children
and our grandchildren.
So I'm here today not merely to ask you to fund NSF at the
Fiscal Year 2025 request level or to get us back on the CHIPS
and Science authorization path. I'm here to ask for more. I'm
asking us to dream better dreams. And in that spirit, I humbly
offer two ideas for your consideration.
First, I believe the United States should pursue a National
Defense and Education Act, an NDEA 2.0, to develop domestic
STEM talent at all educational levels across this country. The
genius of the original NDEA was that it created inspiration and
opportunity where little existed before. And as someone who was
born the poor child in the Arkansas Ozarks, I sit here today as
living testimony to its enduring power.
An NDEA 2.0 would invest directly in recruiting, retaining,
and upskilling pre-K through 12 STEM teachers nationwide, and
it would create more pathways to enter STEM teaching via
nonstandard paths. It could also potentially create a national
undergraduate STEM service program and expand graduate
fellowships in critical technology areas.
Now, I believe an NDEA 2.0 is both practically and
economically necessary if we're going to change our STEM
education trajectory, but it's also morally and ethically
right. STEM jobs pay better, and they're more recession-proof,
and no society should leave parts of its population or regions
of its country behind in the race to the future.
Second, I'd ask you to consider holding a hearing to
explore the structural obstacles to implementing and delivering
on a whole-of-government national strategy for science and
technology. As we face rising competition from centrally
directed nation-states, our Federal S&T structure still
reflects a slower-moving yesteryear. We need structures that
can drive our National Science and Technology Strategy across
agencies quickly and nimbly and work with our industry and
academic partners, while also being accountable for progress
toward national goals. Now, I'm not advocating for fully
centralized control. That's foolish. But the bottom-up,
distributed process we use now is just not sufficient.
If we're to compete successfully in the global race to the
future, I believe we must think, organize, and act in some
fundamentally different ways. We can't coast on the glories of
the past. A brighter future begins with better dreams. We must
dare mighty things and do what we dream because it's in the
daring and the doing that the United States asserts and secures
its power and its place in the world. The need is real. The
opportunity is great. The time is now. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reed follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and the Chair
now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
I was trying to make some notes on what y'all are saying,
and so I was getting a little behind there.
Dr. Reed, artificial intelligence is being widely adapted
across all industries. Can you speak to what NSF is doing to
enable private-public partnerships to advance that AI research
and technology innovation?
Dr. Reed. Absolutely, I'd be happy to do. Full disclosure,
I used to work for one of those companies with which we're
partnering. I was a senior leader at Microsoft.
Yes. So if you look at the NAIRR pilot, which is building
public-private partnerships with industry, providing access to
resources, collaborations between academia and industry, that's
a critical example. The AI institutes writ large are also
partners with industry, and that fruitful flow of talent
between academia and industry is the way that ideas are
carried, and it fuels our global competitiveness by virtue of
the basic research.
But I would be the first to say that the NAIRR pilot is
woefully underfunded. We need more infrastructure and academia,
as Chairman Lucas mentioned in his remarks. It's a critical
enabler for exploration, and the shortage of GPUs (graphics
processing units) across the country is an impediment to
academic research. So increasing that funding, but increasing
that availability is critical, as is supporting the talent that
will drive that forward.
One of our great strengths and our risks is we're a global
importer of talent, but we need more domestic talent working in
AI areas as well, and so support for that is also a critical
element.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. This is for both of you. I
understand that advanced technical education programs have been
very successful in developing education and training programs
for science and engineering technicians in a variety of fields,
including programs to support biotechnicians in Georgia. It's
been valuable in addressing the skilled and technical workforce
shortages. So given previous success, is NSF or the Board
considering how it should assist these programs in considering
and preparing the impact that AI may have on these jobs and
industries?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a very,
very important question. At the end of the day, our success in
out-competing, out-innovating is all about talent, talent at
every level. At NSF, when we talk about a skilled technical
workforce, this happens at all levels, but specifically in
community colleges and 4-year undergraduate institutions. We
have the Advanced Technology Education program, which has been
an exemplar in terms of ensuring that we are investing in
designing the curriculum for emerging technology topics like
AI, like quantum, like cybersecurity, and so on, and then being
able to train the talent at community colleges and 4-year
institutions and research universities. We need all of this
happening at the same time in order to build the scale that we
need to out-compete and out-innovate. So NSF's programs
specifically target this building of talent. We are the STEM
talent agency for the Nation, and we take that mission very
seriously, and our investments are squarely focused on that.
But the other thing that I would add to this is we are
focused on ensuring that this happens everywhere in our Nation,
rural, urban, across all parts of the United States because we
want every bit of talent to be energized.
Chairman Collins. OK.
Dr. Reed. I'd just add, we often forget that the skilled
technical workforce is a larger fraction of the overall STEM
workforce than--it's the majority. And about 1/4 of the U.S.
population is in STEM-focused jobs, and that's about 38 million
jobs, so it's not a diminished proportion. It's a huge portion
of the U.S. economy. And the skilled technical workforce is
slightly larger than the bachelor's-degree-and-above workforce
in that space. It's critical.
The Science Board put out the skilled technical workforce
report a few years ago, emphasizing that. I would echo
everything the Director just said. Those are high-paying, high-
skilled jobs, and there is a desperate shortage of those. And
in many of those areas, not only is there a shortage, there's a
shortage of domestic workers. And there's a whole panoply of
jobs there, some of which require citizenship to fulfill them.
We need to recognize that reality as well, and that goes back
to my earlier comments about upscaling the domestic workforce.
It's a critical piece of our future, but it is absolutely
essential. It's what drives our economy.
Chairman Collins. I appreciate it. And I have--I don't have
enough time to ask another question, but I would like to make a
comment on that. I know in the industry that I'm in,
transportation, you think about AI and how it has been--it's
already been in our industry for years, and it started out, as
a matter of fact, over in the--like the mechanic side and then
has now moved into the back-office side. So it's amazing. And
you need people on all levels, and in education, not just
college level, but technical college as well to understand how
to not just to work on or innovate, but how to use these
products as they come forward.
So I'm out of time. I'd recognize now Ms. Stevens from
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. So the 2004 National Science Board
report on ``The State of U.S. Science and Engineering'' shows
what we already know and has been referenced and discussed
here, that we are somewhat falling behind, and despite being
the largest supporter of research and development at the tune
of $806 billion, we're not keeping up in our research output
compared to other nations or training the next generation in
sufficient ways.
So this report clearly highlights something that many of us
on this Committee have been pushing for years and something
that you, Dr. Reed, just expounded on, that we must be
investing strategically to win. And 2024 Fiscal Year was just,
by all accounts, kind of a flop to meet this moment, and some
of the damage that we're seeking to avoid that is highlighted
in this report.
So I was just wondering if--Dr. Reed, if you could provide
some color on what is most striking to you out of this report,
the--again, the ``State of U.S. Science and Engineering'' in
2024?
Dr. Reed. Well, we often talk about the impact of the
pandemic, but of course, the pandemic was global, it was not
unique to the U.S., so it affected education globally. The fact
that we slipped even further in that space speaks, I think, to
the challenges.
I think there are several issues. One is--and I obliquely
alluded to it in my opening remarks--I think we have to inspire
passion and enthusiasm. Science is among the most exciting
things humans do, and yet often the way we teach, it doesn't
inspire passion. In fact, it may inspire dread in some cases.
So upskilling our K-12 teachers with more STEM skills is a
piece of it because I think often some of those teachers also
dread teaching their STEM modules. And I have a family of--I
come from a family of teachers, so I have many conversations
about that.
But the numbers are an issue as well. And that notion of
exposing students to the experience of science as opposed to
the dry recitation of it because the joy is in the doing. And I
do believe every child is born a scientist. We squeeze
conformity into most people. A few of us----
Ms. Stevens. And that's so critical, you know, just to say
every child is born a scientist, and that point of inclusivity
is really a direction change that we need to make.
And then, Dr. Panch, given the report's finding, how will
the funding levels for Fiscal Year 2024 impact the NSF's
response to that report?
Dr. Panchanathan. In a very significant way. I would put it
in the following context. You know, the--this is the single-
most significant national security challenge that we face
today. The fact that we are not able to train all the talent
that is ready to be trained and all of the talent everywhere in
our Nation being inspired, motivated--we talked about the K to
12, right? How do we inspire K-12 generations of talent, but
also the talent that is right now in the system in terms of
community colleges and the talent that is not getting into the
system. This is a missed opportunity in a big way. This is not
the time to slow down. This is not the time to, you know,
decelerate. This is a time to hyper-accelerate and out-compete
and out-innovate because that is what our Nation is. It is
about the people, the talent, the innovative mindset, and
that's what keeps us in the vanguard of innovation, has always
done that.
And therefore, I would say that this budget has and will
have tremendous implications in terms of being able to move at
speed and at scale, as I say, and therefore, it's very
important that we, you know, correct this trajectory, and in
fact do a lot more in terms of realizing the great CHIPS and
Science bipartisan act that all of you put forward with the
Administration, I think that's the right trajectory, and----
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. But we need to make our
authorizations, appropriations very soon. We cannot--I'll give
you a concrete example. Right this year, PRC invested 10
percent more in science, and they moved money from the Ministry
of Science into the China and NSF specifically and with a clear
notion saying that we want to out-compete in basic discovery
research the United States. This is not good for us. This is
not the time that we should be slowing down. So I humbly submit
that we have to really do something to change this.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And just to clarify, obviously, we're in
2024, and we're talking about the 2025 budget, and obviously,
we also know it's quite striking for women, just despite any
increases since 2000--the year 2000, only 11 percent of patents
granted by the United States went to women. And what we've
heard time and time again on this Committee is that we are
leaving our own people behind.
So I join you, Dr. Reed, in a continued discussion around
engaging and exciting. And I really thank you for your stark
honesty, Dr. Panch.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Collins. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last November, this Committee unanimously voted to send
H.R. 6313, the National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization to
the House floor for consideration, an accomplishment in the
congressional world we live in these days. And the legislation
boasts the NSF's quantum information science research and
development efforts, including the Foundation's multiple
disciplinary centers for quantum research and education and the
creation of the new quantum testbed.
Dr. Panch, can you please elaborate on how these
investments will further advance our national quantum
capacities and how these priorities are addressed in the
President's budget request?
Dr. Panchanathan. You know, thank you, Chairman Lucas, for
the question, as well as, you know, your strong advocacy for
investments in science. And, you know, the other day you were
in the quantum showcase with Ranking Member Lofgren and Ranking
Member Stevens. You saw firsthand, walking around, the
unbelievable talent in quantum across our Nation, and not only
the talent that is being trained and the fundamental discovery
research in Purdue and others that is there, but it is also you
saw the spinout companies that is coming out of the labs into
entrepreneurial ventures. All of that was represented in the
showcase.
Now, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much
talent here in quantum that we need to energize and make
possible. So I'm looking forward to the reauthorization, and
I'm so glad that it is making its way. It is exceedingly
important. And the priorities of NSF clearly are ensuring that
we are continuing the fundamental discoveries that is going to
propel us into the future in terms of quantum research. That's
very, very important. The Quantum Challenge--Quantum Leap
Challenge Institutes was a great investment, but we cannot
again slow down. In fact, we should be scaling up and expanding
because we see the quantum interest and the quantum expertise
all across our Nation and the quantum centers.
And we put together a program called ExpandQISE (Expanding
Capacity in Quantum Information Science and Engineering), which
is about ensuring that quantum talent is not just in a few
institutions in a few places. Chairman Collins, you mentioned
the cities across all parts of our country. How do we energize
that? So we're working on all of those fronts, Chairman Lucas.
Chairman Lucas. Again, for just a moment, could you discuss
how these issues are addressed in the President's budget
request? Because this is a process of pushing and pulling. We
have to be on both ends of the rope pulling together.
Dr. Panchanathan. Correct. So we are prioritizing the
emerging industries for the future, and in the budget actually
we have for the advanced key technologies in the area of
quantum information science about close to $300 million, and
that's an increase of $30 million over Fiscal Year 2023 to be
specific in terms of numbers, but that's nowhere near where the
appetite is in the Nation that the possibilities are. So I just
want to underscore that, too.
Dr. Reed. And I'll just add quickly, I want to----
Chairman Lucas. Dr. Reed?
Dr. Reed [continuing]. Emphasize what the Director just
said. What I--the message I wanted to get across in both
education and investment in the future is incrementalism is not
going to get us where we need to be. We need to think
differently, and this is one example of that.
Chairman Lucas. Continuing with you, Dr. Reed. In your
testimony you recognize the powerful tools that quantum S&T
review and the National S&T strategy have been directed at and
the CHIPS and Science Act could be to our Nation. Are you aware
of any progress being made by the Administration to meet the
directive? And are they successfully engaging in the entire S&T
science and technology ecosystem?
Dr. Reed. So I'm not sure I fully understand the first part
of your question, Chairman Lucas, so I'll try to answer, and if
I miss the mark, please follow up.
Chairman Lucas. Of course.
Dr. Reed. Yes, I mean, and the Director just enumerated
some examples that the AI Institute's quantum work on workforce
to support semiconductors as part of CHIPS and Science, they're
all parts of that. Obviously, you know about the TIP
Directorate rollout and those activities. Those have all been
part of the Administration's support.
I'll just echo what I said briefly a moment ago. We need
more, right? We need more in every one of those areas, in
quantum, in AI. In pretty much every advanced technology area
you could mention, we need more. And that's my plea is how we
think as a country about how to do that.
Now, I fear I've missed the specific of your question.
Chairman Lucas. Now, let's continue down the general trail.
And in your testimony, you explore the structural obstacles for
implementing and delivering a whole-of-government science and
technology strategy. Could you elaborate on that?
Dr. Reed. Absolutely. And, first of all, thank you for
articulating the need for that S&T strategy, Chairman Lucas,
grateful for that.
So what I was trying to say is we have a panoply of Federal
agencies and a patchwork of authorization approval and
oversight groups. We recognize the criticality of science
technology. That's why we have these coordinating committees
across groups, and--but in that process, we've lost sight of
the need to operate nimbly and quickly and authoritatively. And
we all know that China is doing exactly that. And so my plea
is, how do we rise above, if you forgive me, the bureaucratic
morass and focus on the goal, which is we have to do more, we
have to do it together, and it can't be one agency against
another. And in a zero-sum game, that's often what happens.
People compete for a larger share of a finite pool. We've got
to grow the pool. It's as one of you said in your opening
comments. It is about our grandchildren's future that we're
talking about here.
And so I don't know exactly what the answer is, Chairman
Lucas, but I do believe what we're doing now is not working. We
need some mechanism that has enough teeth to ensure across all
of government--in fact, not just all of government, but all-of-
country response. It can't just be government. It has to be
partnership with the private sector, with the universities,
with the K-12 system. We have to think bigger. We have to think
holistically. And I'm not arguing for centralized control.
Believe me, we all know that's bad. But we have to have more
coordination than we are now so we're not implicitly competing
against one another but keep our eye on the wonder that would
be, as I said at the outset.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Dr. Reed. Thank you, Dr. Panch.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Collins. You know, Dr. Reed, I think you may be a
freshman up here. We all ask those same questions. I think
government moves--I think a snail moves faster than government.
I now recognize Ms. Lofgren for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we were
listening to you, I just received the news that the House
Appropriations Committee has released their top line with a
proposed 1 percent increase in defense spending and a proposed
6 percent cut to non-defense spending.
So I'm interested, Dr. Panch and Dr. Reed, we took an 8
percent cut for this fiscal year, a 6 percent cut on top of
that. What would that do to the science enterprise? We're
talking about thinking big. You know, sometimes I think we know
the cost of everything but the value of nothing. How would this
impact the progress we need to make?
Dr. Panchanathan. Well, I'll put it in one summary word. We
are handing it to our competitor on a silver platter. This is
not a good time to do this at all. As I said in my previous
remarks, this is the time to hyper-compete and invest in the
talent and ideas right here in our country. I traveled to
Purdue, I traveled to Indiana, I traveled to the State of New
York, I traveled all around the country, and I'm telling you,
there is so much talent that I see. I was with the Chairman in
Oklahoma, and he will attest to that.
I see the talent that is ready to engage, ready to
contribute to our country, and for us to leave this talent
behind, I think is unconscionable. I mean, there's no other way
of saying that. And to leave those discovery ideas--and the
more we cut, the more the ideas that are being proposed to NSF
in quantum, in AI will not be funded. And guess what--who's
funding them and the people? It is our competitor. Our
competitor is now funding those ideas that we don't fund
because we don't have the resources. These are good ideas. They
have transcended the gold standard merit review of NSF. These
are not just ideas that are just posited. They have transcended
the gold standard merit review. And when they are not funded,
our competitors see that they fund it, they fund the people,
and this is a national security issue, and this is not
something that we should take lightly at all. I'm extremely
worried.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Reed?
Dr. Reed. Devastating is the one-word answer. And I will
just echo what he said. We--I think for us to think about this
future, science has a reservoir of support. We're all
boundlessly curious about the world, but this is about more
than science and discovery. This is about national security,
and it is about economic competitiveness. Those are the true
reasons.
If you go back and look at Vannevar Bush's original
articulation of why the Federal Government should invest in
science, it was public health, national security, and economic
competitiveness. Those are still true. We're leaving the future
on the table.
And I would add that those cuts potentially are convolved
with inflation, and so the real spending cuts are actually much
larger.
And to the Chairman's earlier comment, I must say I've been
engaged in Federal Government policy a long time. I realize
what I asked for is not easy, but it is important. And so as we
think about that future, we have to step up to the plate. We've
got to invest in the future. Our grandchildren will look back
at us and say why did you let us down if we do not.
Ms. Lofgren. When I think about the--I mean, there are many
initiatives. I don't want to just outline these three, but I
see a convergence between artificial intelligence, quantum, and
fusion. We're on the doorstep. Maybe we're peeking through the
door slightly. If we defund those initiatives, which is
essentially what we're talking about, where does that leave us
in the world in terms of the benefit? I mean, is it possible
that we'll be able to beg China for the information that they
have developed? Where does that leave us in terms of the
prosperity that these initiatives, when they come to fruition,
could deliver?
Dr. Panchanathan. No, I will tell you that not only will we
lose those industries of the future, the industries of today--
let's be very clear, the industries in AI, the industries in
quantum, and other technologies is because of the fundamental
investments we made over the last several decades. If we don't
do that, those industries won't be here anymore. They will be
birthed in other parts of the world, particularly with our
adversarial competitors where they are because not only the
fact that those ideas come from there because of the hyper-
investing mode that they are in, but they will also--let's not
forget this. The folks that don't get the investments here will
start moving to the places where they can get the investments.
As a faculty member myself, I will tell you, right, the
mindset is I have great ideas, I want my ideas to prosper and
benefit humanity, and they want it done right here in our
country, but we should not let that be taken advantage of by
any nation on Earth. We have to make sure that the industries
are right here, the jobs are right here, the prosperity is
right here, the future is right here, and continue to make sure
that we are the innovation hotbed.
Dr. Reed. There's nothing I can really add to that. I
completely agree.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time's up, and I
yield back.
Chairman Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Franklin of
Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And you all just got into something that was actually going
to be my first question, but maybe to put a little bit more of
a point on it, Director Panchanathan, just help me make sure my
math is right. As I understand it, the NSF gets about 40,000
projects that it reviews every year, proposals. About 1/4 of
those are funded roughly, maybe 10,000 or so. Another equal as
many have merit, but there's no funding for those, and those
are the ones we're talking about that basically are going out
the door to our competitors to be funded.
Dr. Panchanathan. Very well----
Mr. Franklin. Half of our good ideas----
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
Mr. Franklin [continuing]. Is that math about right?
Dr. Panchanathan. Congressman Franklin, I could not have
said it better. You represent it correctly. You said we get
40,000-plus proposals, and we fund 1/4 of them on average. At
least 30 to 35 percent of them are worthy of funding. These
have transcended the gold standard merit review.
And, Congressman, what I'm worried about is, as a faculty
member, has been a faculty member, if you get two times
rejected because they didn't have sufficient funds while your
proposal was ranked high, your project was ranked high, and you
still did not get funded, guess what happens? People stop
writing the proposals anymore. And so what----
Mr. Franklin. People walk out the door and go somewhere
else----
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
Mr. Franklin [continuing]. Where they----
Dr. Panchanathan. So--exactly. I'll take it somewhere else.
And so the lost opportunity is not even part of this. If you
factor that in, it is even more than what we are talking about,
and that's not good at this time. We cannot do this. We cannot
let this happen.
Mr. Franklin. Dr. Reed, do you want----
Dr. Reed. I will also say it's true at many levels. I'll
pick--I'll choose one that is a little more narrow but is
equally important. If you look at the number of our domestic
graduate students who apply for graduate fellowships--this is
our domestic workforce in advanced technology--the numbers are
equally stark. We are leaving thousands of those potential well
of applicants, but potential graduate fellows on the table,
right? We could--and those are often in very high-technology
areas, exactly the ones that Representative Lofgren was just
mentioning that you did, quantum and AI and biotechnology and
other areas.
And so that's a very specific and concrete example that
would both increase the number of domestic students in critical
technology areas, but also increase that encouragement pipeline
because the discouragement out there in the academic community
is hard. It's scarcely--in many cases, you're more likely to
get startup funding for a crazy idea to start a company than
you are to get research funding, and it should not be that way.
Mr. Franklin. Right. Thank you.
If I can switch gears for a moment, Director, can you speak
to us a little bit about the status of the Antarctic
Infrastructure Recapitalization (AIR) program?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for that question.
You know, as you know, COVID put a significant slowing down of
what we could do in terms of the Antarctic program and all the
infrastructure work that people are able to do prior to COVID
and during the COVID years because we were not able to get the
people on the ice. The infrastructure activities got slowed
down because of that. So from an infrastructure
recapitalization, in spite of these budgets that have been very
significant reductions, we are continuing to invest in the AIR,
Antarctic Infrastructure Recapitalization program, as we call
it. And so that is already baked into the budget. And we are
moving forward because this is extremely important.
Again, I want to say this is also a national security issue
because we want to make sure that our Antarctic presence is
extremely vital with our allied nations that we partnered with
is exceedingly important. And, for example, South Pole
infrastructure right now requires refurbishing rapidly. We need
to build better dorm facilities. It has been languishing for a
while. There's a lot of things that needs to happen in both
locations in McMurdo, as well as in South Pole, and not to
mention the fact that the Palmer Station.
So we are taking this head on, and we're trying to make
sure that in light of all the things that have happened
recently, you know, with COVID and others, which have
challenged us, we are making sure we are prioritizing this and
getting the work done. And, of course, we are working very
closely with the Air Force. I talked to the SecAF (Secretary of
the Air Force) in terms of making sure that we have the flights
onto the ice so it will be able to take the infrastructure
projects and get them completed.
Mr. Franklin. OK. And then just, you know, seeing the
continued interest in countries like China to do work there in
Antarctica, Iran even making claims that they've got some stake
there, how do you--does NSF work with the State Department on
the diplomatic side of this, or how does the--and I'm really
interested in this bigger question of how you liaise with the
Department of Defense and the Secretary--or the Department of
State on these issues.
Dr. Panchanathan. This--as you rightly said, Congressman,
it is an interagency partnership. NSF is the lead agency, but
we work closely with Department of Energy (DOE), NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration), NOAA (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration), Department of Defense, of
course, the Air Force because they provide us the
transportation, and the Department of State because Department
of State is the entity that brings in all the parties together
in terms of making sure that we are, you know, building those
partnerships. And this was birthed out of a multi-nation
partnership presence on the ice. And so, yes, Department of
State is also a convening authority and making sure that we are
moving forward.
Mr. Franklin. Very good. And thank you.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Collins. All right. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Salinas, Oregon, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
panel today.
My district is not home to a major research university.
However, it is the most diverse in Oregon. So when Federal
research investments are commercialized, the regional technical
and community colleges in the district prepare a diverse
workforce for the many STEM jobs that do not require an
advanced degree. And the Oregon Institute of Technology, who I
just visited this past week, was so excited about the prospects
of an ExpandQISE and other hands-on-learning that so many of
their students prepare for work in the future.
So I am really excited about some of the opportunities from
the CHIPS and Science Act that encourage more focus
coordination between agencies, industries, and higher ed to
create a robust STEM ecosystem. Oregon State University has led
on two CHIPS Act opportunities that build on each other, an NSF
engine to advanced semiconductor technologies, and a Department
of Commerce tech hub called Cormic. Cormic has brought in
collaboration from community organizations and community
colleges and across rural and urban divides, and partners in my
district include Chemeketa Community College, Centro Cultural,
and Western Oregon University. And to me, this is clear
evidence that the tech hub will spur workforce opportunities
for a diverse group in my district.
This question for Dr. Panch, are you proactively working
with your partners at the Department of Commerce and other
agencies to ensure your CHIPS Act investments build on each
other in this way? And can Oregon's approach here be a model to
other States and projects around the country?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for the question,
Congresswoman Salinas, very strong partnership with Commerce.
Secretary Raimondo and I, even before she came--became
Secretary, we have known each other from the moment she came.
We said that this is a time for us to hyper-partner, right? And
we should not be working like this between NSF and EDA
(Economic Development Administration) because we do a lot of
startup activities. We do a lot of entrepreneurial activities.
And now with the new Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships
Directorate, which has launched the regional innovation
engines, we should be tightly coordinated. And so I'm very
happy to say that we have a strong partnership, and thanks to
Commerce Department, Secretary Raimondo, and the entire team,
we are working very closely with them.
And even to the extent that the regional innovation engine
call that we sent out and the regional technology hub call that
went out, we actually synchronized so that we are making sure
that people are not wondering what is this and what is that? Is
it a duplication, or is it building off one from the other? And
so this is about--as you rightly said, this is about building
the industries, the economic development ecosystems, and the
jobs of the future.
And yes, you are right. Oregon stands as an excellent
example of how the community comes together. It is not only
Oregon State University, as great as Oregon State University
and University of Oregon and Portland State University and
others in the region, but it is about universities working with
economic development ecosystems, existing industries like
Intel, which has got a huge presence, and others, right, in the
semiconductor realm, all of them working to their community
colleges. That's what makes these regional innovation engines
so powerful and so actionable and outcome-focused, and I'm very
excited by that.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So, Dr. Panch, you mentioned NSF's
Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) program. And Chemeketa
Community College is already doing great work with one of these
awards, and I expect other schools in my district to achieve
HSI status very soon. Going forward, how are you thinking about
ensuring existing programs like this one complement and support
investments from CHIPS and Science, as well as IRA and BIL?
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes. No, that's, again, an excellent
question. You know, as I was saying earlier, talent and ideas
are democratized. They're everywhere. And these institutions,
the community colleges, are a great entry point for so many
talented individuals for a variety of reasons, are not
necessarily going to universities only, but these talented
individuals go to community colleges, and they express that
talent in the fullest form. And, as the Chair said, we need a
skilled technical workforce, a tremendous scale, in fact, much
more than even the technical workforce that gets trained in
universities and so on.
And from what we're doing with Hispanic-serving
institutions or minority-serving institutions, historically
Black colleges and universities, tribal colleges, is how do we
energize those institutions to be able to be successful in NSF
programs, right? It turns out that some of these institutions
don't have the research infrastructure----
Ms. Salinas. That's right.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. To be as successful as they
could be, not because they're lacking in ideas or the talent.
It's because of the fact that they don't have the
infrastructure. So we launched a program, and you'll be happy
to hear this, Congresswoman Salinas, as part of the CHIPS and
Science Act. We launched a program called GRANTED (Growing
Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and
Diversity), which is about how we build the research
infrastructure in these institutions that don't have them, and
so that those talented individuals can take advantage of that
research infrastructure to be able to express it in a form that
can transcend the gold standard merit review and get invested
in. So we're working really hard in empowering all
institutions, emerging research institutions and minority-
serving institutions everywhere. Thank you.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Collins. All right. Thank you. And the Chair now
recognizes Mr. Williams of New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Panchanathan and former Director Reed, thank
you both for being here.
I love the work of the NSF. And, you know, I remember our
conversation a year ago, and the topics about foreign influence
in our research are obviously still being brought up. And I'll
touch on that in just a minute.
But, Mr. Director, can you give me a sense, in your
opinion, what's the assessment of the current state of
commercial grid-scale energy storage for our electric grid?
What's the status of that, would you say, in our country today?
And this is commercial grid scale just to separate it from
research.
Dr. Panchanathan. I will say much more in the research and
development, and the commercial scale is just slowly getting
into the picture. It is not anywhere near the full-scale
deployment that you would expect.
Mr. Williams. And when you look ahead into a timeline of
commercial grid scale, affordable, reliable, resilient-type
installations, what's your best guess or what are you hopeful
about? What technologies are you hopeful about that you think
might produce that? And approximately, what timeline would you
predict that?
Dr. Panchanathan. There are two things that are important
here. One is the storage technology. The other is a grid--the
smart grid technology. Both of these are important, right? In
the storage technology, there's a lot of work, and I'm excited
to see even the work that we have supported in New York,
basically, in terms of batteries, advanced battery storage
regional innovation engine. There's a lot of work that is
happening on the advanced battery technology, storage
technologies, and new companies are coming into the fray. At
the same time, the smart grid technologies with AI is also
starting to buildup, and thanks to the investments of
Department of Energy, NSF, and other partners, I think, you
know, guessing is always not a good thing because I've heard
people who have said it may take 10 years, but the innovation
spirit of NSF--of the United States sometimes get things done
much faster than that. But I see all of this deploying at a
much higher rate and scale over the next decade.
Mr. Williams. OK. Thank you. That's very helpful. I was a
battery officer on a nuclear submarine and came from the
industrial controls space before doing that, so I have some
passing familiarity. Obviously, I'm not doing any research at
the DOE labs on this. And they wouldn't hire me to do it. I'm
not good enough. So thank you for that. I think it's an honest
and fair assessment. It kind of matches my own in my own visit
to the national labs.
I want to touch on the last couple of minutes here on
foreign influence, foreign money, and, you know, particularly
the intellectual property rights, leaking of dual-use
technologies in particular to governments that are not
sanctioned. The focus has been on China for quite some time,
and I've met with the NSF Inspector General. You know, I
followed the GAO (Government Accountability Office) report that
highlighted that. And, frankly, it seems like you've led
concrete steps to address that.
And what I'm concerned about is that since the events of
October 7, some new issues have been brought to fore, and I'd
like to just touch on those for a minute. If you go back a year
ago, it's China, China, China, China, and China, but there's a
lot of concern on the Education and Workforce Committee for the
influence of governments like Qatar and the amount of funding
that they have provided in the billions, perhaps tens of
billions of dollars into our universities, a lot of it flowing
into research.
One of the areas of particular concern is nuclear research
being conducted at Texas A&M University and the influence of
the Qatari Government in that. Recently, the Board of Regents
at Texas A&M University actually had a closed-door meeting and
came out changing their policy and expressing some concern, but
no one knows why. No one knows what's been done. Can you shed
any light in our last few seconds here of the influence of
Qatar and specifically around dual-use technology, perhaps
nuclear?
Dr. Panchanathan. You know, I've said this in a general
sense that the less we are able to invest in our ideas and
talent and innovations, then foreign nations want to see how
they can take advantage of the ideas. Let me make this very
clear----
Mr. Williams. Anything specific about Qatar about nuclear?
Dr. Panchanathan. I do not have enough information on that,
Congressman Williams, but I'm happy to go back and get you an
answer----
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. Because it's not--I'm not--
--
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. I'm not familiar with it as
I was for the previous question. But what I will tell you is
that we need to make sure that we are not letting that--letting
these things happen because people know that our higher
education system, our research ecosystem, innovation ecosystem
is a pride.
Mr. Williams. My time has expired. I very much appreciate
your straightforward answers. Thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tenney of
New York for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member
Stevens, for holding this hearing, and thank you to your
witnesses for your expertise, your experience, and your
willingness to serve our country on this very important issue.
I am sure you both know that the National Science
Foundation relies on the New York Air National Guard's LC-130H
fleet for the transportation of goods and materials and
personnel to National Science Foundation stations in Greenland
and Antarctica. However, unfortunately, the LC-130H fleet is
almost 50 years old, and their operational capacity is
currently about 40 percent. This ski-equipped U.S. Air Force
variant is in service at the 109th Airlift Wing in New York's
Schenectady Region of the National Guard. Their 75th
anniversary in fact was last year.
So as you know, per Presidential Memorandum 6646 signed by
President Reagan--I'm sure you're aware of it--the Department
of Defense has an obligation to provide on a--in quotes--``on a
reimbursable basis the logistical support requested by the
National Science Foundation to develop--and to develop in
collaboration with the Foundation logistic arrangements and
cost structure required for effective and responsive program
support at minimum cost,'' close quote. The Department of
Defense's longstanding obligation to provide logistical support
will continue to be put at risk until this LC-130H fleet is
recapitalized.
So we talked a little bit about this today. China,
particularly the People's Republic of China, Russia, their
polar ambitions are clear in the Antarctic. Last year, the PRC
completed construction of their fifth research station on
Antarctica, which, according to a Center for Strategic and
International Studies report, is China's most significant
expansion of its footprint there in Antarctica in a decade.
This new station will give the PRC the ability to collect
intelligence signals and telemetry data from Australia and New
Zealand, obviously critical when we think about our AUKUS
(Australia-United Kingdom-United States) project in the South
China Sea. As the only planes that can transport fuel through
the United States; Antarctic stations, the LC-130's are
critical to countering the growing PRC presence in Antarctica.
As NSF seeks to do increasing work in the Arctic and Antarctic,
for our national security, it's our intention and our belief
that we must make necessary investments to recapitalize this
fleet.
I just wanted to speak if you--first, Dr.--what is it?
Panchanathan. If you could speak briefly about the critical
nature of this LC-130 aircraft and NSF's work in the Arctic and
Antarctic and making sure that this aircraft is going to be
sustainable, available, and there for us in the future.
Dr. Panchanathan. Congresswoman Tenney, I'm so glad you
asked this question. You are absolutely correct. Our national
security, imperative, and the presence in Arctic and Antarctic
is exceedingly important because we cannot lose the advantage
that we have right now. And you're absolutely correct.
Transportation of infrastructure that we need to build,
continue to build and advance, as well as transporting our
scientists and staff to the ice and back from the ice is an
extremely challenging situation. And post-COVID things have
become extremely challenging. And you point out exactly the
issue that we are dealing with, which is the LC-130 and its
ability to be able to do this effectively.
So it was in a situation where we were having a lot of
difficulty, and I had a good conversation with the SecAF----
Ms. Tenney. OK.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. And he was very, very
generous in terms of saying that, Panch, you know, we'll work
together with you to see how we can provide this help.
But you make a good point that that is critically dependent
on the recapitalization. And I want to express my gratitude to
the Air National Guard in New York. They have been doing an
amazing job. I have seen this firsthand. I flew with them. They
flew us onto the ice. They do a phenomenal job.
Ms. Tenney. Yes, they're terrific----
Dr. Panchanathan. They are amazing.
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And I am proud to be from New York
just to know we have them in our backyard. It's not quite in my
district, but it's nearby, and they do amazing work.
But--so you were saying that the Secretary of Defense and
also the Secretary of Air Force all indicated the urgency of
this matter----
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And recognized that?
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Tenney. OK. One of the things I wanted to just--let me
jump to this. Also, can you just touch on this briefly why
depending on C-17 airdrops--airdrops cannot fully replace the
LC-130? Because that argument has been advanced. We only have,
you know, half a minute left, but if you could just give us a
pitch for these LC-130's and why we need them and why the C-17
is not going to be adequate for this.
Dr. Panchanathan. Any infrastructure that we need to build
on the ice, it's not going to be air dropped. It's going to
have to actually land on the ice.
Ms. Tenney. Right.
Dr. Panchanathan. These are heavy equipment and
infrastructure items, so there is no substitute for that. There
is absolutely no substitute. There's no substitute for having--
getting people on the ice, by transporting them to do the work.
So these are not things that we can just drop. There are some
things, yes, we can drop but not all of that, so it's very,
very critical that we have that capacity.
Dr. Reed. I would just add, having also been on those C-
130's and grateful for their support, this is not just about
science. This is about projecting global power. And this notion
that we are on the ice not just for scientific purposes, but
because it's related to our national security is critical. We
have to fix this problem.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Dr. Reed. And I agree with you 100
percent. This is also critically part of our entire strategic
goals in that region, that part of the world, everywhere. We
have enemies on the move. So we greatly appreciate your
service, your testimony here today, and your standing up for
these important issues. Thank you so much. And again, we're
grateful for--to our Air National Guard.
Thanks. I yield back.
Chairman Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mullin of
California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for
being here today.
I am concerned about the impacts that cuts to the NSF in
the 2024 Fiscal Year may have on research and STEM education.
NSF STEM education count was cut by nearly $200 million from
the 2022 to--pardon me, 2023 to 2024 fiscal years, while its
research and related activities account was cut by over $650
million. These accounts fund critical climate resilience and
research.
So my question, Dr. Panchanathan, climate resilience is
becoming more important as extreme weather events continue to
become more severe. My Bay Area district knows very well that
we're on the frontlines of this climate crisis. I represent
most of San Mateo County, which stands to lose $24 billion in
property value alone over the next 50-plus years because of
sea-level rise. That is why ensuring funding for programs such
as NSF's Coastlines and People program is so critical.
So, Doctor, following the cuts to NSF's budget in the 2024
fiscal year, can you give us a sense of what the impact might
be on climate resilience research specifically?
Dr. Panchanathan. Congressman Mullin, thank you so much for
the question. We will have every program of NSF being impacted
significantly by this cut. Let's be very clear about this. This
is not only a 5 percent cut, but when you look at the one-time
investments that were made, there's an equal of 8-8.5 percent
of cut. Now you factor in the fact that we're increased costs,
including flying the fuel cost going on Antarctic, right, on
the ice, if you factor it, you could safely say it's probably a
9 to 10 percent cut.
So every program is going to be susceptible, is susceptible
to this kind of a--not being able to realize the full potential
and the urgency that you point to, the urgency of being able to
meet the adaptation, resilience, and mitigation kind of
activities. It is going to be impacted. And my worry is that we
are also not going to be able to develop the technologies, the
climate technologies that I think we can do right here in the
United States and building industries are also going to be
impacted because of this, not only the fundamental discovery
work, the applied work, but also those kinds of industries.
That will be--you know, that'd be something that we could have
rightfully had here, but we might lose out to our competitors.
So I would like, Chair, if he has additional comments, too.
Dr. Reed. No, and it is critical, and I want to emphasize
that the Science Board and the Director work closely on how to
discuss implementing these devastating--and that's the only
word I can use to describe it--cuts that we have seen. It's not
peanut butter slicing. They are thoughtful, based on strategic
imperatives, and there's a lot of back-and-forth about that to
ensure that we, given the limited budget we have, focus on our
highest priorities.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. And just a quick follow up
on the workforce front. National Science Board Science and
Engineering Indicators report highlights a concerning
backsliding in mathematics proficiency for elementary and
secondary students across the United States from 2019 to 2022.
Average math scores for 4th and 8th grade students dropped to
levels last seen approximately 20 years ago.
So to both of you, briefly, how are NSF's STEM education
programs working to reverse these trends? And what does NSF
need from Congress to help strengthen students' proficiency in
STEM subjects?
Dr. Reed. So I think this is an all-hands-on-deck issue.
And, obviously, the Foundation is de minimis portion of Federal
dollars in the education space, but it--the Board and the
Foundation have looked hard at the wide variety of factors that
are contributing to these declines from socioeconomic status,
and it is most pronounced--if you use free and reduced school
eligibility for free and reduced school lunch as a proxy for
family wealth, those children, regardless of ethnic status, are
performing below proficiency. And if you're not eligible, it's
almost as bad. Only a few groups are above the proficiency
standard.
So we've been looking hard at things like what kinds of
curricular materials would make a difference. As I said in my
opening statement, I believe we really need to think hard about
a Next Generation Defense and Education Act to revitalize STEM
education. I think it's that critical to our future. But I'll
let the Director comment on a specific set of programs. But
we're deeply concerned about this issue. It's clear that
incrementalism is not going to fix this problem. It's broad-
based, and it's true across the entire country. There are
pockets of success, but we have to raise the bar.
And I think one of those things that's critical to that is
creating the sense of possible and excitement about STEM
because the jobs are there, the needs are real. We simply have
to educate this generation so they can pursue those
opportunities.
Dr. Panchanathan. Now, I will just add to what Chair Reed
said is that it's all hands on deck, as he said. We need, first
of all, good K-12 teachers to be able to inspire generations of
talent. And so we talked about it earlier, that is that how do
we get the teachers who are currently in the schools to be able
to get the training and retraining and upskilling to be able to
inspire our children? Plus, what do you do with the current
teachers who are going through the teachers colleges? How do we
get them to be a lot more inspiring by--and excited about
science themselves or STEM disciplines themselves so they are
in turn able to inspire the next generation of children?
I think we need all strategies. And we are looking at NSF
not only what we invest in, but we also working with
philanthropies like the Simons Foundation and others. So it
might take, you know, all of the good ideas that are everywhere
and see how we can, you know, coinvest and get better outcomes
from this. It's very important.
Chairman Collins. We're going to open up a second round of
questioning. I know we've got a few more Members that were
trying to make their way in, and so in order to just give them
some time, we'll do a quick second round.
So I'm going to recognize myself for 5 minutes for another
round of questioning.
I want to focus on two of the topics I think y'all have
been focusing on, and that is funding and education, more
funding to compete with China, and on the education,
revitalizing and--the environment and encouraging more
students. And, Dr. Panch, you want $60 million more in your
budget for the Antarctic infrastructure just to compete with
China as one example, but then you turn around and you ask for
1/4 of a billion dollars for DEI (diversity, equity, and
inclusion) initiatives. And so my question is how do you
suggest that NSF prioritize your funds in order to keep us
ahead of the rising China and the Antarctic threat versus the
DEI initiatives that--you know, that China doesn't even have in
their budget?
Dr. Panchanathan. Let me make this very clear. What NSF is
investing in is talent and ideas that is there all across our
Nation, and that is about talent in rural areas and urban
areas. Chairman, I'll tell you, I came from a small State,
Arizona, and I was there for 23 years before I took this job. I
saw firsthand how our rural students and from rural areas did
not have the same opportunities as people from urban areas. And
rural students from across the broad socioeconomic demographic
and the rich diversity of our Nation did not have the same
opportunities to express that talent.
NSF investments, I can assure you, Chairman Collins, is
about unleashing all talent from everywhere at all levels.
That's what we are focused on. We are squarely focused on
making sure that we are not missing out on the talent in our
Nation, the domestic talent that needs to be fully energized
for us to be able to out-compete and out-innovate.
Chairman Collins. No, I would agree 100 percent. We should
be focused on the talent and the people that are qualified to
do the job----
Dr. Panchanathan. Absolutely.
Chairman Collins [continuing]. Instead of focusing on
checking off a box.
Dr. Panchanathan. Correct.
Chairman Collins. But when you're asking for 1/4 of a
billion dollars just for DEI initiatives, but then you're
sitting here saying that you've got to compete with China, we--
and I agree, Antarctica, we need to fund that. We need to be in
the forefront of that. But it seems to me that you put more
priority into your DEI initiatives than you do into trying to
do the competing of China, which is what you opened up with and
said was so important.
The other thing that I want to focus on is the education
side. And, you know, we have seen on the news the last few
weeks that there have been violent, chaotic, unlawful protests
that have been at some of these elite research institutions
that we've been talking about. And as the head of the--of one
of the Nation's largest research and development agencies, do
you think NSF has a role in ensuring that universities do not
allow discrimination on their campus like we've seen with
Jewish students in the Northeast?
Dr. Panchanathan. Chairman, that's a very important
question, and I appreciate you asking that question. Harassment
and discrimination has no place, no place in the scientific
enterprise and the research enterprise. I want to be very
categorically clear. NSF has always been clear about that. Any
hate directed at individuals or groups, including antisemitism,
is not--has no place in the scientific enterprise research
community.
At NSF, we have terms and conditions that are in place,
which are rooted in the uniform guidance of the Federal
regulations and include compliance with Federal laws like title
VI and title IX. So any violations of our terms and conditions
as noncompliance with Federal laws will be handled
expeditiously by working closely with the institutions, as well
as with our Office of Inspector General (OIG). We work in
partnership with the Office of Inspector General on all of the
issues, and we are a great partnership.
So actions can include--I can tell you, actions can include
terminations of award, suspensions of award, and recovering
funding, and these are things that are potential consequences.
And so I'm happy to work with the Committee and you, Chairman,
to--on any specific concerns, but I want to be very clear that
you have my word that we take this very, very seriously.
Chairman Collins. No, and I appreciate that because I think
that--and more into what you were talking about, Dr. Reed, the
fact that there are families that are sitting out there looking
at where they're going to send their student who just graduated
from high school for--to further their education if that's what
they desire to do. And when you have these protests, unlawful
protests that are disrupting school and education, I don't know
if you want to weigh in on that in the last minute that we
have, but I think that plays a huge role in what people are
deciding on what they're going to do for their future.
Dr. Reed. I'd just echo what the Director said.
Discrimination in all forms has no place in our society, and
we're committed to addressing those issues forcefully and
forthrightly wherever they occur.
I will say one thing to keep in mind is that, as we think
about how we respond to those issues, it's important that we
not inadvertently punish those not involved, and so any
response needs to be appropriately surgical and targeting the
guilty if you will, and not punish the innocent. And many of
our students and faculty who are not involved in those
protests, a broad-brushed approach runs the risk of punishing
them as well. And so some nuance, but both diligence and direct
response is appropriate.
Chairman Collins. Good. Thank you. And I understand--Chair
will recognize Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just an additional
question.
For the past couple of years, the Republicans, as you know,
have been in charge of the House. They proposed slashing
funding for the very office that enforces discrimination,
including antisemitism under title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has proposed increasing
funding for that office. So, Director, how does the NSF intake
allegations of title VI violations? And wouldn't it be helpful
in terms of addressing the actual issue of discrimination in
college campuses if the office that investigates and enforces
these laws had the support of Congress?
Dr. Panchanathan. It's very important, particularly at this
time, to the Chairman's question, that we need to have robust
operations inside NSF and also a partnership with our Office of
Inspector General. Our Office of Equity and Civil Rights, led
by Dr. Rhonda Davis, does a phenomenal job working with the
institutions on ensuring that all the compliance elements that
is emphasized through its terms and conditions are all followed
through, particularly with regards to title VI and others.
And, as I said, we also work closely with our OIG to make
sure that we ensure that we are doing this in partnership so
that any violations that are there that is beyond--which is
egregious, then gets--you know, gets the attention of OIG where
appropriate.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. And if I might follow up on
my previous topic around STEM just if I could have an
amplification of one of your answers with regard to workforce
issues. I'm curious about where we stand in terms of global
competitiveness with other advanced economies in the world and
what can we do to maximize America's efforts in this regard in
terms of how we are competing with some of the other major
economic players?
Dr. Reed. We're losing ground is the short answer. If you
look at the recent 2024 Science and Engineering Indicators,
we're losing ground in almost every area. We've lost leadership
in STEM Ph.D. production. I would argue we still lead in
quality but certainly not in quantity. We can see that. And
we've lost leadership in international patents, and those are
all--and patents are actually a lagging indicator because they
reflect work already done at the time a patent is filed.
So we're losing ground, and we're losing ground in every
area. It's certainly at the K-12 level. It's why I've been so
passionate about inspiring passion and upskilling our K-12
teachers, particularly in areas--we like to say, the Director
and I, that talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is
not. We want everyone with talent to have an opportunity. And
many of that STEM opportunity is lost even as early as the
third grade.
And so we need both the passion--as I said earlier, every
child, I believe, is born a scientist. We want to continue to
support that passion. And the jobs are there, and so we have to
grow through the entire ecosystem.
We are still a magnet for global talent at the graduate
level, but our immigration policy poses some challenges there,
particularly in terms of the ability of talented students to
stay in this country after they complete a degree. And this
country is--we are a land of immigrants. We all can trace that
background--or almost all of us--back to being immigrants. We
want this country to be the place that the best and the
brightest on the planet want to come and live and work and
contribute to our society.
So it's really two poles. We have to upskill our domestic
talent at every level, but we also have to attract global
talent. And yes, we're all aware of the security risks that go
with that, and so that's a judicious process to manage that
balance, but we have to feed the whole ecosystem, and we're
simply not doing that at the level that we need to. We're still
ahead, but we're losing ground, and we can't keep losing ground
because, one day, we'll be sitting here and say we're not ahead
anymore.
Dr. Panchanathan. Congressman, very well said. And here's
an example. Rural Arkansas, a kid was inspired by science, now
a leader in science in our country, a person that was born
outside of the United States, being given the opportunity to
come here and express my talent, for which I'm so grateful that
I want to serve. This combination of how do we take every ounce
of domestic talent in our country and make sure that you're
exercising it at the full level, and then augment--not
substitute by global talent, augment global talent to that. We
would need both of them working together if we want to out-
compete nations like PRC, a billion people, 1.3 billion people,
right? That's how we get our Nation to continue to be
accelerating and being in the vanguard of competitiveness.
Chairman Collins. All right. Well, I think that we don't
have any more Members needing to ask questions, so I thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions. The record will remain open for 10 days for
additional comments and written questions from Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Dan Reed
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]