U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–236PDF 2017

MATERIAL SCIENCE: 

BUILDING THE FUTURE 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

June 28, 2017 

Serial No. 115–19 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice Chair 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 28, 2017 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Matthew Tirrell, Deputy Laboratory Director for Science and Chief Research Officer, Argonne National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Laurie Locascio, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs and 

Director, Material Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Dr. Adam Schwartz, Director, Ames Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Dr. Fred Higgs, John and Ann Doerr Professor of Mechanical Engineering, 

Rice University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 50 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 52 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 62 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 84 

Document submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 86 

(1) 

MATERIAL SCIENCE: BUILDING THE FUTURE 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittees on Energy and Research 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittees at any time. 

So welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Materials Science: Building 

the Future.’’ 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, we will have the opportunity to review federally funded 

research in materials science. I want to thank our panel of witnesses for joining us to share your important research, and provide 

the knowledge necessary to set priorities for basic science research. 

Materials science is the discovery of new materials with novel 

structures, functions, and properties. In this area of science, researchers study the chemical, physical, atomic, and magnetic properties of an existing material, and use that knowledge to create 

new materials with ideal properties. By designing and creating new 

materials, researchers at our national labs and universities can 

solve complex engineering challenges and enable the development 

of new technologies. 

Today, federal agencies ranging from the Department of Defense 

to the National Science Foundation and DOE are pursuing research in this area because the value to our end users is clear. By 

tailor-making materials for a specific use, scientists can create materials that increase efficiency and better store energy; reduce the 

environmental impacts and improve the safety of energy production 

technologies; develop stronger and more resilient artificial joints; 

improve high performance computing systems; and better protect 

our soldiers and athletes in the field. 

As Madonna would say, we are certainly living in a material 

world. For example, Dr. Fred Higgs, who joins us from Rice University—my sister graduated from Rice, Dr. Higgs—and I were having 

that conversation—will testify about how the development of materials such as diamond-like carbons and nanocrystalline diamond 

can lead to long-lasting, wear-resistant artificial knees and hips 

that could last decades longer than today’s technology. 

At Ames Lab, led by Dr. Adam Schwartz who joins our panel 

today, the Department of Energy has cultivated decades of expertise in metallurgy and materials science. Researchers at Ames Lab 

pioneered the use of metallic powders in 3D printing. As Dr. 

Schwartz will testify, this expertise has enabled the production of 

high-purity metal powders that can be used in the creation of industrial parts for military, biomedical, and aerospace applications. 

I’m also particularly interested in Ames’ ongoing early-stage research in caloric materials for refrigeration and air conditioning— 

I own an air conditioning company, which if—and we’re going to 

talk about this, in fact, the whole hearing may be on this— which 

if successful—I mean, how cool is that, right?—which if successful 

could save 20 to 25 percent of the generated electricity used for 

cooling, refrigeration, and air conditioning in the United States. 

Now, let that sink in: 20 to 25 percent of the energy used for refrigeration and air conditioning and heating in the United States. 

Finally, just this week, a researcher at Argonne National Lab, 

which Dr. Tirrell is testifying on behalf of today, won the 2017 

TechConnect National Innovation Award for developing a more effi-
5 

cient method to create graphene. This one area of materials science 

research could improve technology for advanced touch screens, 

long-lasting batteries, transparent and conducting coatings for 

solar cells, and next-generation oil-free solid lubricants. 

Materials science also provides a perfect example of the broad 

economic benefit of investments in research infrastructure. The 

core capabilities and user facilities at our national labs are essential for the discovery and design of new materials. There is nowhere else in the world where an individual researcher or company 

could access a light source, high performance computing capabilities, and the specific expertise in materials synthesis that is available in our system of national labs. 

You may hear today about how this vital area of research is at 

risk of being left behind because of budget cuts or changing priorities but basic and early stage research in materials science is exactly what this Committee has always supported. 

Discoveries in materials science require tools and expertise provided by national labs, and industry users are ready and waiting 

to commercialize—commercialize—they’re waiting to take it to 

market technology based on this fundamental science. 

Hearings like today’s help remind us of the Science Committee’s 

core focus: the basic research that provides the foundation for technology breakthroughs. Before we can ever see the deployment of a 

better battery, a stronger material for protective gear, or wear-resistant materials for medicine or energy production, we must invest 

in the science infrastructure that makes these discoveries possible. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman WEBER. I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my fellow Texan, and 

also Chair Comstock, for holding this hearing. We have a very impressive panel today, and I want to thank each and every one of 

you being here. I’m going to make my remarks brief because I 

think that everybody’s really interested to hear what they have to 

say today, and I’m sure that as you are aware, we’d be hardpressed to find a scientific field that doesn’t rely on materials 

science at some level to accomplish its research objectives. It is 

critically—it is a critically important area of research for answering 

the most pressing scientific questions and advancing our economy 

in the 21st century. Lightweight vehicles, high-performance building materials, more efficient turbines, and solar panels are just a 

few examples. The research and development of new materials can 

provide a direct benefit to consumers with savings on energy bills 

and benefits to our environment. 

Scientists at universities, national laboratories, and in the private industry utilize federal research grants and scientific user facilities to explore the frontiers of materials research. A better understanding of the properties of ceramics, glass, metals, composites, 

polymers, and plastics is achieved through materials research. By 

optimizing these properties, we can address key hurdles in developing new technologies with a variety of applications. Energy efficiency and reliability, public health and safety, and environmental 

stewardship can all benefit from strong investments in material research. In fact, I think we could sit here all day and talk about the 

immense benefits of material research, and I know that we’re going 

to do just that, and like I said a little bit earlier, I think everybody 

is really excited to hear what you have to say. 

And while there seems to be strong support for this work in Congress, we cannot have this conversation without acknowledging the 

shortsighted and harmful Trump budget released last month. The 

Administration’s budget would absolutely decimate the all-important field of materials science in the United States. The budget 

would cut sustainable transportation and renewable energy by 70 

percent and energy efficiency by 80 percent. It would cut critical research on the electric grid and fossil fuels in half. It would eliminate ARPA–E, cut the Office of Sciences by 17 percent, and nuclear 

energy by 30 percent. All of these programs help fund the materials research that we will hear about today. And even if we wanted to, we can’t balance the budget by slashing our research funding. 

The Administration’s budget proposal will make the United 

States less competitive. These cuts would cause us to lose jobs, 

harm our public health, and hurt our international R&D partnerships. The proposed cuts are just absolutely puzzling. They just 

make no sense. 

I look forward to hearing from each of you on how the proposed 

budget cuts at DOE, at NSF, at NIST could hurt us in the area 

of materials research enterprise and U.S. competitiveness. I am 

particularly interested in hearing from Dr. Schwartz about the consequences these severe cuts could have at his laboratory, which has 

a special focus on materials research. 
9 

The Administration has claimed that the private sector would 

simply start funding these key research areas once the federal government cuts them from its budget but I don’t think that’s based 

in reality. In fact, Administration officials recently confirmed that 

have not even begun a conversation with the private sector to determine what industry would be able or willing to pick up. So let’s 

get back to reality and continue our strong support for these highvalue research programs that are vital for American competitiveness, our quality of life, and our scientific leadership. 

And before I conclude, I do want to apologize to the Chair and 

the other Members and our panelists that are here today. We have 

an Armed Services markup today downstairs and so I’m going to 

be back and forth, but again, I think that what we’re going to hear 

today is really going to be good and interesting, and I really appreciate the panelists that are here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman WEBER. Well, thank you, Marc. I appreciate that. The 

good news is that the President doesn’t have the last word. He may 

have the first tweet but not the last word. Did I say that out loud? 

I now recognize the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Mrs. Comstock, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. Good morning. 

Today’s hearing focuses on vital research in materials science. 

This basic and fundamental research provides the foundation for 

important new technologies in many fields including medicine, 

transportation, manufacturing, defense, energy, and computing, 

which ultimately helps improve our quality of life and grows the 

U.S. economy. 

Behind every new innovation from the iPhone to the International Space Station is decades of work by engineers, physicists, 

and chemists, creating the new materials that make it possible. 

Advances in materials science have been achieved in a variety of 

ways, from public-private partnerships, science prize competitions, 

and through investments made by the federal government, industry, and universities. By investing in STEM education and the research infrastructure necessary to advance this area of basic research, the federal government can fast-track the development of 

industry specific materials that benefit American consumers. 

One recent example of a public-private partnership that I find of 

great interest is the NIST work alongside the National Football 

League, General Electric Company, and Under Armour to support 

an open innovation prize in search of advanced materials to better 

absorb or dissipate energy. The Head Health Challenge will lead to 

the improvement in performance of protective equipment, like helmets, to help and protect head safety for men and women in uniform; Americans who work in manufacturing, construction, and 

other industries; and those who participate in athletics, starting 

with children who participate in school sports. We have heard so 

much recently about the long-lasting impact of head injuries, how 

it might be connected to Alzheimer’s and others. This is really exciting work that’s going on. 

This kind of partnership is particularly encouraging because we 

should be doing everything in our power to help protect the lives 

of those who put themselves on the line for our freedom and safety 

as well as American workers and, of course, our children in those 

ever-present sports that we know are wonderful for them but we 

want them to perform in them safely. 

By investing in materials science research, we invest in both innovation and the livelihood of our citizens. 

Manufacturing is another critical sector where material science 

innovation can help create efficiency in production. While scientists 

develop new materials in our national labs and universities, industry applies these new materials to improve manufacturing, and create new products that keep the United States competitive in the 

global economy. 

As Chair of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I am interested in learning more about NIST’s work with manufacturers 

and other private industry partners on new materials testing and 

standards, as well as the National Science Foundation’s investment 

in basic research at institutions like Rice University. 
13 

Taxpayer investment in basic and fundamental research, which 

the private sector can then develop and commercialize, provides 

significant rewards that improve our society and the lives of our 

citizens. We must ensure that this research ecosystem is a vibrant, 

functioning partnership to spur innovation and create new industries and, of course, more jobs. 

Thank you to our expert witnesses for being here today, and I 

look forward to hearing your informative testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Comstock follows:] 
14 
15 
16 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock, and I recognize 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Mr. Daniel Lipinski, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Chairwoman 

Comstock, for holding this hearing on federal investments in materials science research and the economic importance of these programs. 

Materials science and engineering R&D is carried out across several federal agencies. This research, as we will hear more about 

this morning, has applications across many sectors, including energy, defense, transportation, and even human welfare, as Chairwoman Comstock mentioned, the better helmets that can be made 

to prevent traumatic brain injury. 

Unfortunately, as the Office of Science and Technology Policy detailed in a 2011 paper, the time it takes to move a newly discovered advanced material from the lab to the marketplace remains 

much too long. That white paper was the genesis of the multiagency Materials Genome Initiative, or MGI. The MGI is a publicprivate R&D partnership that seeks to accelerate the lab-to-market 

timeline through advances in computational techniques, more effective use of standards, and enhanced data management. 

The Research and Technology Subcommittee, on which I serve as 

Ranking Member, focuses on NSF and NIST, so I want to spend 

a moment talking about the important materials research programs at those agencies. NSF participates in the MGI primarily 

through the Designing Materials to Revolutionize and Engineer our 

Future program. This program is building the fundamental knowledge base needed to increase the precision of new materials development, enabling a shift from trial and error to designing and producing materials with specific desired properties. NSF also contributes to MGI through the Cyber-Enabled Materials, Manufacturing, 

and Smart Systems Initiative. As part of this initiative, NSF 

launched the Materials Innovation Platforms program to develop 

transformative techniques and instrumentation that will improve 

understanding and discovery of new, complex material systems. 

NIST scientists conduct research in all aspects of materials 

science, with the goal of developing better and new measurement 

and characterization tools and standards for advanced materials. 

The agency’s major efforts on material science research are supported by the Material Measurement Laboratory, the national reference laboratory for measurements in the chemical, biological, and 

material sciences. In addition to its internal research program, 

NIST also established the Advanced Materials Center of Excellence 

at Northwestern University, Argonne National Laboratory, and the 

University of Chicago, to facilitate the collaboration with leading 

research institutes and industry. The Center supports the goals of 

the Materials Genome Initiative by developing computational tools 

and databases to support materials discovery and production. Finally, NIST manages the interagency Manufacturing USA initiative, which includes several institutes focused on advanced materials. I look forward to learning more about all of this work from 

Dr. Locascio. 

I want to echo the comments of my fellow Ranking Member, Mr. 

Veasey, by expressing my concern about the Trump Administra-
17 

tion’s proposed budget cuts to materials R&D across the science 

agencies. Not only would these cuts cause us to lose out on the economic opportunities our materials research programs create. They 

would also do great harm to our nation’s ability to stay at the cutting edge of materials science and the related health, energy storage, technology, and national security benefits that will be discussed today. 

We have an excellent panel before us that can help us understand not only materials science itself, but also why our investments in this field are so important for the nation. The proposed 

11 percent cut at NSF, the 13 percent cut to the labs at NIST, and 

the even more draconian cuts at DOE must not be enacted. Today’s 

hearing will give us a few more reasons why we must reject the 

President’s budget request if our nation is to stay scientifically and 

economically competitive, and I certainly appreciate Chairman Weber’s comments about that budget and what Congress will do. 

Hopefully we will see robust funding for these programs. 

So I look forward to the testimony and discussion this morning, 

and I thank the panelists for being here to share their expertise 

with us. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
18 
19 
20 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

It is now time for witness introductions, and I’m going to yield 

right back to Mr. Lipinski to introduce our first witness today. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Matthew Tirrell is Deputy Laboratory Director for Science 

and Chief Research Officer at Argonne National Laboratory in my 

district. At Argonne, he is responsible for integrating the laboratory’s research and development efforts in science and technology 

capabilities. He is also the Founding Director of the Institute for 

Molecular Engineering at the University of Chicago, which has a 

mission to translate advances in basic physics, chemistry, biology, 

and computation into tools to address important societal problems. 

The Institute recently partnered with Argonne and Fermi National 

Labs to create the Chicago Quantum Exchange, which aims to 

serve as an intellectual hub for the science and engineering of 

quantum information and to commercialize discoveries through the 

Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago. 

Dr. Tirrell received his achelor’s degree from Northwestern University, just as I did, in engineering, and his Ph.D. from University 

of Massachusetts-Amherst. His distinguished career has included 

faculty positions at the University of Minnesota, the University of 

California-Santa Barbara, University of California-Berkeley, and 

induction into the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 

Welcome, Dr. Tirrell. We’re happy to have him here today. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Laurie Locascio—is that right? 

Okay—Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs and Director for the Material Measurement Laboratory at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. Previously, Dr. Locascio 

served as Chief of the Biochemical Division in the Material Measurement Laboratory. She received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in 

chemistry from James Madison University, a master’s of science 

degree in bioengineering from the University of Utah, and a Ph.D. 

in toxicology from the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Welcome. 

Our next witness is Dr. Adam Schwartz, Director at Ames Laboratory. He is also a Professor of Materials Science and Engineering in the College of Engineering at Iowa State University. Dr. 

Schwartz had over 20 years of materials science research and management experience at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

prior to joining Ames Laboratory. He received a bachelor’s degree 

and master’s degree in metallurgical engineering as well as a Ph.D. 

in materials science and engineering from the University of Pittsburgh. Welcome. 

Our last witness is Dr. Fred Higgs, a John and Ann Doerr Professional of Mechanical Engineering at Rice University, where my 

sister graduated from. Previously, he was a postdoctoral research 

fellow at Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Higgs received a B.S. 

in mechanical engineering, an M.S. in mechanical engineering, and 

a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering—you have a thing for mechanical engineering—from—pronounce that. 

Dr. HIGGS. Rensselaer. 
21 

Chairman WEBER. Rensselaer Polytech Institute in Troy, New 

York, but you finally made it to Texas. So I told him he’s a native 

Texan imported from Florida. So welcome. We’re glad you here. 

And Dr. Tirrell, I now recognize you for five minutes to present 

your testimony, and welcome to you as well. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MATTHEW TIRRELL, 

DEPUTY LABORATORY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE 

AND CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER, 

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. TIRRELL. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Veasey, and Ranking Member Lipinski and 

Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear today to discuss the future of materials science from the 

perspective of the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. 

Argonne National Lab was founded as a chemistry, materials, 

and nuclear engineering lab in 1946 as the successor to the Manhattan Project’s metallurgical lab at the University of Chicago. My 

colleagues at Argonne and across the national laboratories seem to 

improve the way this nation generates, distributes and uses energy. Materials science and engineering are essential to this pursuit and to many other sectors of importance to society. Bringing 

fundamental advances in material sciences to reality for the ultimate benefit of society requires investments at various stages of 

development. 

Though the time scale is accelerating via powerful new predictive 

computational methods, many developed at DOE laboratories, 

there remains a long lead time from conception, discovery and synthesis of new materials to their ultimate useful application. Indeed, 

important discoveries in materials science arise often without any 

application in mind. National laboratories differ from universities 

in performing both basic and applied research in an environment 

where unmatched characterization facilities and capabilities for 

scale-up exist. 

The process of taking a fundamental discovery or invention to 

the point that industry will invest in commercial development is a 

very non-linear one involving iteration between fundamental and 

applied research. Pushing basic science toward practical applications frequently raises new basic science questions that have to be 

addressed before useful results emerge. 

The history of electrochemical research at Argonne leading to 

new materials and devices for energy storage is a case in point. 

Electrochemical energy storage and research—storage research and 

development spans the battery field from basic materials research 

all the way to prototyping. 

The prototyping often reveals the need for new insight at the 

fundamental level and inspires new basic research. A specific example is the Energy Innovation Hub at Argonne, the Joint Center 

for Enter Storage Research, or JCESR. Founded in 2012, JCESR 

has united government, academic and industrial researchers from 

many disciplines in a major research project that combines discovery science, battery design, prototyping, and manufacturing 

science in a single highly interactive organization. JCESR as an ex-
22 

ample of collaborative basic research leading to proof of concept 

prototypes is one we aim to model in other materials research 

areas. 

A second powerful example is in the area of quantum computing. 

The exponential expansion and the power of information technology, which we call Moore’s Law, has catalyzed U.S. productivity 

and growth for over the last 50 years but, like much of our nation’s 

aging infrastructure, this is now ending as roadmaps that have 

worked since the 1960s are now reaching their limits. The research 

and industrial communities are mobilizing to search for fundamentally new approaches to information processing. Quantum computing is based on exploiting subtle aspects of quantum physics for 

unprecedented new information technologies. These technologies 

implemented via materials design and development can handle 

computationally complex problems, provide communications security, sensing technologies in ways that are impossible with conventional hardware. 

Recognizing this promise, other nations such as China, Canada 

and several European countries are investing heavily in quantum 

material science. Argonne in collaboration with the University of 

Chicago and Fermilab, and I might add, Ames Lab and NIST, are 

poised to compete and lead in this area. 

Water research is a third example where basic materials science 

is needed. Water and energy are deeply interrelated. Cooling in 

power plants, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum refining, biofuel production account for the majority of water withdrawals and, conversely, water treatment and distribution represents large consumers of electricity. This water-energy interdependence is leading 

materials scientists to work on devising new membranes, sorbents, 

sensors, catalysts and surface treatments to enable step change in 

improvements in energy-water systems. 

Across the lab complex, the commitment to materials science 

breakthrough means using every specialized tool at hand. At Argonne, we leverage the high-energy x-rays of the advanced photon 

source to see materials at the atomic level and the computing 

power of the Leadership Computing Facility for Materials Characterization and Simulation. Upgrades underway at each of these facilities will serve to increase their power. 

So in summary, DOE labs are an enormous asset in pursuing the 

broad spectrum of materials science and engineering research. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this topic, and of 

course will answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tirrell follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Tirrell. 

Dr. Locascio, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. LAURIE LOCASCIO, 

ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR LABORATORY PROGRAMS AND DIRECTOR, 

MATERIAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. LOCASCIO. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Members Lipinski and Veasey, and Members of the 

Committees, thank you for the opportunity to discuss NIST’s role 

in enabling advances in materials that strengthen U.S. innovation 

and industrial competitiveness. 

NIST has helped entire industries overcome intractable challenges by measuring materials with ever-increasing precision and 

characterizing new materials for the very first time. We help American manufacturers be more competitive by enabling development 

and testing of materials that perform far better than previous generations. 

Great leaps in our quality of life are linked to great links in the 

performance of materials. For example, prosthetics and medical implants, once limited to ceramic and steel and harvested bone, are 

now made from titanium and polymers and composites. They are 

stronger, lighter and more functional, helping more people return 

to work and live active lives. 

NIST has been an essential partner to industry in supporting the 

traditional approach to materials discovery. For example, we have 

helped the U.S. semiconductor industry, which generates $166 billion in global sales, overcome measurement and material limits to 

making the smaller, faster chips that the market demands. But 

traditional materials discovery requires costly trial-and-error cycles. In a new paradigm, NIST supports the use of data and models 

to simulate materials and predict their performance before spending the money to make them. This approach is called materials by 

design. GE used materials by design to make new alloys for jet engines in nine years instead of the typical 15 to 20, and the metal 

in Apple watches was developed and deployed to market in just two 

years using this approach. 

Materials by design is such a game changer that it became a national priority in 2011 with the Materials Genome Initiative. The 

MGI, as it is known, benefits nearly all economic sectors from the 

chemical industry to electronics, communications, and biotechnology. The MGI is a partnership among 18 federal agencies, 

including some in the Department of Energy and Defense, along 

with NASA and NIST. 

NIST supports the MGI with new modeling and experimental capabilities, along with materials data. For example, the Materials 

Resource Registry is like an online Yellow Pages for materials by 

design, enabling in-depth, worldwide searches of data collections, 

computational services, and modeling software. In this registry, we 

collect and harvest public data from materials science programs in 

universities, industries, and government to create a valuable national resource, and with access to all this shared data, researchers 
30 

can more quickly design unique materials for the next great American breakthrough. 

To help create an ecosystem for MGI, NIST founded the Center 

for Hierarchal Materials Design, or ChiMaD, a consortium led by 

Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and Argonne 

National Lab. ChiMaD and NIST together are building tools to 

support the MGI nationally while advancing technologies that the 

institute cares about, like 2D electronics and more efficient jet engines. Thanks to the support of Congress, materials by design is 

gaining ground across the entire U.S. materials science enterprise. 

Why is an agency like NIST doing this work? We see ourselves 

as industry’s national lab, a well-respected, trusted, non-regulatory 

scientific agency that forms strong partnerships with industry to 

tackle critical national needs. Other countries are investing in their 

own MGI-like initiatives. The U.S. faces ever-increasing competition in this space. We are still the ones to beat, but we need continued coordination and support among all the players across many 

sectors to retain this lead. 

We greatly appreciate the Members of these Committees and others in Congress for the support of federal acceleration of the innovations in materials science that keep our nation globally competitive and secure and contribute to our quality of life. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Locascio follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Schwartz, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ADAM SCHWARTZ, 

DIRECTOR, AMES LABORATORY 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. Good morning. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman 

Comstock, Ranking Members Veasey and Lipinski, and Members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 

hearing, and thank you for your continued strong support of materials research. 

The United States is the world leader in materials science, condensed-matter physics, and chemistry research. Federally funded 

research has created an innovation system unmatched anywhere 

including the private sector. Our leadership is due in large part to 

governmental science funding across the continuum from grand 

challenge and use-inspired basic research to applied research and 

technology deployment. As a country, we’ve reaped tremendous 

benefits in the economics, energy security, national security, and 

our quality of living. The United States leads in discovering and 

applying materials with novel properties. 

New materials discoveries enabled by basic research at our national laboratories and universities have significant economic and 

societal impacts on our everyday lives. Consider your smart phone, 

tablet or almost any other consumer electronic device. Ames National Laboratory and Sandi National Laboratories collaborated to 

create a lead-free, environmentally friendly replacement for leadbased solder. This advanced alloy was ultimately licensed to over 

65 companies in 23 countries with an economic benefit to the private sector estimated at $610 million per year. 

New and experimental—new experimental and computational capabilities developed from sustained federal investment in a talented and dedicated scientific workforce have accelerated the pace 

of discovery of novel materials. We can now design and create materials tailored for some specific purposes and soon will be able to 

do so much more broadly if appropriate research continues. 

Great opportunities abound for new materials to impact our 

world. LED lighting transformed a century-old light bulb industry 

that hadn’t advanced since Edison. Research to replace the current 

100-year-old compressed-vapor refrigeration with solid-state magnetic technologies enabled by new materials could potentially reduce our energy consumption by one-quarter and have transformative impacts. 

An amazing opportunity also exists in information technology. 

For decades in the computer industry, the density, speed and computational power of integrated circuits have increased exponentially over time as predicted by Moore’s Law but we’re fasting approaching the theoretical limits of processor materials. To go beyond Moore Computing, research is needed to create new quantum 

materials that use less energy and provide computing power beyond today’s approaches with conventional silicon chips. 

Tremendous opportunities exist in additive manufacturing, or 3D 

printing of metals to fabricate parts for the military, biomedical, 

and aerospace industries. Currently, progress is constrained by a 

lack of fundamental understanding and control of kinetic processes 
40 

as well as a lack of suitable metal powders. Collaborations between 

Ames and other laboratories are pooling their expertise to meet 

these needs, establishing U.S. leadership in a fast-growing industry. 

The biggest challenge facing U.S. materials research right now is 

maintaining our global competitive edge. The rest of the world is 

catching up. Countries like China, South Korea and India are investing increasing percentages of their GDP in materials research 

and our global competitive advantage in this key enabling science 

is under threat. Will the United States be the first to invent the 

next catalyst and in a $30 billion petrochemical industry, discover 

the material that will replace traditional semiconductors in the 

$350 billion electronics industry, or provide options for the next 

critical material on which our military systems depend? The private sector cannot do this by itself. 

Federally funded research enables world-changing materials advances like the ability to address critical material shortages 

through the basic research provided by the Critical Materials Institute and the ability to design and create new materials to revolutionize the electronics, lighting, refrigeration and air conditioning 

industries, among many other manufacturing sectors. The key to 

future success is sustained research on fundamental principles and 

the resulting discovery of advanced materials. 

Ames Laboratory, like other national laboratories and research 

universities, is on the cusp of great materials discoveries that will 

further the nation’s economic, energy and national security interests but we need your continued support and resources to meet our 

mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and again, thank 

you for your consistent support of materials research. This Committee’s leadership has paved the way for remarkable innovations. 

I’d be happy to address any questions or provide additional information. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Schwartz. 

Dr. Higgs, I recognize you for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED HIGGS, 

JOHN AND ANN DOERR PROFESSOR 

OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, 

RICE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. HIGGS. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking 

Members Veasey and Lipinski, and other Committee Members, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittees. As 

the John and Ann Doerr Professor of Mechanical Engineering and 

the Faculty Director for the Rice Center for Engineering Leadership at Rice University, I am excited about this opportunity to provide this testimony today. 

Today I’m here to discuss the broad economic impact of materials 

science on the nation and the need for America to invest big in 

basic science in this area and other fields of engineering, which are 

catapulted forward by materials advances. 

Whenever you see a new flurry of research activity or new radically high-performing technologies, this is almost always related to 

some type of material advancing or technology deployment that finally figured out how to use a cutting-edge material which was discovered by basic science research no less than a decade ago. 

Today I’ll discuss new material advancements, science competitions, and industry lab partnerships. 

New materials can improve the safety and environmental impact 

of energy production technologies. In terms of oil and gas drilling, 

the development of effective, environmentally friendly additives 

and drilling mud may enable more efficient cooling, lubrication and 

rock cutting removal from the drill-rock interface. More efficient 

and environmentally safe extraction processes allow workers to 

have less exposure to dangerous activities as well. Material advancements can reduce the impact that energy production processes such as coal and natural gas combustion have on our environment. 

There are also technological benefits of material advancements in 

orthopedic medicine. Advanced coating such as nanocrystalline diamond are very robust and compatible with the human body. 

There are technological benefits of material advancements in 

transportation. Tire rolling, resistance and high traction compete to 

hinder fuel performance. Basic science involving nanomaterials are 

expected to improve tire performance and are expected to save 

maybe $35 million barrels of oil annually. 

There are technological benefits of material advancements in 

manufacturing, particularly additive manufacturing, which most 

here may know as 3D printing, as you heard my predecessor say. 

More advanced innovations such as composite materials and greater materials remain underdeveloped. 3D printers are also super 

slow and cannot speed up until fundamental material science questions are answered. 

I would like to address another point: crowdsourced-based 

science prize competitions. One of the new successful strategies for 

inspiring open innovation and accomplishing idea mining is science 

prize competitions. While these can be exciting, as my team has 
51 

competed in them, the potential loss of university IP can in some 

cases be in danger when the fine print of such competitions re by 

entering this competition, we can use your ideas without permission whether you win or lose. Normally those are industry-based 

competitions. The Committee should employ careful oversight of 

the non-defense agencies’ ability to initiate competitions that university researchers perceive as exploitive. 

In terms of the merits of university-lab partnerships, government 

labs serve many noble purposes for our nation from an academic 

viewpoint. First, they provide our government with research capacity and the personnel and equipment infrastructure to tackle the 

nation’s most pressing problems. Second, they provide a rich research ecosystem of researchers who care about the science of discovery divorced from the pressures of generating quarterly profits, 

and third, they provide collaborative resources in terms of intellectual capital, equipment and mentorship for young researchers. I 

work with different agencies and labs such as NASA Glenn and 

NETL. I can honestly say that just like many of my other colleagues who work with government labs, their support of our research has been pivotal in helping people like me mature from a 

young professor into a leader in my field. Federal labs have even 

provided guidance to startup companies such as my own NSF-funded SBIR company, InnovAlgae. DOE labs such as Inrel have advised us of the best path toward technology validation including 

connecting us to industrial partners that could benefit commercialization efforts. 

There are also merits in university-company partnerships. A seasoned researcher at a Fortune 500 company once said to me universities use money to create knowledge but companies use knowledge 

to generate money, but these days, many companies are desperately looking for Ph.D.’s to hire from universities and yet they 

spend no money supporting university research. A perfect storm is 

being set up where companies expect Ph.D.’s to just magically be 

output without anyone making an investment input. Meanwhile, 

other countries in Asia and Europe are strategic, creating a Ph.D. 

investment training and hiring cycle that has catapulting their nations over America, the country I so dearly love. It would be a 

game changer if companies tax-incentivized to invest seed money 

into university-based research. 

And I leave you with the final recommendation for supporting 

basic research. If Congress were to inject new funds into NSF to 

increase the number of graduate fellowships from just a factor of 

two from 2,000 to 4,000, it would be a big game changer in terms 

of supporting basic research. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Higgs follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Higgs. The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Tirrell, your written testimony touches on an important quality of the national labs: the core capabilities and user facilities that 

allow a single researcher to use a number of tools at a single lab 

to make a scientific discovery. What steps could the department 

take to better streamline access for those researchers across the lab 

complex? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Thank you. Well, I think we at Argonne have several major research facilities, as you alluded to, in x-ray scattering 

and in computation, also the Center for Nanoscale Materials. What 

is really important is the staff scientists that staff those facilities 

because users often come with an idea of how to—of what they 

want to do but not necessarily how to do it with our facilities. So 

we need experts on site really to try to make the time that they 

have on the instrument which sometimes is 24 hours, and it can 

go from, you know, straight 24 hours the most effective. So you can 

get there, get in and get out with the results that you need. But 

that requires dedicated and really knowledgeable staff. I think that 

might be the principal thing that I would suggest. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. So we have to schedule facility upgrades like the Advanced Photon Source. How important are those 

upgrades for providing the tools needed for the materials research 

community? 

Dr. TIRRELL. There’s nothing more important than the upgrade 

to the Advanced Photon Source, both for Argonne or for the x-ray 

scattering community in the United States. It’s really the only 

state-of-the-art hard x-ray, meaning high-energy x-ray, facility in 

the United States that can do certain things, and many other countries are investing but what we need is a facility that U.S. scientists can access most effectively. 

Chairman WEBER. Do you know where we are on that scheduled 

timeline? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Well, a lot of that depends upon the rate of funding. 

Right now, we would have, I believe—I hope I don’t misstate it but 

roughly dark time, meaning that the equipment would be installed—the new equipment would be installed in fiscal 2020 and 

then come up for operation later in fiscal 2023. If the funding that’s 

proposed now is maintained, this could be delayed by a year or 

more, so that’s the kind of time scale that we’re talking about, and 

the implications of the funding profile. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. Schwartz, this question is for you. In your prepared testimony, you talked about a project currently underway at Ames Lab 

using caloric materials to improve the efficiency of heating and air 

conditioning and refrigeration. Could you describe what these materials are and how they may change the industry for us? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. Okay. I’ll try and make this relatively quick and 

simple. Caloric materials are a type of material that when you 

apply a field, a magnetic field, an electric field or a stress field, 

there is an internal change in the structure that creates a significant temperature change. So now you can imagine having a closed 

system where you have a warm fluid coming in, you have your 

magnetocaloric material, for example. You apply a field. It changes 
63 

the temperature. It cools that fluid coming by and you have a refrigeration system. It won’t use greenhouse gases. It will be environmentally friendly, and if constructed with affordable, Earthabundant, easily manufacturable materials, it could potentially 

transform the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. 

Chairman WEBER. How do you move that fluid? You know, you 

use a compressor to remove refrigerant that change the state twice 

in the typical refrigeration system, so how are you moving that 

fluid? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. I think that would be the same way. You’d have 

a pumping system that would either bring in the air or the liquid 

over top of the caloric material. 

Chairman WEBER. So instead of a compressor that compresses 

refrigerant from a loosely packed gas into tightly packed liquid and 

diffuse it through a metering device and it sprays out and has a 

temperature drop, pressure drop and it picks up heat there, is 

there a metering device? I don’t know how much work you all have 

done on this. This is fascinating to me. In fact, what time is it? We 

may be here for a day or two. So is there a metering device in this 

system? How do you get this corresponding temperature and pressure drop in that system? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. So our research is focused primarily on discovering new materials in order to enable this technology to go forward. And I’d like to point out that the first material of this type 

was really invented at Ames Laboratory about 20 years ago. Research was funded through basic energy sciences as it had been for 

some time before that. After the discovery of this material, it 

wasn’t long before industry said hey, we got this, were going to 

make something good out of it. As a result, basic energy science 

has said okay, industry’s got it, that’s out of our realm, we’re not 

going to fund that anymore. Well, 20 years has gone by and industry has not been able to pick up that technology because of the inability to do the basic materials research and enable that amazing 

new material technology to be implemented into something as 

impactful as revolutionizing the air conditioning and refrigeration 

industry. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, the fact that it’s 20 to 25 percent of energy consumption, as was pointed out, you know, is a pretty astounding figure, and we could go on for a long time, but I’m going 

to go ahead and—who am I yielding to? Marc has left, so I guess, 

Daniel, you’re up next. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start out with Dr. Tirrell. Argonne is home to the Energy Innovation Hub called the Joint Center for Energy Storage 

Research, more commonly known as JCESR. It had great success 

since 2012, but the Trump budget proposes to eliminate it. 

So I wanted to ask you what would the consequences of eliminating this Energy Innovation Hub be, and would private sector be 

likely to pick up this work? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Thank you. Well I think it would—the cutting of 

JCESR would leave a lot of very promising research results on the 

table without further development. There have been industry involved in JCESR, Johnson Controls, for example, which is the largest battery manufacturer. But again, it could be a situation such 
64 

as Dr. Schwartz described where while the technology is promising, 

it’s not really sufficiently developed that a company is able to take 

it over. 

Having said that, it’s conceivable that there would be ways for 

the Office of Science to continue its investment in energy storage 

research at Argonne and elsewhere in the DOE complex. So we 

don’t view it as a great thing that JCESR may be coming to an 

end, but I think that it has already produced a wealth of results 

that can be followed up on if additional investments are made. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, we have to—I think we need to fight here in 

Congress to make sure that we don’t defund these Energy Innovation Hubs for what they are doing, where they have gotten so far 

in the research and development. 

But I think that really leads me to my second question for Dr. 

Schwartz first and then Dr. Tirrell. There’s this false boundary 

that’s being claimed between basic research and applied research, 

and saying well the federal government—some will say the federal 

government should only be involved in basic research and not applied research. I don’t think that there really is a neat divide here, 

and Dr. Schwartz, you mentioned in your testimony your concerns 

about so much that would not be done if the federal government 

just got out of the development part of the R&D research and development sphere. 

Can you tell me why that is and why the government needs to 

be involved in the development? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. There is a common view that research from grand 

challenge and basic science is just a continuum, and that once you 

start on that path of understanding, that that’s going to take you 

to the logical conclusion that could ultimately be commercialized. 

In my experience, I have never seen anything like that. We make 

progress in one area that opens up new doors. We might explore 

that path and then have to come back, so there’s the pipeline model 

of technology development that only applicable a few percent of the 

time. There’s another model that shows more of a feedback loop 

where instead of having just one valley of death in the commercialization of a product, you actually have two. One is taking a look 

at the feasibility of the product or of the material, and of course, 

the second is the late stage, being able to scale up and commercialize it. It is not a linear path between discovery and implementation. Sometimes, like the case of the caloric materials that I just 

talked about, it looked like it was promising but no one had done 

the full development of the materials to make that feasible as a 

commercially available material. 

So the feedback loop happened. The material was discovered. Industry thought they were going to pick it up, were not able to or 

chose not to invest as much as they needed to to get that product 

available, and then now energy efficiency and renewable energy, 

through one of its recent energy materials networks, has picked up 

that research again to do the foundational science required to create the new materials that will enable this technology. 

Thank you for your question. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Tirrell, anything briefly you want to add? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yes. Certainly I agree with the premise of your 

question and some of the things that Dr. Schwartz said. I used the 
65 

terms iterative and cyclic and non-linear a couple of times in my 

own testimony. 

One thing I point to is the Office of Science Basic Research 

Needs workshops—there’s brochures about them out in the hallway—where the Office of Science tries to define important basic research in quantum computing, in water, in synthesis, based on 

what’s needed to carry these things forward into practical technology. So I think we all recognize this interplay between basic and 

applied research, even just as an intellectual thing in addition to 

its practical implications. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dan, I appreciate that. And I do 

want to add, though, that we did—House did pass H.R. 589, the 

Energy Innovation Program, where all of those hubs are actually 

authorized, and unfortunately it’s sitting over in the Senate and we 

just hope the Senate has enough energy to get something done. Did 

I say that out loud? 

I now recognize Barbara Comstock for five minutes. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. I don’t have a Madonna quote. I’m speechless. 

Dr. Locascio, how does a prize competition like the Head Health 

Challenge promote the development of new materials, and what did 

NIST learn from participating in this prize challenge? 

Dr. LOCASCIO. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about 

that. The prize challenge really is just one tool in our tool kit to 

leverage federal dollars against private sector dollars, and I think 

it’s an extraordinarily effective way to do that, and also to pull in 

people into an important national problem that may not have been 

aware of or how to get involved. And so I think the prize challenge 

that we conducted with Head Health, it’s a partnership between 

NFL and NIST and GE and Under Armour, has been very successful in attracting new people into the problem associated with public 

safety, and in particular, protective gear. 

For instance, we had people competing in the prize challenge 

who presented new materials that were additively manufactured or 

prepared in the laboratory that were responsive materials or new 

types of materials made with new processes that had never thought 

before about using them and harnessing that activity for protective 

gear. 

So I think one advantage is really being able to attract new people to these new national problems, and our role there is really to 

help conduct an unbiased and fair competition, and we were able 

to leverage testing equipment that we already had developed for 

the purpose of testing headgear for war fighters, and used that to 

conduct these tests. And in the same time, push forward our capabilities even further into new realms to test these types of materials. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. And how—and maybe some of the others can 

add to this, too. How can you—how can we develop more of those 

partnerships like that, because I think the synergy is there. The relationships really cross over so many different disciplines. It’s really exciting. You’re getting a lot of different partners who have a lot 

of different interests in this. So how can we build on that model 

and find some other areas, and what are some other examples that 

we might pursue in this area? 
66 

Dr. LOCASCIO. So I’ll perhaps start and let others chime in, but 

we’ve learned a lot from NASA, who was conducting prize challenges about how to leverage the external community and attract 

them into these types of prizes. 

This was the first one that NIST had conducted and the first one 

the Department of Commerce had conducted, and we’ve gotten so 

much out of it that we currently have several others in the pipeline, current prize challenges that are being awarded soon. 

Dr. HIGGS. So I’ve been actually—I’ve been on the side that actually is the competitors for these different challenges, and I do 

admit that when these challenges come out, my students and I, you 

know, all want to be competitors in some sense, maybe athletes or 

something, and we see that as our opportunity as researchers to 

compete, and we always think we’re going to win, of course. But 

these, you know, competitions have a really good basis for being 

able to generate ideas and things, and we love it when the government labs are involved with doing these as well. 

Certainly, we would just caution that, you know, sometimes 

when industry is involved with these competitions, they—I’ve been 

with several colleagues and you write a proposal and at the end of 

it, it will say any idea that you submit, we can actually take. 

You’re giving up your rights to that particular situation. So I would 

just say make sure there’s oversight, certainly, when there’s industry there, because we don’t want an awesome idea to be used as 

a way to backdoor and take IP from universities that could generate revenues to do other important things with basic science. 

So love the competitions, but we’ll just say some oversight when 

the industry is involved, making sure that IP is not given up in the 

wrong way. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank the gentlelady, and Mr. Veasey, you 

are now recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for Dr. 

Schwartz. 

Dr. Schwartz, in the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, Ames Laboratory did not fare well. If this budget were enacted, it looks like 

your capabilities and scientific workforce would be decimated. I 

was wondering if you could lay out the consequences of this budget 

proposal for Ames Laboratory, and if enacted, do you have an estimate for how this would impact your workforce? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you for your question. The proposed budget that I’ve seen for Ames Laboratory proposes a 58 percent decrease in the budget between the fiscal year 2018 request and the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted. Clearly, a 58 percent decrease in the overall budget is going to have an impact on our staff, and it is also 

going to have an impact on our ability to meet our mission to create materials and energy solutions. 

Mr. VEASEY. How would this budget proposal impact materials 

research at Ames and, you know, largely how would it affect it in 

the U.S. as well? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. The work that is going on at Ames Laboratory, 

other national laboratories, universities, NIST is successful because 

of the long-term sustained federal investment. Science is something 
67 

that progresses continuously, sometimes quickly. More often, not so 

quickly. Interruptions to that flow of science would be significant. 

Decreases in scientific staffs at the national laboratories certainly 

slows down projects, if not stops them. It makes it more difficult 

to pick it up. 

In addition, the potential decrease in funding in the materials 

areas sends a message to high school students, college students, 

early career researchers at universities, and assistant professors, 

and I’m not sure that’s a message that we want to send. Materials 

research has been demonstrated to provide economic value, energy 

security value, national security value. I would like to see that 

progress continue at a rapid pace. 

Mr. VEASEY. This is sort of regarding the first question I’d asked 

you about your workforce. Could you be specific about exactly how 

many people would be laid off or what numbers your workforce 

would be reduced with these budget cuts? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. We have done an estimate based on that 58 percent decrease from the ’18 proposed to the ’16 enacted budget, and 

assuming that we do not use funds that are carried over from existing what we have now, we’re looking at a decrease in the overall 

staff approaching 40 percent. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much. 

This message is for Dr. Tirrell. I know that the drastic cuts proposed to the budget would have major consequences for our Argonne National Laboratory. I was wondering if you could also walk 

us through the impacts that this budget proposal would have on 

the capabilities and workforce of Argonne if it were enacted. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yes. Obviously if those cuts are enacted, the capabilities in the spirit of Chairman Weber’s question about how we 

could staff user facilities may be affected. Cuts will affect our capabilities and workforce. Partly as a measure to protect morale, we 

haven’t made public statements of, you know, exact estimates because we don’t know for sure what’s going to happen. There was 

a, you know, a business newspaper in Chicago that suggested that 

the cuts would be something like 700 combined across Argonne and 

Fermi lab, but that’s an independent estimate that we are not part 

of. But clearly, it will impact our capabilities and workforce. 

And you know, a thing that’s important to recognize, and it’s true 

of national labs, university labs, and industrial labs, they’re much 

easier to tear down than they are to build back up after that, so 

it’s an important step to think about. 

Mr. VEASEY. And also I wanted to just ask you specifically about 

your portfolio of material research at Argonne. Can you just very 

quickly say how that would be impacted? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Well as I mentioned in my own testimony, we do 

span in several areas such as energy storage from electro chemistry 

to battery prototypes. As I understand, the budget proposal would 

be hit more heavily on the applied end of that, so how well we 

could get things to the point that the commercial implementation, 

I think, would be the place where the pressure would be applied 

by these budget cuts. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Dr. Tirrell. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my balance of the time. 
68 

Chairman WEBER. All right, thank you, Mr. Veasey. We now recognize Mr. Dunn for five minutes. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you, Chairman Weber. Good morning to the 

panel. My name is Neal Dunn. I’m a medical doctor recently turned 

Congressman from Florida, so the chance to listen to so many great 

scientists is a real pleasure for me. This is my only dose of science 

I get, really, up here in Washington, so thank you very much. 

In our district, we have Florida State University, one of the preeminent research universities in the country. We have a new material science and engineering program there that is rather large, but 

perhaps most famously includes the National High Field Magnetic 

Lab. I suspect maybe you collaborated with them from time to 

time, and I’d like you to keep that in mind as I make the comments 

and ask my questions. 

I’d like to start with Dr. Higgs. First, Dr. Higgs, I want to encourage you to think of your sojourn in Texas as temporary. I know 

that—— 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DUNN. The sugar white sands are calling to you even as we 

speak. 

You actually said something very important, especially in this 

time of compressed budgets, and it was about the university IP. So 

historically, I think universities, as you say, they turn money into 

knowledge and they may spend $100 million in a year and then on 

royalties they’ll get $1 million back. Well that’s a very poor return 

on investment. I think we all recognize that. Now there’s many 

universities, I’m sure some of the leading ones that you deal with 

have adopted newer techniques, but it’s important, I think, that we 

push this out into the labs as well, these partnerships, because 

you’re right. Your faculty and your post-grad students take with 

them IP into the private sector, and they try to monetize that. And 

I think we can keep them in the faculty, keep them in the labs— 

your labs if we share the IP, the ownership of the IP in a more intelligent fashion. I think you’re doing that. Am I right? Answer 

that, Dr. Higgs. It sounded like you have some familiarity with 

how to parcel out the IP—the rights of the IP so that you kept the 

talent and the ideas still got to market. 

Dr. HIGGS. Right, good question. 

So first of all, I want to say I’m originally from Tallahassee, Florida, so your district, and I did participate in pre-college engineering 

programs that motivated me to pursue a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. It was at the Florida State University and Florida A&M 

University, minority introduction to engineering. 

Mr. DUNN. Come on back. The water’s fine. 

Dr. HIGGS. Right. It was at this program where I had the sophistication to realize that a terminal degree was the way to go, so I 

thank your district for supporting young dreamers like me. 

Certainly we, you know, we have a responsibility to our employer, the university, that whenever we generate an idea that the 

idea belongs to them because of the Bair-Dole Act, and—but we are 

really most interested in working in basic science. But we’re in a 

capitalistic society, so these things have to be funded. And you’re 

right, some companies fund us and we do the research. The companies will ultimately get our students there. The IP that’s in the 
69 

university, the whole goal of it is to actually get into the market 

to help—— 

Mr. DUNN. Chairman Weber is going to cut us off quickly, so I’m 

going to say that I encourage all of you to think of it as public-private partnerships and really help—that helps monetize your lab— 

monetize the ideas, but also keep the people in your lab where you 

want them. 

Dr. Schwartz, regarding your caloric material on refrigeration. 

You have a cooling source we have in Tallahassee a company that 

manufactures a frictionless bearing. It’s a magnetic bearing, no lubrication, and they turn in 20, 25 percent savings on industrial 

HVAC units. I think, you know, we’ve got a marriage here. I’m 

playing matchmaker. So I think you’ve got—you put those two 

things together. Somebody removed the fluid or the air in Tallahassee. In fact, my staff will no doubt share with you the name of that 

company so that you can work with them. 

In the 30 seconds remaining to me, Dr. Locascio, how do you define success when you’re looking at grant applications? What 

makes you find a great grant? 

Dr. LOCASCIO. So we go through a peer review process for all of 

our grants. It’s a very well-structured process, and it’s pretty common across—— 

Mr. DUNN. There’s no hook right now? You’re in a low monetary 

budget kind of finance. What do you do? What are you looking for? 

Dr. LOCASCIO. Oh, how are we pursuing grants? Are we going to 

continue to pursue grants? 

Mr. DUNN. Well, our time expired, but—and I’ve already tested 

the Chairman’s patience, so—— 

Chairman WEBER. No, go ahead. I’m interested in her answer. 

Dr. LOCASCIO. So we will continue to put out grants to universities. Obviously, we’ve had very hard decisions to make as well 

with regard to the budget, but one of the things that we’ve thought 

about is really protecting the future. And protecting the future 

means also protecting our abilities to do the greatest advances in 

measurement science that you can possibly do. And that honestly 

requires the universities. We have to collaborate with the smartest 

minds in the United States and pair them with the smartest minds 

in the federal government, and we do that to great benefit. So we’ll 

continue to put out grants. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. You bet. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster for five minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I return to 

this—today’s symposium theme on magnetocaloric refrigeration, I 

would like to make just a few comments about, you know, the elephant in the room here which is the proposed draconian budget 

cuts to the entire laboratory system. 

Earlier this month I was joined by 55 of my colleagues in sending 

a letter to the heads of all seven science agencies, asking about the 

impact of our Republican President’s budget request on jobs, not 

only at our national laboratories, but at our universities that rely 

on federal funding to train the next generation of scientists. We 

have yet to receive any response to this, and I think that, you 

know, despite the risks that have been mentioned to the morale of 
70 

everyone involved, I think it’s important that we look this dragon 

in the eye and make sure that all Members of Congress who claim 

that they support science speak up at times when science funding 

is at this kind of threat. 

So without objection, I ask unanimous consent to submit this letter to the record. 

Chairman WEBER. So ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix I] 

Mr. FOSTER. Now to get back to the fun stuff. 

Materials science, you know, like many other disciplines, has 

benefited very greatly from R&D funding. And so actually, I’ll return to Dr. Schwartz for a second, despite the fact that you do 

not—you’re not part of my constituency as Dr. Tirrell is. 

You know, you mentioned a 40 percent—40 percent is a rough estimate for the layoffs. When that sort of thing happens to a technical staff, if future administration or future Congress decided to 

just restore that, can you just throw a switch and immediately regrow the technical expertise that’s been lost, or is it more complicated than that? 

Dr. TIRRELL. I think it would be much more complicated than 

that. Scientists who either choose or are forced to leave their jobs 

will look for others. I don’t believe that private industry is going 

to be able to pick up all the researchers that would become available through this budget. They would then search to change their 

fields. We have many researchers at Ames Laboratory and across 

the National Laboratories system who have come from foreign 

countries. There would be a significant risk that many of those scientists would return to their home countries. They would take their 

education, their experience, all of the investment that we have 

placed in them, free of charge, back to their country. Right now, 

we are trying to extend our global leadership in materials research. 

I think slowing down that progress and then restarting it later 

would be quite a challenge. 

Mr. FOSTER. And is—maybe someone else on the panel could 

comment on the effect that that would have on the morale of 

younger students coming into the field or post-docs coming into the 

field when they see, you know, massive layoffs in their often very 

focused field of expertise? Dr. Higgs? 

Dr. HIGGS. Well that’s what my notes were actually saying. 

That’s a very perceptive question. I mean, if you think of a lab like, 

say, Ames or Argonne in particular, Argonne has some—in my 

area, they have some very prominent tribologists, and essentially 

what happens is if the tribologist is just a little known, once they 

are removed and someone says hey, you know, this particular scientist no longer has a job, then the entire community goes what 

does this mean for tribology? Should we all try to head for Silicon 

Valley? Should we all do something with the right now implication 

as opposed to a long-term implication, which is what research 

science has? And then the younger students, we have to give a 

speech to encourage them to stay the course, but yet we’re uncertain as well. 

So definitely, even though we’re in a university environment, 

whenever there’s a cut to a prominent area or prominent scientist, 

once they’re removed from the equation, there’s a lot of questions 
71 

that we have to answer as academicians and the students are asking about that. Excitement and morale definitely takes a hit. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. I think that’s a very important thing for 

Congress to understand, that this is not at all like, say, starting 

and stopping a highway construction project. You can’t just throw 

the switch and recover the damage that was done. 

Sorry. Now let’s see. I have a little bit of time left, so I’m going 

to return to magnetocaloric refrigeration. It’s my understanding 

that the fluid—the working fluid that’s here is largely just a heat 

transfer fluid. There’s no phase change involved, and the compressors involved are a small fraction of the total power to do—perform 

the refrigeration. Is that a correct understanding, or is it more subtle than that? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. There are lots of details on how you would implement a solid state magnetic or electric or stress-induced cooling 

system. Our focus right now is the very, very early stages. Can we 

develop the materials in order to—that demonstrate, that have 

those large temperature change. At that point, we will turn it over 

to our mechanical engineering friends who will then design the system, optimize the fluid flow, heat transfer, and others. Right now, 

our focus is really on creating those materials that will enable the 

transformation in air conditioning and refrigeration. 

Mr. FOSTER. And the rest of the problem, just the getting the 

heat transfer fluid across the plates or whatever they are, is a— 

it’s closer to being a solved problem and an engineering optimization. The magic is the material that you have to make work and 

at high efficiency, high lifetimes, all the challenges? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay, good luck. I really look forward to having refrigerators that don’t rattle in the middle of the night. 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. And last much longer. Thank you for your question. 

Chairman WEBER. If you’ll quit getting snacks out of the doors 

at midnight, then you won’t hear that rattling. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall for five minutes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Both Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Higgs mentioned 3D printers. Chairman Lamar Smith and I recently got to go to Wichita State University and see the largest 3D printer in the world, about 1/3 the size 

of this room, and we’d love to invite you all to come see what 

they’re doing there on their innovation center, always believe it’s 

opportunities to promote each other and work together. 

I should ask Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Higgs both what they see— 

what’s next for 3D printers, specifically, you know, what’s going to 

be a game changer? What type of more viable mass do we need? 

What do you see next for 3D printers? Dr. Higgs, do you want to 

go first? 

Dr. HIGGS. Very good. Thank you for the question. 

I mean, definitely if you think about it, when you look at Star 

Trek you don’t see really big engineering manufacturing labs. You 

just see something very small, and they ask for the product to be 

developed. And so that’s kind of where attitude would have to hit. 

So you would want essentially to be able to additively manufacture 

anything, and that means that you have to be able to work with 
72 

multiple materials. Right now you see a beautiful 3D printer, but 

it only prints a limited amount of, say, materials that are there. 

So this big one that you talked about is probably a metal printer, 

and if it is, it’s a limited set of materials. But if you want to print 

something that’s, say, biocompatible, then you may not be able to 

use steel or gold or something like that, and so you need to be able 

to change out the different materials. If you want them additive, 

you can build them part by part. You want the mechanical properties to change as you want them to, then that means you have 

to have a functionally graded material, which means that it may 

start one mechanical property at one end, and be another at the 

other end. Right now that can’t be done, and so there’s some important material science questions that have to be answered. 

But the point is that you want to print anything as you want as 

it could occur. Additive can do that in principle, but the basic 

science questions have to be answered to unveil that to the society. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Dr. Schwartz, anything to add? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. That’s an excellent question, and to me, the key 

to successful deployment of additive manufacturing in this growing 

industry in the U.S. is all about understanding the materials properties. Researchers have been trying to understand details of steel, 

aluminum, titanium alloys for decades, if not centuries, and they 

still don’t have full understanding. Now we want to make additively manufactured parts out of the same materials, but the process is so much different. The composition will change as you melt 

and re-melt as you make the powders. 

Right now, I believe the key is getting a fuller fundamental understanding of—starting at the very beginning, developing the 

metal powders. Without the metal powders, none of the metal additive manufacturing happens. Those powders have to be pure. They 

have to be spherical. They have to flow nicely. They have to have 

the right surface conditions, and all of this is based—we need that 

basic research understanding to get there. No one has ever looked 

at laser melting of particles in great detail. This is a brand new 

field. Ames Laboratory is working with SLAC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and using one of the national user facilities, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, in order to understand that the early stage materials melting and resolidification 

and development of that most important internal structure that’s 

going to control the properties. It’s a very exciting time. 

Mr. MARSHALL. It is. One of the exciting things I saw was they 

build you to take away from the product that it’s printing and telling the machine to maximize it, so they were doing wing replicas 

and trying to have a stronger wing for airplanes, for jets, but yet 

lighter, and to see that technology come forward. So it is very exciting as a physician to see what they’re doing in joints, to think that 

instead of having your choice of hip joints as small, medium, or 

large, you can actually make one that fits your joint is exciting. 

Last question for Dr. Higgs. I see that you won the NSF Career 

Award, so congratulations. Professors at Kansas State University, 

which is the champion of the Texas Football League this past year, 

having defeated—— 

Chairman WEBER. This gentleman’s time is also expired. 
73 

Mr. MARSHALL. —Texas A&M, TCU, and Texas Tech. Anyway, 

professors at Kansas State University, Wichita State University, 

and University of Kansas have all won that recently. Tell us a little 

bit about that and what you’re doing with that foundation grant, 

please. 

Dr. HIGGS. Very good. So I had an NSF Career Award. It’s supposedly given to the nation’s youngest—best young researchers. 

And I do want to say that the research from that, which was actually to develop slurry technology, was about five years after that 

grant. It became an NSF SBIR company, InnovAlgae, that I now 

have. And so it’s making it back up to the marketplace because of 

the basic science research that’s now translated into a small company. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bonamici is 

recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to all of the witnesses for being here today. 

I want to start by aligning myself with Dr. Foster’s comments 

about education and the message that these budgets cuts send, 

both to students who are contemplating graduate school or students who are in undergraduate trying to decide their career path. 

I just came from the Education and Workforce Committee on which 

I serve, and have as a priority wanted to make sure that we are 

educating people here in the United States for the jobs of tomorrow. I am very concerned about the sort of shift in the message 

that we’re sending. 

There was a time when federal funding for research and development was growing and graduate students were optimistic about careers in research. We need to get back to that message to our students and our potential new scientists across the country, and I’m 

very concerned about that, and our leadership. And I just point out 

as one recent—very recent example that disappointing decision to 

exit the Paris Climate Accord, and then immediately France started recruiting our scientists. We need to have U.S. leadership here 

and maintain that leadership, and I’m, again, very, very concerned 

and share the concerns of others about what these budget cuts— 

what the message is to students and to the rest of the world. 

I’m—Congress really needs to think holistically and long-term 

about supporting the sciences. I’m concerned about multi-year 

projects which Mr. Foster mentioned, and I’ve heard from scientists 

in Oregon who are very concerned about the lasting effects of these 

cuts to their research, to the country, to our leadership, and the 

global community. 

Dr. Higgs, could you speak briefly about the concerns of your students when they’re considering continuing careers in research? 

How do you advise them about their future careers in light of these 

uncertainties and proposed budget cuts? And I do want to save 

time for another question. 

Dr. HIGGS. Very good question. So we definitely are always trying to aim them at going to academia, a government lab, or an industry. We would really like to work on basic science, because we 

know fundamentally that will translate into anything there, but 

you become more constrained as cuts come. Cuts usually—government cuts usually mean that basic science is out, so then we have 
74 

to work on some specific problem, and so then we become people 

who are out looking for funding all of the time, rather than educating, because we have these young, bright minds we really want 

to go through and get a Ph.D. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Absolutely. 

Dr. HIGGS. So we look at mentoring them. Government labs we 

work with, they also mentor our students as well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. We want them to get their Ph.D. and stay 

here. 

So in the President’s—this is Dr. Schwartz. In the President’s 

budget proposal, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would receive a 70 percent cut. The Renewable Energy and 

Sustainable Transportation portfolio, 70 percent reduction. Energy 

efficiency, 80 percent cut. This is concerning. Clean energy jobs are 

an important driver of our economy and the research helps advance 

these industries. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 

wind turbine service technicians—it’s one of the fastest growing occupations. Many of those jobs are in rural areas. How would these 

massive cuts to EERE affect materials research at your labs and 

in the clean energy industry, and how would they affect the growing—rapidly growing clean energy job sector? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. Specifically for Ames Laboratory, we have really 

four main projects that are funded through Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. The Critical Materials Institute, one of the four 

energy innovation hubs, a very important scientific endeavor, early 

stage basic research that is supplying critical options for the 

United States moving forward with regard to rare earths and other 

critical materials. 

Just last week the only mine in the United States that was producing rare earth materials was sold. We now have no capability 

to mine rare earths. That’s a big concern for me in terms of economics and in terms of national security. 

Another big project, the caloric materials consortium that we’ve 

spent a little time talking about today, that is also funded by 

EERE. The powder synthesis work that we are doing, trying to create optimized metallic powders to enable the 3D printing industry, 

that is also funded by EERE. All of those are in jeopardy if this 

budget goes through. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And in my remaining time, could you, Dr. 

Schwartz, address—the President’s budget declared some research 

at an early stage worthy of federal support, and other activities as 

later stage research that should be immediately eliminated, given 

that the private sector is supposedly better equipped to carry them 

out. I’m very concerned about this, because the Administration confirmed that they did not engage with the private sector. So in your 

experience, are the cuts proposed in the budget research areas—is 

the private sector willing to simply start funding if the federal government cuts these? 

Dr. SCHWARTZ. I shouldn’t be speaking for the private sector. I 

gave one example earlier of when Ames Laboratory developed a 

new material, industry says okay, we got it. They didn’t get it, and 

about 20 years later, we are reinvestigating. We are pursuing that 

path again. I am sure there are cases where private sector can pick 

some of it up. I don’t think that that’s going to be sufficient. 
75 

Ms. BONAMICI. I see that my time is expired, but I would like to 

follow up on that later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Mr. 

Webster, you are up for five minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus 

in on one thing, and that is a couple years ago there was sort of 

the storm of the century in the Northeast, and there was about $50 

billion it cost the federal government to pay for the damages that 

were done there. Also back a few years ago—I have relatives in 

Chicago and in Oakridge, and I’ve toured both the national laboratories there. It seems like maybe one, maybe both were working on 

some fiber for composite material that would be way less expensive 

than what it is at that time, and that was—I was interested mainly 

in the construction industry because of resilient construction. I’ve 

been trying for a few years here—I did finally get resilient construction defined, so now we have it defined, and yet I could see 

the real potential with composite materials and construction areas, 

not only from a light weight, but also a durability so that when we 

have these storms, you know, our loss may have been in the hundreds of millions, but not $50 billion. 

Could someone talk about—maybe Dr. Tirrell—of what’s going on 

at the national laboratories in that research area? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Thanks for that question. There’s—that’s one of 

many kinds of efforts in composite materials, some of which are 

based on additive manufacturing, some of which are based on new 

polymerization methods. Many of these things have organic plastic 

components to them. That’s where the light weight comes from. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Would that also—can I ask—— 

Dr. TIRRELL. Sure. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Would that facilitate using these 3D printers—— 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yeah. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yeah. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yeah, that’s what I was getting at, and I did—I 

wanted to say something earlier, too. I think there’s huge frontiers 

on 3D printing. As 3D printing developed, it really wasn’t 3D printing in a way. It was 2D printing over and over again. But now by 

the application of other kinds of fields of light and so on—I’m a 

polymer scientist myself, so I’m thinking more about the organic 

materials than the metals, but one can make very spectacularly 

different 3D shapes than could be made in the early days of 3D 

printing of polymers. There’s startup companies in this area—but 

anyway, at Argonne, which is what I’m representing today, we’re 

trying to open up a field that we call manufacturing science. 

Mr. WEBSTER. By the way, Dr. Don Hillebrand gave me the tour. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Good. Well he’s the director of our energy system 

division. 

Manufacturing science refers to the new science questions that 

come up. When you try to take something from the laboratory into 

larger scale production, you’re doing it bigger, faster, cheaper, and 

the materials just don’t behave the same way at that scale and at 

those time scales as they did in the lab. So Argonne is trying to 

be a leader in, as I said, what we’re calling manufacturing science, 

which is new basic science applied to a manufacturing scenario. 
76 

Mr. WEBSTER. Are you familiar with the term resilient construction? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. The whole idea is that you can use the building 

the next day—— 

Dr. TIRRELL. Right, yeah. 

Mr. WEBSTER. —once the wind comes or whatever comes. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yeah, resilience in general is a big focus at Argonne 

which extends beyond material science, but we’re on materials here 

today, so—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Well in other—along those same lines in science, 

there is—matter of fact, it seems like there’s a couple universities 

offering corrosion engineering as a graduate degree, and it just 

seems like that—the construction, especially in maybe the realm of 

steel or other things where there’s so much corrosion that there 

would be some usefulness in that. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that’s a huge economic 

drain. I mean, so far we’ve lived with it, but the point is if you 

could stop that or make materials last longer—and there are various centers of excellence. It’s not a particular focus at Argonne. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Great. 

Dr. Higgs, too, I’d like to say to you come back to Georgia Tech. 

I just did the commencement exercise there here a few weeks ago, 

but you were a great contributor at that time. It’s been a while. 

But anyway—— 

Dr. HIGGS. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I—when I graduated as an engineer, my mom 

gave me a card that said four years ago, I couldn’t even spell engineer. Then you open it up, on the inside it said now I are one, 

so—— 

Dr. HIGGS. Right. 

Mr. WEBSTER. —I still are one, even though I’ve got a different 

profession now. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Did she ask for any repayment of the money 

back? 

Mr. WEBSTER. She should have. 

Chairman WEBER. I understand. Our parents give us a lot, don’t 

they? 

Ms. Esty, you’re now recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to encourage 

my friend, Daniel Webster, to join the Corrosion Prevention Caucus 

with me and Pete Olson, and the Resiliency Caucus, because we 

are very interested in these issues, and again, I think this is an 

area where basic research can save money, save lives, and would 

encourage that to be part of sort of our national initiative, and particularly with a move to pull us out of the Climate Accords. Climate is going to do what it’s going to do. We need to be prepared, 

so I would encourage all my colleagues to do that. 

I had a couple things I wanted to quickly go through in the limited time I have. First was just give an example that illustrates 

what many of my colleagues have talked about. I represent Connecticut. U–Conn has the Materials Genome Initiative funded 

through NSF. They’re deeply worried. They came to meet with me 
77 

a couple of weeks ago, and are very concerned about what these 

proposed cuts would do to their program, and many of those issues 

you’ve discussed about not only losing those particular projects, but 

in so doing, lose the talent pool, lose the grad students, lose the entire lab. And so I just think we really need to understand the implications. It’s not a one-year cut. We actually risk losing them to 

other countries. We risk American competitiveness. So that’s one. 

I just want to lend my voice to others. 

The two other topics I want to quickly touch on, one is on ARPA– 

E, and the other is on STEM diversity and diverse workforce, 

which many of us are pretty passionate about. 

Dr. Tirrell, I know that you’ve—the Argonne lab has done a lot 

of work on ARPA–E. If we’re going to look at advanced materials 

and energy efficiency, it’s incredibly important. You’ve done a lot 

of important work. We’re looking at, you know, dramatic basically 

elimination of that. Could you talk a little bit about whether you 

think the private sector can fill in that gap, you know, the difference between who does basic research and who doesn’t do basic 

research? I appreciate the mention, Dr. Higgs, of SBIR and that 

translation from basic research into commercial exploitation, but 

the basic research still has to be done. Dr. Tirrell, if you could talk 

a little bit about that. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Well it does turn out that I am part of an ARPA– 

E project based at Argonne that has to do with how to improve the 

both acoustic and thermal insulation of windows with polymer coatings, and as I mentioned, I’m a polymer scientist. And so, you 

know, with a very well-defined need specified, we’d like to have 

this much insulation for sound and this much insulation for heat, 

and by the way, you can’t make the windows foggy or anything like 

that. We’re trying to design some polymers that will do that. So it’s 

a good example of use-inspired basic research. 

I also pointed earlier on to the basic energy science basic research needs workshops that in some ways frame things like that. 

They look at what an area of technology needs, and then talks 

about where we’re missing out in basic research. 

On the EERE or the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

I think within that, there are great ways of advancing U.S. energy 

competitiveness. There’s the Advanced Manufacturing Office, which 

relates to some of the things I was saying to Representative Webster about manufacturing science. So you know, I think these are 

valuable programs. I’ll just leave it at that. They do things in a 

special way and produce good results. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Locascio, I know you’ve recently blogged about diversity and 

science in your son’s pride, and you being a scientist, and I was 

just with my big data son early this morning and thought about 

the importance of modeling that. And Dr. Higgs, you’re noted for 

your efforts as well. 

Quickly, for both of you, what can we do? What can the U.S. 

Congress do that would help ensure we are actually opening up 

that pipeline for each and every young person in this country to 

understand these are exciting fields? And we need their talent. We 

need their life experience. We need their input and their energy. 

Thanks. 
78 

Dr. LOCASCIO. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about this. 

I’m so passionate about it as well, so I appreciate that. 

Yes, so there are several things that you talked about. First, getting people into the workforce is very difficult, and as you said, getting females or attracting females into the STEM research fields is 

very difficult. So given the fact that there could be changes in the 

way that we’re recruiting and attracting people, at this particular 

time and in the budget, I think it makes it even more difficult. But 

the second part is retaining them, and then the third part is elevating them to a stature of leadership. 

And so that’s something that I have really thought a lot about. 

How do we make sure no matter what you look like or where you 

come from, what your cultural background is, we need you at the 

table in order to get the best people and the best ideas out there 

and supported for the sake of science in the United States. And so 

mentoring, guiding people, trying to make sure that we have adequate salaries to recruit them and retain them, they’re all important facets of the equation. But then just making sure that we elevate them and promote them fairly, equally, and then showcase 

their talent in front of people so that they can be seen, I think is 

critical. 

Dr. HIGGS. Very good question. 

So I will definitely say that we like to produce a diverse number 

of scholars. A lot of you all have met goals because you’ve seen people that look like you, and it’s the same dynamic that goes on with 

young people. I myself graduated from a historically black college 

and university. I saw people that looked like me had Ph.D.s and 

so I wanted to do that. I see my friend over here, Chris Jones, just 

got his Ph.D. from MIT. He’s a graduate of Morehouse College as 

well. He saw people that looked like him, and he wanted to go and 

be an astronaut and do other things, like Mr. Webster become a 

politician and engineer as well. So it’s a very important part of producing the nation’s next generation of scientists and engineers. 

Thank you. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WEBER. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hultgren for 

five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all so much 

for being here. This is really important, something we’re passionate 

about, I’m passionate about, and research and development is so 

core, and especially that basic scientific research is something 

we’ve got to make sure funding is continued to remain, something 

the private sector can’t do. It’s something we’re going to continue 

to fight with the current Administration and also fought the past 

Administration oftentimes where they were pushing certain types 

of projects and away from basic research. And so I want you to 

know there’s strong voices on both sides of the aisle that have— 

continue that commitment and will continue to fight. 

Also, I share my Illinois colleagues to thank Argonne. Thank you, 

Dr. Tirrell and the great work that Argonne is doing. We’re so 

proud of you, so proud of what’s happening at Argonne. But also 

at a time when there’s not a lot to brag about in Illinois, we can 

brag about our research and so proud of Argonne and Fermi. You 

look at the data, the Elsevier and the Illinois Science and Tech-
79 

nology Coalition. Rankings recently put Illinois ranking at 94th 

percentile in publication impact for material science fields, 86th 

percentile in publication volume. That’s very impressive and something we absolutely are proud of. And I think a large recent we got 

that big impact is because the national labs accessibility certainly 

to students, but also as user facilities they are crown jewels in our 

research ecosystem. And that gives access to researchers throughout the country to high-end tools which no one university or business could ever maintain or have access to. So thank you. Keep up 

the great work. We’re here to support you. 

These user facilities are also proposed in a well thought out manner where the research community must set goals through the advisor committee process, and base these facilities on long-term 

needs. The 2016 BSAC report called the advanced photon source 

upgrade ‘‘absolutely central’’ to contribute to world leading science 

and ready to initiate construction. 

Dr. Tirrell, I wonder if you could explain to the Committee why 

this facility upgrade is absolutely central to contribute to world 

leading science. Also, could you describe who the users are at such 

a facility? Where will this research be done, if not here in the 

United States? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Thank you very much. 

Yes, there’s over 5,000 users every year of the advanced photon 

source. The upgrade is really necessary to keep it at the state of 

the art or push the state of the art. And by that, what we mean 

is intensity and coherence of the x-ray beam, and the more intense 

and the more coherent, the better—the more like a really infinitely 

powerful microscope the x-ray source becomes. So it sort of changes 

its nature a bit from a scattering tool to an imaging tool. 

Investments are being made in Europe and in Japan, and they’re 

pushing the frontiers too, but the APS upgrade will land us in 2025 

with the best hard x-ray source in the world, and that will keep 

not on the U.S. science community strong itself, but it will keep 

people from all over the world coming here because we are the 

best. That’s very enriching. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It is, and that’s, I think, the point that we always have to continue to come back to, remind ourselves certainly 

the value of these 5,000-plus users, the access that they have, the 

multiple impact on our economy for new discoveries there. I’ve 

heard about some amazing things that are coming out that really 

could be game changers for the world as far as energy goes, but 

also economic impact. So it is really important. 

The other point you bring up is this research likely is going to 

happen, if not here, somewhere else. A lot of other countries are 

aggressive. They’re not where we are. They’re not able to lead right 

now, but if we fail, they’re willing to step in. But we’re also recognizing for us to be a part of important, big, groundbreaking, earth 

shattering research, collaboration likely is going to have to be a 

part of that. Reaching out and bringing other countries is part of 

that. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about that, looking 

for solutions to new problems like new materials for batteries, or 

solving other problems in material science, how collaboration works 

within our own country. So Fermi Lab working with Argonne and 

University of Chicago at the Institute of Molecular Engineering for 
80 

the Chicago Quantum Exchange, talking a little bit about these 

hubs, but then also how that’s a draw on the international stage 

as well. 

Dr. TIRRELL. Yeah, thanks very much. 

You know, back on the thing that you said about Elsevier, I was 

actually contacted by a writer from Nature magazine who wants to 

write a story about material science in Northern Illinois, which is 

something I have been hoping for—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Fantastic. 

Dr. TIRRELL. —for a while. The Chicago Quantum Exchange is 

an effort to merge our resources among the institutions in Northern Illinois and in the Chicago area to lead in the next phase of 

what might be called post—computing, and that’s, again, you know, 

a very, very competitive situation. 

I have in front of me two weeks ago Science magazine that touts 

the Chinese communication satellite that demonstrated quantum 

communication between a satellite and Earth. You know, the 

world—the United States, you know, just went into really overdrive 

when Sputnik was launched in the ’50s. That was launched by a 

country that was our adversary, but not in any kind of economic 

shape to drive developments. China is a whole different story. They 

are. 

Mr. HULTGREN. They are, sir, right, and I think that is something that will be continuing to be motivating for us as Members 

of Congress, but also I think this Administration, that we can lead. 

We need to lead. We should lead. We’re in the right spot, but we 

got to make sure that we’re following it up with the proper support 

there. 

I could go on for another 20 minutes. Thank you all for being 

here. We’re so proud of you. Dr. Higgs, just want to give a shout 

out that grateful for your research, your work. I would say you’re 

certainly an inspiration to many, and I would say—you talk about 

people who look like us, but I would say to all of us, all of you are 

inspirations. I just want to thank you for your great work. It is so 

important for us to inspire that next generation that science and 

discovery is still important, and it can happen here in America. So 

thank you. Keep up the great work. Let us know how we can help. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman surfer 

from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you for acknowledging my great 

achievement. All right. 

Chairman WEBER. It’s the one time he can wax eloquent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There you go. Oh, that’s good. I like that. 

All right. Okay, first of all, let us know we wouldn’t be on this 

Committee if we didn’t believe in basic research. I mean, that’s Republican, Democrat, we all are on this Committee; however, we are 

also Members of the House that have to deal with budgets, and it’s 

great idealism. I happen to believe in limited government, and I believe how we can make sure that government doesn’t grow out of 

proportion is making sure that science develops alternatives so that 

we can solve vexing problems through science rather than through 

bureaucracy. So nothing—let me just note, nothing should say that 

we are not united in that, but let me just note that when you’re 
81 

dealing with budgets, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

lament that we got out of the Paris Treaty, which really cost us billions of dollars, billions. That was the purpose of it was to redistribute wealth from us to other countries that weren’t quite so well 

off. Now whether we like that or not, the fact is that means those 

billions wouldn’t be available for us for scientific research. And so 

when we’re talking about this, let’s keep that in perspective, that 

there are other things people are complaining about, trying to have 

to deal with budgets across the board, which we try to do, that you 

can’t ask for billions more to be spent on the Paris Treaty and expect to have full funding for these projects. 

Let me ask, how do we get more money in from—we conferred 

to this with the space program about two decades ago when I was 

very involved in this Committee on that, and I—we figured out we 

couldn’t put more money in and balance the budget in terms of the 

space program, and I’m very proud that I worked on the Commercial Space Act and with that Space Act, we laid the foundation for 

billions of dollars of private sector involvement in space. And that 

was the new resource that we had coming in. And is there some 

way that, number one, we can get the private sector—for example, 

right now these studies that you do and the information that you 

come forward with, the new materials that you’re talking about 

that play such a vital role in progress, companies actually utilize 

this to build products that help our lives. But they also make a big 

product—I mean, a big profit in making those products. Do we 

have now a situation where those companies that are profiting by 

using your direct research in some way are paying a payback to the 

federal government or to this—our science community? 

Dr. TIRRELL. The short answer is yes, they are, but not as much 

as they might. 

In some ways, universities and national labs have filled in the 

gap for what used to be much more vigorous and extensive industrial research labs in the chemical industry, in the electronics industry, in the computer industry and so on, so you know, I think 

companies do, obviously, what’s in their interest. That’s what 

they’re supposed to do. But I think it would be in their interest to 

invest more in collaborations with universities and national laboratories. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. When I was young, my dad took me to 

that laboratory there in Dearborn, Michigan, and it was Edison’s 

lab up there and it was really very impressive for me to see that. 

We went to—also next door to where they were developing new 

things for the cars. That was private funding, and I think Edison’s 

was privately funded as well, come to think of it. Should—is 

there—we need to make sure that we do not encourage our industry to continue to be subsidized like this. If there is a way that 

someone is using the research, should we not try to make further 

demands on people? If they’re going to make a profit from what 

you’re researching, shouldn’t they be paying more then for the use 

of that, instead of having the taxpayers having this as a hidden 

subsidy? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Well I think, you know, it’s a complicated situation. 

I don’t think—at least I couldn’t tell you what the right formula 
82 

would be there. I would just express an overall hope that there 

would be more collaboration. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well if we do it for free, we can’t blame the 

companies for taking it free. And we have a patent system in our 

country. Isn’t—couldn’t we then—is there a way that we could expand the protection of the patent so that materials that are developed in the public sector are—or even in the private sector, but 

mainly what you’re doing with public money, that that has to be 

repaid to the owner of the patent, which would be the government 

in that case? 

Dr. TIRRELL. Well generally speaking, at universities or at national labs, the owner of the patent is the university or the national 

laboratory, and then licensing fees are paid. And Argonne gets millions of dollars a year in licensing fees. So that kind of thing is 

happening—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. TIRRELL. —and you know, I think it is a matter of developing 

a good system and figuring out if the balance is right there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well let’s see if we can do that. That’s an avenue—we shouldn’t just look at scientific basic research as simply 

it’s going to be part of the federal bureaucratic programs that we— 

let’s see if we can make things more efficient by making sure that 

the people in the private sector who profit from what you’re doing 

are maybe paying a little higher share, but also, that will encourage them to be doing research as well. 

So with that, thank you very much for all the good work you’re 

doing. I certainly wish you success in coming up with a material 

that’s going to make us cool in the summer and warm in the winter. That’s great. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the Members for their questions today. The record will remain open 

for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

the Members. 

I do want to end by saying that this Committee and the full 

Science Committee obviously is committed to research. Chairman 

Smith has been a staunch advocate of it, both sides of the aisle. 

And so we look at this budget and we say that is simply a submitted budget, but I’m going to encourage and I think we’re going 

to continue to be able to help with research as much as absolutely 

possible. We are holding—trying to do a lot of things, spinning a 

lot of plates. If you all could quickly come up with a material to 

make those plates lighter, you know, it would make our job easier. 

So I want to say thank you for being here today again. You all 

have—we could have gone on for a long time. This is very, very interesting. We appreciate what you guys do. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(83) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
84 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
85 
86 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL FOSTER
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Æ