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

20–840PDF 2017

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–70 

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 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 22, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 9 

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

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Subcommittee on Research and 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 12 

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

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 17 

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

Witness: 

The Honorable France Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

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

Dr. Dan E. Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 43 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation (NSF) ............. 54 

Dr. Dan E. Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board ....................................... 65 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 72 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Good afternoon. The Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘An Overview of the Budget 

Proposal for the National Science Foundation for Fiscal Year 2017.’’ 

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

As we discussed before the hearing, we may be called for votes 

shortly, so our apologies. We’ll try to get in as much as we can before that. 

I would first like to thank our witnesses for appearing today to 

discuss the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

request and other Foundation issues. The 2017 discretionary budget request for NSF totals $7.56 bil- lion, an increase of approximately $100 million, or 1.3 percent, over 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical 

basic research and supports through 12,000 competitive grants a 

year over 377,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students 

across the country. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Actually, I may just yield to my colleague and I will see if I can—sorry for that. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. As the Chairwoman recuperates there, I want to 

thank the Chairwoman and the Chair of the Committee for holding 

this hearing. Welcome to Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Arvizu. 

The NSF is central to our mation’s leadership in science and 

technology, and I think it’s important that more people understand 

the critical role that NSF plays. NSF supports fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and that research serves as the foundation on which our knowledge of our own 

world and the worlds beyond is expanded, our innovation economy 

is built, and our quality of life is improved. 

Over time, NSF has become the primary source of support for 

basic research across many fields, including the biological sciences, 

the social and behavioral sciences, and computer science. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request for NSF includes new mandatory budget authority. I like to think of myself as an optimist, 

but it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which there is agreement 

anytime soon on new mandatory funding. I wish, therefore, that 

the Administration had found additional support in the discretionary budget for the Foundation. I hope that my colleagues on 

the Appropriations Committee, in making their own very difficult 

tradeoffs, will once again find a way to provide an increase for 

NSF. 

Having said that, I’d like to highlight a few programs and initiatives in the budget that stand out to me. I see that NSF is not proposing any major new cross-agency research initiatives in fiscal 

year 2017. However, the ongoing initiatives in Risk and Resilience; 

Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems, 

known as INFEWS; Understanding the Brain; Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace; and many other that are in there remain in the 

budget are essential investments, and I want to commend NSF for 

continuing to break down disciplinary barriers to address grand 

challenges for science and technology, and for our nation. 

In particular, I am glad to see the investments being made in the 

Innovation Corps program and in the Smart and Connected Communities Initiative. As the leading proponent of the I–Corps program from when NSF first created it, it’s been a great—it’s great 

to see that it’s been a great success. With minimal NSF educational 

funding, many startups coming out of I-corps-trained teams have 

already received venture capital funding, and I look forward to 

more innovation and jobs coming from graduates of the program. 

In addition, the White House announced at the August Demo Day 

the partnerships that the NSF I–Corps program created with several new agency partners including DHS and the Defense Department. This demonstrates that NSF’s I–Corps program also works 

within the government. I hope this will help other agencies see 

what NSF has long known, that the I–Corps model dramatically 

helps in translating research into new technology and new jobs. 

Similarly with Smart and Connected Communities, we are seeing 

more and more the impact that connected devices have on our lives 

as well as the promise they hold for the future. The early examples 

that we have seen in transportation with connected and autonomous vehicles are just a small piece of what could be possible when 
13 

we adopt a ‘‘Smart Cities’’ approach to integrating technology into 

traditionally disconnected devices. Cross-cutting research is needed 

to drive these changes, and I’m glad that NSF is taking a leadership role here. 

With respect to the Education and Human Resources Directorate, 

I am interested in the systems approach that Dr. Co ́rdova is taking 

to broaden participation in STEM in the INCLUDES initiative, so 

I look forward to discussion and progress reports on that effort. I 

am especially pleased to see the increase for the Cybersecurity 

Scholarship for Service program. The shortage of a skilled cybersecurity workforce in both government and the private sector is well 

documented, and has significantly—and has significant consequences for our national and economic security. However, I do 

have concerns about the proposed discretionary budget cuts to the 

Informal STEM Learning Research program and the STEM–C 

Partnerships program, so I look forward to an explanation of the 

status of those programs. 

Finally, I anticipate that there will be some discussion today 

about prioritizing some fields of science over others. So let me conclude by quoting from our colleague, Chairman Culberson, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of Appropriations. Following his own hearing last week with Dr. 

Co ́rdova, in which he stated clearly that he does not want to appropriate by directorate at NSF, he said, ‘‘I think that we should let 

NSF pick the most promising areas and give the agency the flexibility to pursue them.’’ I strongly agree with Mr. Culberson on 

those points. 

Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and given my 

limited—what this cold is doing to me, I’m going to yield now and 

recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me welcome 

Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Arvizu here as well. 

In the interest of time, because we’re expecting votes to be called 

in five minutes, I’m going to ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made a part of the record. 

I simply want to add also that I just had a good conversation 

with Dr. Co ́rdova in my office, and how shall we say this 

euphemistically? We exchanged views on some of the questions 

that I intended to ask today, all except one, and perhaps if she 

could address that in her opening statement, then I will not need 

to ask questions later on, and that is, how is the National Science 

Foundation implementing the STEM Act and prioritizing computer 

science in its STEM Education Grants. I know she’s familiar with 

that bill that passed, and I want to thank her for support of that 

legislation. I’m just curious how National Science Foundation is implementing that piece of legislation. 

And with that, I’ll yield back in hopes that we can get underway 

before the votes come. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
18 
19 
20 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and now I’ll 

introduce our witnesses and see how far I can get through. 

Our first witness today is the Honorable France Co ́rdova, Director of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Co ́rdova was sworn in 

as Director in March 2014. She is President Emerita of Purdue 

University, where she served as President from 2007 to 2012. From 

1993 to 1996, Co ́rdova was Chief Scientist at NASA, and she is a 

recipient of NASA’s highest honor, the Distinguished Service 

Medal. She has a B.A. from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in 

physics from the California Institute of Technology. 

The Honorable Dan Arvizu, our second witness, is the Chairman 

of the National Science Board. In 2004, he was appointed by President George W. Bush for a six-year term on the National Science 

Board. In 2010, he was reappointed to a second six-year term. In 

2012, he was elected as Chairman of the NSB. He is the Director 

Emeritus of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and he has a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from New Mexico State University and a master of science degree and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from 

Stanford. 

I now recognize Doctor—actually, first I will enter my statement 

for the record also. My apologies. But we’ll move through here, and 

I now recognize Dr. Co ́rdova for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CO ́ RDOVA, 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, Congresswoman Bonamici, Congresswoman Esty, good afternoon. 

In my written testimony, I’ve addressed specific aspects of our 

fiscal year 2017 budget request. NSF believes that this budget 

would substantially further the progress of science. 

We like to say that NSF is where discoveries begin. Increasing 

the breadth and depth of knowledge that can come from specific exploration and discovery is the goal of NSF. 

The past year has been one of notable scientific discoveries from 

every domain supported by NSF. I only have time in my opening 

remarks to mention one such discovery. Just last month, scientists 

from the NSF-supported Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave 

Observatory announced the first direct detection of a gravitational 

wave, a landmark discovery that reflects decades of investment and 

that opens a new window on the universe. I’d like to thank the 

Committee for holding a hearing on the topic of this discovery, and 

we appreciate Congress’s recognition and support for this great experiment. 

We also like to say that NSF is where discoverers begin. Many 

times, scientists and engineers tells us that their first grant was 

from NSF. Other federal agencies tell us that they often fund 

projects which were first prototyped by NSF to advance an original 

basic finding into application. 

NOAA depends on NSF’s funded NCAR for reliable numerical 

weather prediction. Just last week, NCAR mapped the expected 
21 

transmission of the Zika virus in the United States, information 

that will be useful to NIH, CDC, and of course, the public. 

NASA missions sometimes have their genesis in discoveries first 

made with ground-based observations funded by the NSF. I think 

of exoplanets, for example. 

Many Nobel Prize winners were funded by NSF early in their careers, some like the former Secretary of Energy Steve Chu, and the 

founders of Google while they were graduate students. Thus, increasing the STEM workforce, ensuring that it is ready to take on 

the challenges of our increasingly technological society and making 

STEM careers accessible to the wealth of talent that this nation 

has to offer are also goals of NSF in its new INCLUDES initiative. 

NSF’s budget after adjusting for inflation has increased very little since 2003 with an annual growth rate of less than one percent 

since then. In fact, since 2010, we’ve actually seen a slight decline 

in research funding in constant dollars. 

Yet in the same time period, the number of proposals has dramatically increased. The result is that the fraction of proposals that 

we can fund has decreased significantly. The funding rate was 30 

percent in fiscal year 2000 and is just over 20 percent now. 

Of great concern to us is that the situation is more challenging 

for people who haven’t previously received an NSF award including 

young investigators. For them, the funding rate has gone from 21 

percent in fiscal year 2000 to 16 percent today. 

And for major center programs like the Science and Technology 

Centers, the figures also highlight the intense competition for funding. Fewer than two percent of the applications we receive can be 

funded. 

So imagine all the potential discovery science that is left unfunded. In fact, the amount of additional money it would take to 

fund all proposals rated very good to excellent in any given year 

is $4 billion, $4 billion of worthy research left on the cutting-room 

floor every year. 

When a young investigator submits a proposal and it is rated excellent but not funded, it can be an invitation to leave the field of 

science. We are not only losing discoveries; we’re losing discoverers. 

Thus, our fiscal year 2017 budget request starts to correct the 

situation in order to accelerate the progress of U.S. science, and accelerate it we must. The United States currently ranks number 10 

among all countries in research intensity. That is the ratio of R&D 

expanded versus GDP. If we’re to retain our global leadership position, if we’re to fully utilize the talent inherent in our citizens, if 

we’re to continue to make a difference to our economy and our nation’s security, we need to accelerate our investment. 

With an increase of $400 million requested in fiscal year 2017, 

we can’t solve the $4 billion deficit that we have in our funding 

rate but we can make a start. We would use the funds to focus on 

early investigators within several years of their Ph.D. We can give 

them an all-important start on careers in science and engineering. 

I’d also like to take a moment to note that in the last year, NSF 

has made great progress in improving our efforts to refine and explain our programs and processes in a transparent and accountable 

manner. I’d be happy to discuss our efforts further. 
22 

With your continued support, NSF looks forward to supporting 

more discoverers and making more transformative discoveries. 

This concludes my testimony, Madam Chairwoman, and I’ll be 

pleased to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Co ́rdova follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Mr. Arvizu. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAN E. ARVIZU, 

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. ARVIZU. Chairman Smith and Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, and other Members of the Subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak with you in support of the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 2017 request. 

As NSF’s governing body, one of the most important functions of 

the National Science Board is to identify future opportunities for 

the progress of science in the nation. NSB wants to ensure that we 

continue to support scientific and economic advances like those associated with NSF’s leadership in developing the internet in the 

1980s and 1990s, and more recently with nanotechnology. For the 

United States to remain the world leader in research and innovation, NSF must continue to push the frontiers of science, investing 

wisely without fear of failure. 

Seizing future opportunities requires a STEM-capable U.S. workforce and the same unwavering long-term commitment to scientific 

discovery that the United States has shown in the past half-century. 

A recent announcement by LIGO, for example, was only possible 

because of decades of work by the scientific community, NSF, Congress, and several Administrations along with overall a billion dollars in unflinching federal support. There are other such big scientific opportunities to pursue. The question is whether the United 

States is committed to leading the way. 

Information and computational science offer one such emerging 

opportunity. Advances in machine learning have combined with big 

data to give us an entirely new tool set creating areas of research 

and ability to solve problems that have long defied solution. 

Recently, neural networks and reinforcement learning, which 

mimic human decision making, enabled Google’s Alpha Go program 

to beat legendary Go player four games to one. The impacts of machine learning are foreshadowed by South Korea’s response, which 

is an $860-plus million artificial intelligence research program. 

This is in partnership with Samsung and LG and Hyundai going 

far beyond gaming and computer science. 

In the next decade, big data and empirical modeling will transform science much like calculus revolutionized physics and computers remade engineering. These tools will let researchers tackle 

heretofore elusive problems including questions in the social behavior and economic sciences that are among our hardest to crack. In 

the near future, we will be able to run simulations and make predictions about these complex systems. 

Let’s consider how these tools are already transforming my own 

area of research, the electric power sector. Our electricity system 

is rigid, aging, and no longer able to meet our future needs. Fortunately, technology advances are providing the tools necessary to 

move beyond electricity as a commodity and into delivering services. This requires new investment in research to enable two-way 

power flow, new power electronics, a myriad of sensors and control 

points, new systems architectures built on layers of models and 

real-time feedback, simulations and predictions. Harnessing this 
36 

complexity will make our future electric system reliable, secure, 

clean, and affordable. 

Predictable and increased investments in research is needed to 

capture the benefits of massive data acquisition, empirical modeling, data analytics, real-time feedback, and controls. As my written testimony details, NSF’s fiscal year 2017 budget lays important 

groundwork to seize these opportunities. 

Now, having highlighted these opportunities, I now wish to call 

your attention to a significant near-term risk. NSF’s ability to accomplish its mission starts with the health of its workforce and the 

organization, and our staff and critical infrastructure that they rely 

on are supported by the Agency Operation and Awards Management account, and recently the AOAM account has been about four 

percent of the overall budget even as the workload has increased 

significantly. In my 12 years on the Board, NSB Chairs have consistently testified that the account is under resourced. I fear that 

the consequences of the shortfall will soon be evident. In fiscal year 

2017, NSB strongly supports full funding for the AOAM account. 

My testimony in highlighting both opportunities and risks underscores the seriousness with which the Board takes its responsibilities to provide strong governance of taxpayers’ investments. In my 

written remarks, you’ll find additional details on these activities. 

Just over 65 years ago, James Conant, the first Chair of the National Science Board, portrayed NSF as a bold new experiment. 

Noting the need for continued vision, patience, and sustained investment, he wrote, ‘‘No one should expect to be able to assess in 

a short interval of time the value of the money spent on scientific 

investigations. Even in the field of applied science, research is in 

the nature of the long-term investment.’’ As I conclude my final 

term on the Board, I am more convinced than ever that our longterm national investment in fundamental science is essential to our 

future health, security, and prosperity. 

My colleagues and I thank you for your support of this bold but 

essential request for advancing the endless frontier. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Arvizu follows:] 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize myself 

for five minutes for questions. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, NSF’s budget request calls for $70 million for the 

Cyber Corps Scholarship for Service program. That’s certainly 

something this Committee has spent a lot of time on, on cyber, so 

we appreciate that, and it’s to recruit and train the next generation 

of information security professionals. How many new cybersecurity 

professionals will this investment be able to train, and how does 

NSF work with industry to understand their cyber workforce needs 

and to make sure we can get people to come into this field knowing 

what the career path will be. We’ve heard about delays in getting 

security clearances on things. How do you work through all that 

and what do you expect we’ll see? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. I don’t know 

all the details, and so we’ll get back to you on some of them, but 

I do know that with the $20 million augmentation, we’re going to 

especially focus on what I like to think of as the Reserve Corps, the 

people that go through the Cyber Corps program, and we’re working closely with universities on providing a really quality curriculum so that they are well trained, and a lot of very prominent 

research universities, universities in general, have stepped up to 

this challenge and are doing so. 

We want to make sure that the alumni of the program and the 

people who do scholarship for service after they’ve graduated then 

can be used as a resource in following years to come back and engage as they’re needed on security matters, and that means a different level of continuous training. It’s the same as if you were a 

doctor and you were continuously training, or a legal professional, 

and so that’s really the emphasis of the new $20 million. 

As far as the number of students currently being trained, I know 

we are matched so much by the private sector and by universities 

themselves, who are very interested in providing this curriculum, 

I just don’t have a number that I can share with you. It’s a big 

partnership, and it’s really, really growing. There’s like a tidal 

wave of people coming into computer science in general. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I’d also like to ask you about STEM 

education, which we’ve obviously been funding, and actually earlier 

this afternoon we were working on some of those issues with this 

Committee and with my colleague, Congresswoman Esty, and others on the Committee. So, you know, every year we are trying to 

place a larger emphasis on the subject, and you know, we still hear 

the frustrating statistics that we’re falling behind worldwide. 

What have we learned from previous investments in STEM about 

what is really working and advancing? Is it getting kids at a 

younger age? You know, how do we, you know, keep the continuum 

going? What are the things that we’re finding are, you know, most 

helpful? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. That’s a very big question. Would you mind if I 

just started with Chairman Smith’s question with responding to 

that? Because that leads us right into your question with the 

STEM Education Act of 2015. That added computer science to the 

definition of STEM, so this ties to your previous question. We’re 

implementing the legislation by ensuring that our STEM education 

programs are open to all fields of STEM including computer 
44 

science. In addition, we’ve included some new goals in fiscal year 

2017 including computer science for all, which partners with the 

Department of Education, and I visited with the Secretary of Education about this last week, and the private sector to ensure that 

all students in the nation have access to computer science education. So I hope, Chairman Smith, that that is a partial response 

to your question. 

On the larger question of what we’re learning, we—NSF is always engaged in evaluation and assessment of its programs, and 

that applies as well to our STEM education programs. In fact, you 

will see a request in the fiscal year 2017 budget for more money 

for evaluation and assessment and more money for core research 

in STEM learning because we do want to learn from what we’re investing in. The types of things—and a much longer response is deserved—but the types of things we’re learning have to do with institutional commitment. They have to do with hands-on learning 

and ensuring that every student has an opportunity for that. They 

have to do with community participation and engaging in partnerships that go beyond the school involving parents. They have a lot 

to do with teacher training. That’s just absolutely essential, and 

having two teachers in my own family, three if I count my spouse, 

that I believe that continually upping the skills in teacher training, 

especially for a new computer age, is very, very important. 

So all of these, we take what we learned and we implement new 

programs that make use of that learning. So some of the questions, 

and I know Mr. Lipinski alluded to that we’ll get to later, have to 

do with programs that look on the ledger like they’ve gone down 

in funding or have stayed the same. Actually what we’ve learned 

from that program or others have caused us to institute new programs to make use of that knowledge, and so that’s how NSF is 

progressing in utilizing what it’s learning in education. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. Thank you very much, and I now 

yield to Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to start out by just mentioning—I know that Dr. Arvizu had mentioned social behavioral 

sciences and economics in the context of big data, so I don’t want 

to let a hearing go by without me emphasizing the important of 

SBE. I’m glad that you did that, and I will leave my question 

maybe for the record on that. But it’s always important to point out 

the importance of SBE and the critical questions that it can help 

us—help us address. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, I’m interested in the Smart and Connected Communities initiative. Across our country, so-called smart cities are investing in technology to address challenges like reducing traffic 

congestion, fighting crime, and fostering economic growth. In 2015, 

the White House announced a new Smart Cities initiative to invest 

in federal research and technology collaborations to help more cities pursue implementation of internet of things and smart-cities 

technologies, and last month’s PCAST report on technology and the 

future of cities helped to underscore the value of this research. 

I understand that NSF has long supported fundamental research 

that underlies Smart and Connected Communities. Can you talk 

further about some of this research and about NSF’s contribution 

to National Smart Cities initiative? 
45 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We are doing a lot of work, especially in computer 

science but also engineering on Smart and Connected Cities and 

simulation and modeling. Some of the examples that Dr. Arvizu 

mentioned pertain in the area of energy efficiency. We actually call 

this initiative Smart Communities because in our view, it’s larger 

than a city; it extends to regions, and they’re all very different. And 

so we—you—this is truly a cross-disciplinary activity that will involve us all in looking at things like transportation and communications, definitely security, and more our risk and Resilience initiative also applies here and is connected with Smart and Connected Cities for how they become resilient against risk like, say, 

Hurricane Sandy and so forth. 

And so we are engaging the private sector in this. It’s a very popular initiative, and I think especially with the tools that cyber— 

that computing offers us in doing modeling and optimizing what we 

already know, we can make a lot of headway, and then we can also 

identify weaknesses in the system where we don’t respond well to 

crises whether it’s, you know, traffic crises, police crises, and again, 

this is a place where social science also comes into the picture in 

Smart and Connected Communities, that we must take all the data 

that we are getting and ask our social scientists how to evaluate 

where we can make better inroads. And maybe Dr. Arvizu would 

like to—— 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yes, if I can just add to that, I think excellent response by Director Co ́rdova. Obviously you mentioned the INFEWS 

program, which is a—at the nexus of several of the infrastructures 

that go along with energy, but energy and water and food, these 

are areas where these research capabilities actually can be actually 

more pronounced in terms of impact for our communities and for 

our cities to capture efficiencies that otherwise would go untapped. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. In my remaining time, I just want to 

ask about the Advancing Informal STEM Education funding. Informal STEM ed is something that I believe is very important. It’s the 

main source of funding for science museums and other informal 

providers to innovate, develop and test new models for informal 

STEM ed through all ages and all mediums. So I’m concerned 

about the funding cut. Is there any particular part of the informal 

STEM ed portfolio that you propose to scale back or eliminate in 

fiscal year 2017? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. No, on the contrary. I too, Mr. Lipinski, are very— 

am very committed as our agency to advance informal STEM learning. Our fiscal year 2016 estimate was $62–1/2 million, and so is 

our fiscal year request, so we’re not proposing to cut back at all. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now, well, I guess we will see what happens because of the issue of the mandatory—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —funding which we don’t really—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. You are right to note that $7–1/2 million of the fiscal year 2017 request is on the mandatory side of the ledger, but 

we view our budget as a total ensemble of $500 million that we 

think is necessary to make further progress in science and engineering. In fact, it’s essential. And so we don’t think of it as being 

stovepiped into one or the other, discretionary or mandatory, so 
46 

when we make the request, it is with respect to $500 million request augmentation for this next fiscal year. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. I understand your commitment. I just wanted to make sure that I raised that—raised that issue. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I’ll yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. 

Moolenaar for five minutes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, thank you for being here, and Dr. Arvizu. 

Question for you, Dr. Co ́rdova. Your budget request for NSF re- quests $512 million for clean energy research and Dr. Co ́rdova, and 

my understanding is, that’s about a 38 percent increase, and I 

guess two questions would be, are you encouraging collaboration 

between the appropriate offices within the NSF and the DOE, and 

how do you make sure that there’s no duplication of funding with 

Department of Energy Office of Science when it comes to these 

kinds of projects? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Well, thank you for your question. In fact, I’ll be 

with them this evening with the Department of Energy. We work 

very closely with Department of Energy, and my colleague here, 

Dr. Arvizu, until very recently headed one of the DOE laboratories, 

and this is his specialty is on clean energy. 

We’re very pleased to be working in an interagency sense on this 

very important initiative. Where NSF comes in is on the very basic 

research on materials, for example, for rechargeable batteries, on 

floating wind turbines would be another example, on solar fuels, economical generation of hydrogen from water rather than methane, 

and on the new combination of organic and inorganic materials and 

what progress we can make with those. But if you’ll allow Dr. 

Arvizu to comment, because this is his field? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Co ́rdova, and I think as Dr. 

Co ́rdova has already suggested, there’s close coupling with the Department of Energy Office of Science and even the Applied Offices. 

The kind of the good news and bad news about energy research is 

it’s target rich. There’s a lot of things that can be done, and where 

I think the mission agencies, the Department of Energy, is very 

much focused on applications and how you take those essentially 

to the marketplace more quickly. There is plenty of room for revolutionary work that goes on at the fundamental level. Office of 

Science is focused on high-energy physics, basic energy research 

which relates to biology. 

The opportunity to do some really revolutionary high-risk highrewards sorts of outcomes really are not funded so much in the Department of Energy, and I think it’s left to our tremendous capabilities within the university community with other research labs 

to actually offer ways in which we can really change the trajectory 

and move the needle on new revolutionary outcomes that I think 

you could not do within the national programs of the Department 

of Energy. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And if I could ask you both also, how is the private sector involved in that? Can the private sector apply for 

grants in this area? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Would you like to start? 
47 

Dr. ARVIZU. So—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We do work in parallel with the private sector. We 

certainly—well, one thing we fund is SBIR grants, okay, and a 

number of those Small Business Innovative Research grants, and 

so some of those are focused in this area. 

We—in partnership with private, we fund Engineering Research 

Centers, ERCs. We have quite a number of those. And a few of 

those are specifically looking at clean energy either materials or 

applications of some kind, and there will be partners from the private sector that are also funding that. It’s one of the requirements 

of those Engineering Research Centers that they have industry 

partnerships. 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yes, and I think, you know, there’s a wide spectrum 

that goes on that relates to energy and all kinds of forms of energy, 

and what we find is that the private sector primarily likes to work 

very close to the application and Dr. Co ́rdova side. So in that respect, that’s really more of the purview of the Department of Energy where they have many multiple partnerships requiring 50/50 

cost share in most cases. If it’s more fundamental work, even for 

them, they require less cost share from the private sector. Rarely 

does the private sector work in some of these areas I think that the 

National Science Foundation works in, although they do in fact 

have great opportunity and application again, depending on the nature of the technology. If it’s software, if it’s architectures, they’re 

more likely to do, but things that require larger commitments for 

longer-term higher risk you find that the research labs in the private sector don’t nearly address that part of the spectrum nearly 

as well as the Science Foundation does. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize Ms. 

Esty for five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lipinski, for holding today’s hearings, to Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. 

Arvizu, thank you so much for joining us. 

We’ve already discussed some of the issues I was going to flag 

so I’m going to jump in, Dr. Co ́rdova, with you as we’ve discussed 

at length on STEM education. Could you talk a little bit about the 

scalability elements? You referenced just a few minutes ago how 

the National Science Foundation is trying to figure—has done a lot 

of research on what works and what doesn’t, but clearly one of 

those issues is not only what is effective but how do we scale up? 

Could you talk about what the agency is doing on that issue? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yeah. Well, thank you, because that is—that is 

one of the most important challenges that faces us, especially in 

our broadening participation initiatives, and by that I mean how do 

we include more women, underrepresented minorities, the disabled 

in this great field that all of us at NSF and our Board loves, and 

wish everybody could have the opportunity to learn more about 

science and engineering and ask themselves if I too could become 

a scientist. 

So that is really the basis that—I mean, you just really pinpointed what is the essential element of our INCLUDES initiative, 

so when I came to the agency and I saw—2 years ago now, cele-
48 

brate my anniversary on the last day of this month, I saw the fine 

programs that we’re doing in broadening participation programs 

like the LSAMP program for minority scholars, like the ADVANCE 

program for women at the universities, and so many more. All of 

them seemed very targeted to a specific group. They seemed localized. They didn’t scale up, as you put it. And so the challenge if 

we’re going to really move the needle is how do we do the scaling. 

There’s—now, business manufacturing, it depends on it, right? 

You spend a million dollars developing a widget and then you want 

to pay just 10 cents for every next copy of it. All right. Well, we’re 

not—in the social economic challenges that we face, we’re not very 

good at scaling up best practices. We don’t—we don’t take everything that we’ve learned and examine it and say how can others 

utilize it, how do I communicate it, how do I engage others in using 

those models and adapting them for their particular region. 

And so we’ve put out a call now just as of the last 2 or 3 weeks 

on our INCLUDES initiative which is—whose intention is to bring 

more people into science and engineering, especially those who 

have not been included, and the focus of this is to fund proposals 

that are truly innovative in a scaling sense, that take the best of 

what we’ve learned and translate it to a larger environment and 

do some innovative experiments. So we’re going to fund a lot of 

things, maybe at first go 40 different pilot programs, see what 

works, and then we’re going to down-select to just a handful of the 

ones that seem like they’ve got a good goal, good metrics to get 

there, and that they really can make a difference and be replicated 

and fund those at a much higher amount. 

So that is our intention with this. We’re on it. We too care about 

the scaling program challenge very much. 

Ms. ESTY. Well, I want to thank you for that. You and I have discussed this at length, and I just have to note 10 days ago, I was 

in my district. I’ve gone to a lot of coding events, shared passion 

for including girls and children of color in these initiatives, and I 

went to one 10 days ago in my district, a hackathon, and it engaged young girls, and this was 3rd grade to 8th grade, in which 

they were paired with social service organizations in their community for a full day, and they learned about the homeless shelter, the 

animal shelter, the food bank, and they met actually with executive 

directors to understand the mission of these organizations, designed an app in one day to promote these businesses, and it’s 

some of the research that MIT frankly found when they took their 

CS glass and broadened it to have the objective be develop something that’s socially relevant and important, and so I think having 

gone to so many of these as I know you have really saw a tremendous difference in seeing students being asked to engage on issues 

they care about and to learn about them as if they’re co-equals 

with organizations and people in their own community and see 

themselves as being part of those practical problem solvers, so I 

think we need to make sure we’re pushing to lower grade levels 

and encouraging those who have not been included to say you can 

help address issues in your own community. 

And I think oftentimes we start too high up and only look at the 

post-docs and even the undergrad levels, and if we don’t get kids 
49 

in the door, by the time they’re in 8th grade they generally never 

get in. 

So again, thank you for your work, both of you. I appreciate it 

very much. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. 

Westerman for five minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, Dr. Arvizu, thank you for being here today. It 

sounds like we just have votes. 

I just wanted to follow up, Dr. Arvizu, with the comment from 

the gentleman from Michigan or question in talking about renewable energy research. Secretary Moniz was here earlier today, and 

in all the discussions I’ve not heard any talk about this vast resource of biomass that we have here in our country. We had 10 million acres of forestland burn last year. If you go through all the 

conversions and calculations and estimates per acre, you come up 

with the equivalent on an energy basis of about 26 billion gallons 

of gasoline that went up in flames on our federal lands. That 

doesn’t count all the other biomass that we have. So my question 

is, why aren’t we focusing more on utilizing those biomass resources versus algae or corn ethanol or other activities to research 

and find better ways to use biomass in a drop-in liquid fuel. 

Dr. ARVIZU. That’s a great question, sir, and I think I’m a big fan 

of also using all of our renewable resources including biomass, especially those that we consider waste streams, you know, things 

that are kind of left over after we cultivate either ag or other types 

of crops, and I think there is still a lot of work to be done. I think 

one of the concerns that I believe we have is we have kind of an 

unequal approach to the way in which we fund basic research 

across the entire spectrum. 

So I think there is room for that. Now, being a former DOE person as opposed to a current DOE person, my own personal opinions 

about that are that there is a great deal of opportunity there to do 

continued research on taking essentially carbons, oxygens and hydrogen atoms and reconfiguring them for useful purposes such as 

high-density energy fuels, which I think is very possible. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And there was a significant increase in biofuels 

research in the budget I was looking at earlier but there was no 

mention of partnering with the Forest Service or any kind of woody 

biomass research in there, so I would just encourage you to please 

take a look at that and I think that could help us out on multiple 

levels. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, quick question for you. In 2013, the President announced the BRAIN initiative, a multiagency effort with important, 

ambitious goals about bettering understanding the brain and finding treatments for brain disorders. Last year the NSF proposed a 

major ramp-up in funding for understanding brain research but 

nearly flat funding this year. I know in this Committee we passed 

out the READ Act, which has to do with learning disorders, dyslexia, which the research that’s there shows that about 90 percent 

of learning disorders are associated with dyslexia, and there’s been 

a lot of great research done at Yale on that, but where are we on 

the brain research and on the funding for the READ Act? I think 
50 

it was 2–1/2 million mandated that have to be spent on dyslexia 

research. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. Okay. And so on the READ Act, as you 

know, that is enacted in fiscal year 2017 but we’re getting a head 

start on it. Well, first of all, we have been funding research on disabilities including dyslexia for some time, but on the specific Act, 

we’re getting a head start by issuing a ‘‘dear colleague’’ letter this 

year to get the community stimulated to start thinking about writing proposals that we can fund when the Act is—comes into force 

in fiscal year 2017. So we’re committed to doing that, and as I said, 

it’s been part of the fabric of NSF is to support research on disability for some time. 

On the brain, NSF has doubled its investments from 2012 to 

2016 from $71 million to $147 million, and I think you’d say that 

is quite a growth, and so we’re taking this year, being a year budget constraints, to take a pause, assess whathave we learned from 

the brain research that we’ve been investing in and where are the 

new directions where NSF uniquely among all the agencies can 

then move forward in subsequent years. So we’re very, very much 

committed to the brain, understanding the brain, and this again is 

an all-directorate effort. We have the social and behavioral sciences 

engaged, obviously the biological sciences, but also the physicists 

and engineers are engaged because what we need is better imaging 

techniques, improved technology. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and I now recognize Ms. 

Bonamici. We’re about 10 minutes out from a vote so we’re—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try 

to be brief. 

Welcome back to the Committee. First I want to make a comment, and applaud you for your work on STEM research and education. As a member of the Education Committee as well as the 

Science Committee, it’s something that I talk about and work on 

on a regular basis. 

You mentioned, Dr. Co ́rdova, hands-on learning. That is something that the STEM to STEAM initiative has been involved with, 

with integrating arts and design into STEM learning. There are 

model STEAM schools now across the county, and I happen to have 

two of them in the district I’m honored to represent, and talk about 

engaged learners, and it is also a benefit because students who are 

involved in arts and crafts are also going to be more creative and 

innovative thinkers as they move through their education, and 

we’re seeing more engaged students, so there’s a bipartisan 

STEAM caucus, and I invite colleagues to join us on that. We’ve 

seen a lot of progress and hopefully we’ll see a more innovative 

workforce as well. 

Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Arvizu—is that correct? Last week I met 

with a constituent who works at Intel. She leads a team in social 

and behavioral product research, and she talked about how that research is so critical to Intel’s ability to develop unique products for 

different markets and cultural specificity. So I wondered if you 

could discuss some examples of social and behavioral sciences leading to major breakthroughs, where has it made a difference, and 
51 

how is SBE collaborating with other fields of science and engineering. 

And then I also wanted to ask you about the Geosciences Directorate. As someone who represents a district in Oregon where we 

have, you know, natural hazards like tsunami, earthquakes, landslides, flooding, that’s critical research involved in many areas including but not limited to climate change. So Social and Behavioral 

Sciences and also provide us with a few of the budget highlights 

for the Geosciences, please. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Okay. A lot. Okay. First of all, since you started 

with STEAM, I’ll just say that we’re committed to any improvement in STEM learning including its incorporation of the arts, and 

in our informal STEM program, we do fund projects like EarSketch 

would be a very important one for disabled children to use the arts 

to learn more about STEM education. 

So on SBE, we have lots and lots of examples, and I’ll be happy 

to submit them for the record of how important and relevant that 

they are. They are—the social and behavioral sciences are a part 

of every cross-disciplinary initiative that we have, and that alone 

shows their importance to everything we do because technological 

change comes along with a lot of questions that we have about how 

to best utilize that technology and incorporate it. 

One of my favorite recent examples has to do with the measurement and data linkage in integration that SBE research on the 

linkage of diverse sources of information is very important to the 

Department of Defense, which relies on us to help fund. It’s the fusion of both hard and soft forms of data. And so they want to have 

the ability to fuse intelligence data with social media, mass media, 

and behavioral survey data because they believe it’s critical to 

forming a more comprehensive situational awareness, and we’ve all 

seen examples of this worldwide, and that is really a social and behavioral application. 

Another, of course, is anything to do with cybersecurity. We all 

know that at least half, if not three-quarters of the problem, is the 

social and behavioral response to making us more secure. 

And the third thing that you asked about has to do with the Geosciences. We have there a number of initiatives that are all embraced under the rubric of risk and resilience, and that is how we 

respond, and again, including the social sciences, how we respond 

to hurricanes and tornados and earthquakes and landslides and 

any kind of natural or human-made disasters that we want to be 

able to identify risk better. We want to do modeling and simulation 

of how to respond to them, and we believe that lives can be—we 

can demonstrate that lives can be saved that way. 

And then we’ve made a couple of references, as has Dr. Arvizu, 

to our INFEWS initiative, our Innovation at the Nexus of Food, 

Water, and Energy, and this is very much a place where the Geosciences has a big role to play because it’s all about the land and 

its uses. We had a biomass question here as far as energy is concerned and water, whether it’s underground or above-ground, and 

the production of food, and that applies—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. I see my time has expired so—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —so much. Yeah. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 
52 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. There’s lots of examples we’ll submit for the 

record. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. No, and my apologies because we are 

under five minutes now for our vote, so if Mr. Tonko could submit 

his questions for the record? 

Mr. TONKO. I will, Chair. I just want to thank our two guests, 

Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Arvizu, for the great advocacy that you have 

provided for climate change and the geosciences. There are some 

that would suggest if we ignore it, it’ll just go away, but that 

doesn’t happen, so I appreciate the advocacy, and we’ll submit 

some of the questions that I have for the record, and thank you. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, and the record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional written comments and written 

questions from Members. We did check, and they wouldn’t hold our 

vote, so my apology. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(53) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
54 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Co ́rdova 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Responses by Dr. Dan E. Arvizu 
66 
67 
68 
69 

(71) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
72 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
73 

Æ