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

93–886PDF 2015

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSALS 

FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

Serial No. 114–08 

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. 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

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 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

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 

February 26, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairman, Subcommittee 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 9 

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

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable France Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

The Honorable Daniel Arvizu, Chariman, National Science Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Dr. Willie E. May, Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 53 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable France Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation ........... 70 

The Honorable Daniel Arvizu, Chariman, National Science Board .................... 84 

Dr. Willie E. May, Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology ............................................................................................................ 90 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSALS 

FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.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 morning. The Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology will come to order. Excuse me. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of the Fiscal 

Year 2016 Budget Proposals for the National Science Foundation 

and National Institute of Standards and Technology for Fiscal Year 

2016.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

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

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

discuss these budget requests: Dr. France Co ́rdova, Director of the 

NSF, Dr. David—okay, I am going to get these names right here— 

Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science Board; and Dr. Willie 

May, Acting Director of NIST, who I want to acknowledge has been 

nominated by the President for the position of Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Standards and Technology. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for NSF totals $7.72 billion, 

an increase of $379.34 million, 5.2 percent over the Fiscal Year 

2015 enacted level. NSF is the primary source of federal funding 

for non-medical basic research. Basic research is about good jobs 

and a secure future. We want to be strong advocates for federal 

support of basic research that advances science in the national interest. 

But in this budget environment, just maintaining the current 

level of basic research support is a challenge. We have a constitutional obligation and a responsibility to ensure every dollar allocated for scientific research is spent as effectively and efficiently as 

possible. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how NSF plans 

to prioritize and manage the funding in Fiscal Year 2016. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for NIST totals $1.12 billion, an increase of $255.8 million or almost 30 percent from the 

Fiscal Year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee has a long bipartisan record of support for NIST 

and its contributions to research and development. Just last year 

the House passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the Institute. A 

30 percent increase will be difficult to achieve and would require 

significant changes in other areas, so we can keep that in mind as 

we have today’s discussion. 

The requested increases would be devoted in large part to bolster 

advanced manufacturing initiatives at NIST. $150 million dollars 

is requested for the Network for Manufacturing Innovation, which 

I believe is set in law at $5 million annually. We are here today 

to learn more about the justification for this request, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about how Fiscal Year 

2016 funds would be prioritized by NIST. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and learning 

how priorities and budgets are set by both organizations. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Comstock follows:] 
10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRWOMAN BARBARA COMSTOCK

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

budget requests: Dr. France Co ́rdova, Director of the NSF, Dr. David Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science Board, and Dr. Willie May, Acting Director of NIST, 

who I want to acknowledge has been nominated by the President for the position 

of Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology. The fiscal year 2016 budget request for NSF totals $7.72 billion, an increase of $379.34 million, 5.2 percent over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic research. Basic 

research is about good jobs and a secure future. We want to be strong advocates 

for federal support of basic research that advances science in the national interest. 

But in this budget environment, just maintaining the current level of basic research support is a big challenge. We have a constitutional obligation and a responsibility to ensure every dollar allocated for scientific research is spent as effectively 

and efficiently as possible.I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Dr. Cordova 

and Dr. Arvizu, on how NSF plans to prioritize and manage funding in fiscalyear 

2016. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request for NIST totals $1.12 billion, an increase of $255.8 million or almost 30 percent from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

This Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for NIST and its contributions to research and development. Just last year the House passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the Institute. But a 30 percent increase will be difficult to 

achieve and would require significant changes in other areas. The requested increases would be devoted in large part to bolster advanced manufacturing initiatives 

at NIST, $150 million dollars is requested for the Network for Manufacturing Innovation, which I believe is set in law at $5 million annually. 

We are here today to learn more about the justification for this request, and I am 

appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about how fiscal year 2016 funds 

would be prioritized by NIST. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and 

learning how priorities and budgets are set by both organizations. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize our Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome to 

our distinguished panel here today. 

I am pleased we are having this hearing to review the Fiscal 

Year 2016 budget proposals for the National Science Foundation 

and the National Institute for—of Standards and Technology. 

There is a lot to cover when we discuss these two critical agencies, and I believe that we would have been better able to examine 

these budgets with two separate hearings but I am hopeful that we 

can give a thoughtful and thorough consideration here today. 

As many of you know, I have said many times from when I first 

came here ten years ago how NSF and the role that this Committee plays in overseeing NSF is one of the big reasons I wanted 

to serve on this Committee when I got to Congress, and I want to 

thank both NSF and NIST for the great work that you are doing. 

The National Science Foundation is the only agency in our government that supports fundamental research across all fields of 

science and engineering. NSF has always been the primary source 

of federal support in a variety of fields, including the social and 

economic sciences. As other agencies such as DARPA and NIH 

have increasingly shifted to a more mission-focused and 

translational research, NSF has become the primary source of support for many more fields. 

$7 billion sounds like a lot of money and of course it is. However, 

given the breadth and depth of our nation’s scientific talent and 

their capacity to transform the world through scientific and techno-
11 

logical breakthroughs, $7 billion still leaves a lot of excellent ideas 

on the cutting room floor. NSF is requesting a 5.2 percent increase 

in its budget for Fiscal Year 2016, which I believe is fully justified 

and I am going to strongly support. 

I would like to highlight a couple of items in the NSF request. 

I am pleased to see the increase for the very successful Innovation 

Corps, also known as the I–Corps program. If my newer colleagues 

are unfamiliar with I–Corps, I urge them to get a briefing from 

NSF. 

Being from Chicago, I am also interested in the INFEWS Initiative and the positive impacts research in that area could have on 

water quality in the Great Lakes. 

Today, we are also looking at the budget request for NIST, the 

most important, least-known agency in our government, which has 

a budget of less than $900 million. NIST has always been the 

world’s premier measurement science and standards organization. 

In recent years, policymakers in Congress and the White House 

have called on NIST to take on leadership roles in an increasing 

number of critical areas, including cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and advanced manufacturing. On the one 

hand it is a great compliment to NIST that we entrust them with 

these responsibilities and they continue to live up to our expectations. On the other hand, many of these responsibilities have been 

making it difficult for the agency to carry out its mission. 

NIST is requesting a 30 percent increase but over a relatively 

small base. I fully support NIST’s request in light of all the increased responsibilities. 

I hope that all my colleagues will join me in urging full funding 

for NIST laboratories and construction budget. NIST infrastructure 

is 40 to 50 years old and much of it is crumbling. As they face the 

same wave of retirements that many of our agencies face, NIST is 

struggling to attract top new talent. If we do not fully fund this 

agency, we may be compromising its ability to remain the world’s 

leader in measurement science and standards development. This 

would be a heavy blow to our economic growth and security given 

the importance of NIST’s work. 

Before I close, I want to say a few words about legislation I expect will come before this Committee soon in regards to reauthorizing both of these agencies. Last year, the agencies were not given 

the opportunity to testify on the reauthorizing legislation before we 

marked it up. I am sure there will be some questions from both 

sides today that will be relevant to any new reauthorization bill, 

but it is important to allow these agencies to testify again once legislation has been introduced. This will allow our Subcommittee and 

full Committee to better understand the impact of any proposals 

for consequential policy changes. 

I look forward to this morning’s testimony and discussion and I 

yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you Madam Chairwoman and welcome to our distinguished panel. I am 

pleased we are having this hearing to review the Fiscal Year 2016 budget proposals 
12 

for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. There is a lot to cover when we discuss these two critical agencies and 

I believe that we would have been able to examine these budgets better with two 

separate hearings. But I am hopeful that we can give a thoughtful and thorough 

consideration here today. 

The National Science Foundation is the only agency in our government that supports fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering. NSF has always been the primary source of federal support in a variety of fields, including the 

social and economic sciences. As other agencies such as DARPA and NIH have increasingly shifted toward more mission-focused and translational research, NSF has 

become the primary source of support for many more fields. $7 billion sounds like 

a lot of money, and of course it is. However, given the breadth and depth of our 

nation’s scientific talent, and their capacity to transform the world through scientific 

and technological breakthroughs, $7 billion still leaves a lot of excellent ideas on the 

cutting-room floor. NSF is requesting a 5.2 percent increase in its budget for FY 

2016 which I believe is fully justified and I will strongly support. 

I would like to highlight a couple of the items in the NSF request. I am pleased 

to see the increase for the very successful Innovation Corps, aka the I-Corps program. If my newer colleagues are unfamiliar with I-Corps, I urge them to get a 

briefing from NSF. Being from Chicago, I’m also interested in the INFEWS initiative and the positive impacts research in that area could have on water quality in 

the Great Lakes. 

Today we are also looking at the budget request for NIST, the most important 

least-known agency in our government, which has a budget of less than $900 million. NIST has always been the world’s premier measurement science and standards 

organization. In recent years, policymakers in Congress and the White House have 

called on NIST to take on leadership roles in an increasing number of critical areas, 

including cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and advanced manufacturing. On the one hand, it is a great compliment to NIST that we entrust them 

with these responsibilities and they continue to live up to our expectations. On the 

other hand, many of these responsibilities have been assigned without needed increases in funding, making it difficult for the agency to carry out its mission. NIST 

is requesting a nearly 30 percent increase, but over a relatively small base. I fully 

support NIST’s request in light of all the increased responsibilities. 

I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in urging full funding for NIST’s laboratories and construction budget. NIST’s infrastructure is 40–50 years old and 

much of it is crumbling. As they face the same wave of retirements that many of 

our agencies face, NIST is struggling to attract top new technical talent. If we do 

not fully fund this agency, we may be compromising its ability to remain the world’s 

leader in measurement science and standards development. This would be a heavy 

blow to our economic growth and security given the importance of NIST’s work. 

Before I close, I want to say a few words about legislation that I expect will come 

before this Committee soon in regard to reauthorizing both of these agencies. Last 

year, the agencies were not given the opportunity to testify on the reauthorizing legislation before we marked up it. I’m sure there will be some questions from both 

sides today that will be relevant to any new reauthorization bill, but it’s important 

to allow these agencies to testify again once legislation has been introduced. This 

will allow our Subcommittee and the full Committee to better understand the impact of any proposals for consequential policy changes. 

I look forward to this morning’s testimony and discussion, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Now, Chairman Smith—I recognize Chairman Smith, our Chairman of the full Committee. 

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

and state the obvious at the beginning that we have an excellent 

panel with us today and we look forward to hearing from them 

shortly. 

The National Science Foundation and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology support fundamental scientific research 

that is critical to American innovation and competitiveness. Our 

challenge is to set funding priorities that ensure America remains 

first in the global marketplace of ideas and products, without misusing the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars. 
13 

For example, why does the Administration increase funding for 

the Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Directorate by over 

seven percent while proposing an average of less than four percent 

for the Biology, Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematical 

and Physical Science Directorates? 

But I do want to emphasize and mention and applaud the steps 

taken by NSF to improve transparency and accountability. NSF’s 

new policy acknowledges the need for NSF to communicate clearly 

and in nontechnical terms when the agency describes the research 

projects it funds. The new policy also emphasizes that the title and 

abstract for each funded grant should act as the public justification 

for NSF funding. It should explain how the project serves the national interest and is consistent with the NSF mission, as set forth 

in the 1950 legislation that created the Foundation. And I understand Dr. Co ́rdova presented this at the November National 

Science Board meeting and received positive comments. 

It appears the new NSF policy parallels a significant provision 

of the FIRST Act approved by this Committee last fall, a requirement that NSF publish a justification for each funded grant that 

sets forth the project’s scientific merit and national interest. The 

reference to the 1950 original enabling legislation and its NSF mission statement is consistent with the FIRST Act, too. 

NIST does valuable, important work as well, which includes 

maintaining industrial and technical standards and managing 

cybersecurity guidelines for federal agencies. But the proposed 30 

percent increase in the NIST budget for next year is unrealistic. 

Although there are a number of areas proposed for very large in- creases, the $150 million for the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation program is of particular concern. Last year, with 

strong bipartisan support, this Committee, the full House, and the 

Senate approved H.R. 2996, the Revitalize American Manufacturing Innovation Act, or RAMI. This bill authorized about $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST with the bulk of the program 

funding to be transferred from the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy budget at the Energy Department’s Office of 

Science. I don’t know why the Administration is ignoring the duly 

enacted RAMI Act. 

Other than that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today on the subject that I mentioned above and yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to Dr. Cθrdova, Dr. Arvizu and Dr. May 

for being with us here today. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) support fundamental scientific research that is critical to 

American innovation and competitiveness. Our challenge is to set funding priorities 

that ensure America remains first in the global marketplace of ideas and products, 

without misusing the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars. 

For example, why does the administration increase funding for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Directorate by over seven percent while proposing an 

average of less than four percent for the Biology, Computer science, Engineering 

and Mathematical and Physical science directorates? 

I do want to mention and applaud the steps taken by NSF to improve transparency and accountability. NSF’s new policy acknowledges the need for NSF to 
14 

communicate clearly and in non-technical terms when the agency describes the research projects it funds. 

The new policy also emphasizes that the title and abstract for each funded grant 

should act as the public justification for NSF funding. It should explain how the 

project serves the national interest and is consistent with the NSF mission, as set 

forth in the 1950 legislation that created the Foundation. 

I understand Dr. Cθrdova presented this at the November National Science Board 

meeting and received positive comments. 

It appears the new NSF policy parallels a significant provision of the FIRST Act 

approved by this Committee last fall—a requirement that NSF publish a justification for each funded grant that sets forth the project’s scientific merit and national 

interest. The reference to the 1950 original enabling legislation and its NSF mission 

statement is consistent with the FIRST Act, too. 

NIST does valuable, important work as well, which includes maintaining industrial and technical standards and managing cybersecurity guidelines for federal 

agencies. But the proposed 30 percent increase in the NIST budget for next year 

is unrealistic. 

Although there are a number of areas proposed for very large increases, the $150 

million for the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) program is 

of particular concern. Last year, with strong bipartisan support, this Committee, the 

full House, and the Senate approved HR 2996, the Revitalize American Manufacturing Innovation Act (RAMI). 

This bill authorized about $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST with the bulk 

of the program funding to be transferred from the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy budget at the Energy Department’s Office of Science. 

I don’t know why the administration is ignoring the duly enacted RAMI Act. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the subjects I mentioned 

above. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

And now I recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee 

for a statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for 

holding this important hearing, and I welcome the National Science 

Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology witnesses here. Both are agencies that are central to the 

federal role in advancing science, promoting innovation, and creating a more prosperous nation. 

I look forward to hearing from the distinguished witnesses before 

us this morning. I only wish they could each have had in their own 

hearing because there are so many important topics to discuss for 

each of the agencies. 

I am pleased with the budget request for both NSF and NIST. 

I hope Congress will have the wisdom to fully fund both requests. 

There are many worthy programs across the government and we 

cannot fund everything. However, I believe that funding science 

and innovation should be an easy choice, for this is about our future, and even more important, it is about our children’s future. 

That said, there are a few programs in the budget request that 

I would like to highlight. First, I am pleased to see NIST and 

NSF’s increased investments in engineered biology. Many of the experts believe that biology will be the driver of economic prosperity 

in the 21st century, as physics was in the 20th century. Mr. Sensenbrenner joined me in introducing the Engineering Biology Act of 

2015, which would create a framework for coordinated federal initiative in engineering biology. I hope we have the opportunity to 

move the bill this Congress. 

Next, I am happy to see NIST leadership in the area of forensic 

science and standards. The partnership between NIST and the Department of Justice must continue to recognize NIST’s critical role 
15 

in developing technical standards for forensic evidence. The justice 

system must be just for all, including the wrongfully accused. I 

would be reintroducing my Forensic Science and Standards Act 

soon and I welcome my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation with 

me. 

Also, while public access is not addressed in the budget request 

directly, it is a timely issue. I am pleased to see that several agencies, including NIST, have released their public access plans for 

federally funded research, a process that this Committee started 

back in the year 2009. Dr. Co ́rdova, I understand you will still be 

negotiating with OSTP on your plan and I encourage you to resolve 

that as soon as possible. 

Let me conclude with a few words about the debates in this Committee regarding our support for different fields of science and for 

merit review. We all have beliefs we would hold very strongly 

whether or not there is evidence to support them. Some of my colleagues believe very strongly that some fields of science are less 

valuable than other fields and that some grants are less worthy 

than other brands. Personally, I do not presume to have the expertise to make that determination. I trust the merit review process, 

and I trust NSF to make those decisions. The experts before us 

today will have an opportunity to educate us as to why we must 

invest in all STEM fields, and why it is so important to keep the 

merit review process free from political review. I just hope that all 

of my colleagues truly listen and consider what our witnesses have 

to say. 

I very much look forward to the testimony, and with that, yield 

back. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for holding this important hearing. The National 

Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology are 

both agencies that are central to the federal role in advancing science, promoting 

innovation, and creating a more prosperous nation. I look forward to hearing from 

the distinguished witnesses before us this morning. I only wish they could each have 

their own hearing because there are so many important topics to discuss for each 

agency. 

I am pleased with the budget requests for both NSF and NIST. I hope Congress 

will have the wisdom to fully fund both requests. There are many worthy programs 

across the government, and we cannot fund everything. However, I believe that 

funding science and innovation should be an easy choice. This is about our future, 

and even more important, it is about our children’s future. 

That said, there are a few programs in the budget requests that I would like to 

highlight. First, I am pleased to see NIST’s and NSF’s increased investments in engineered biology. Many of the experts believe that biology will be the driver of economic prosperity in the 21st Century as physics was in the 20th Century. Mr. Sensenbrenner joined me in introducing the Engineering Biology Act of 2015, which 

would create a framework for a coordinated federal initiative in engineering biology. 

I hope we have the opportunity to move the bill this Congress. 

Next, I am happy to see NIST’s leadership in the area of forensic science and 

standards. The partnership between NIST and the Department of Justice must continue to recognize NIST’s critical role in developing technical standards for forensic 

evidence. The justice system must be just for all, including the wrongfully accused. 

I will be reintroducing my Forensic Science and Standards Act soon, and I welcome 

my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation with me. 

Also, while public access is not addressed in the budget request directly, it is a 

timely issue. I am pleased to see that several agencies, including NIST, have re-
16 

leased their public access plans for federally funded research, a process that this 

Committee started back in 2009. Dr. Cθrdova, I understand you are still negotiating 

with OSTP on your plan. I encourage you to resolve that as soon as possible. 

Let me conclude with a few words about the debates in this Committee regarding 

our support for different fields of science and for merit-review. We all have beliefs 

we hold very strongly whether or not there is evidence to support them. Some of 

my colleagues believe very strongly that some fields of science are less valuable than 

other fields, and that some grants are less worthy than other grants. Personally, 

I do not presume to have the expertise to make that determination. I trust the 

merit-review process, and I trust NSF to make those decisions. 

The experts before us today will have an opportunity to educate us as to why we 

must invest in all STEM fields, and why it is so important to keep the merit-review 

process free from political review. I just hope that all of my colleagues truly listen 

and consider what they have to say. 

I very much look forward to the testimony and with that I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Now, if there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Hon. France 

Co ́rdova is the Director of the National Science Foundation; Hon. 

Dan Arvizu is the Chairman of the National Science Board; and 

Dr. Willie May is the Acting Director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to five minutes and your entire written statement will be made 

part of the record. 

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

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANCE CO ́ RDOVA, 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members, I 

am very pleased to be with you today to present the National 

Science Foundation’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. 

I would like to begin my remarks with three short stories about 

breakthroughs in NSF-funded science in 2014. Dr. Danielle Bassett 

of the University of Pennsylvania was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship, often called the ‘‘genius grant,’’ for her NSF-sponsored 

work on how different regions of the brain interact. She uses MRI 

technology and computer algorithms in her research, which may ultimately lead to what she calls ‘‘personalized therapeutics for rehabilitation and treatment of brain injury and psychiatric disorders.’’ 

Her work may have application to Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s disease. 

Dr. Perena Gouma, material science research at SUNY Stony 

Brook, has created a novel nanogrid that when activated by sunlight can break down oil from a spill. She was the first scientist to 

receive an I–Corps grant and has started a company based on patents from this original research. 

Dr. Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley was awarded a Breakthrough Prize by leading technology companies. Her inspiration, 

she says, was her father, a literature professor who introduced her 

to cryptograms. Today, she has decrypted bacterial immunity, and 

with that discovery enabled the development of a precision genome 
17 

editing tool, which could be used to treat diseases like cancer and 

AIDS, as well as hereditary disorders. At a recent session where 

I joined her to talk about future breakthroughs, she spoke of her 

experiences with K through 12 students. There is a scientist in 

every child, she said. 

These young women scientists and their game-changing discoveries were all funded by NSF. They were all drawn into science by 

family, friends, or teachers at a young age. Their research is truly 

innovative and interdisciplinary and shows a commitment to the 

STEM workforce. 

NSF has a long history of funding research that leads to breakthroughs in science and engineering. These breakthroughs excite 

the next generation and generate promise for the future. NSF has 

funded 214 Nobel Prize winners, including the most recent winners, W.E. Moerner in chemistry and Jean Tirole in economics. 

This past year, the NSF-funded supercomputer called Stampede 

at UT Austin has been used to explore a new method of DNA sequencing, which could make getting one’s genome affordable. The 

new telescope in Chile called ALMA produced an iconic image of 

a proto-solar system forming around a relatively nearby star in our 

galaxy. This telescope is managed by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory located in Virginia. 

In addition, the NSF-funded Blue Waters supercomputer at the 

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is being used by researchers from the Mayo Clinic to understand gene expression in the 

brain with an eye to better understanding Alzheimer’s disease. 

How do these stories and examples inform NSF’s future investments? In Fiscal Year 2016 NSF proposes to uphold the essential 

approach that it has pursued for more than 60 years, to invest in 

discovery research and education in science and engineering, and 

by doing so, to address complex challenges facing the Nation for 

our Nation. 

In Fiscal Year 2016 there are four NSF-wide investments that 

address issues of major scientific national and societal importance. 

The first focus is on understanding the brain and it will offer novel 

insights into how cognitive abilities develop and can be maintained 

and improved throughout people’s lives. The second is focused on 

the discovery science needed to understand the complicated and 

interconnected food-energy-water nexus. The third area of emphasis in 2016 is risk and resilience. It focuses on the advances needed 

to address pressing challenges associated with extreme events and 

how we can be prepared for them. The fourth is to develop an integrated national effort to increase the participation of young people 

who have been traditionally underserved and/or underrepresented 

in the STEM enterprise. 

What we are presenting today is therefore a robust investment 

in discovery. The total budget request is for $7.7 billion, a 5.2 percent increase above the current level. This request builds on the 

foundation strength in funding breakthroughs and discoveries 

across a broad range of fields and in educating the STEM workforce. 

My written remarks provide additional detail on these investments. 
18 

Most of all, it continues NSF’s tradition of funding great ideas 

and growing great talent and ensures that NSF remains the place 

where discoveries began. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for your support of the National Science 

Foundation. I look forward to working with you as together we advance science in the national interest. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Co ́rdova follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

And I now recognize Dr. Arvizu for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL ARVIZU, 

CHARIMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. ARVIZU. Thank you. 

Full Committee Chair, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Subcommittee Chairwoman Comstock, and Ranking Member 

Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today in support of the National 

Science Foundation’s fiscal 2016 budget request. 

I am Dan Arvizu, the Chairman of the Science Board, and in my 

day job I am the Director and the Chief Executive at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The National Science Board, as you know, is the governing board of the 

National Science Foundation and an independent advisor to both 

Congress and the President. 

To begin, I would like to take a few moments to comment on my 

colleague here, the National Science Foundation Director France 

Co ́rdova. Dr. Co ́rdova has been at the agency’s helm for almost a 

year now and the board is very appreciative and impressed by her 

leadership. From day one she has worked to ensure that the NSF 

supports and will be able to continue to support the strongest portfolio of discovery research in the world. She attends to both processes and to people embracing the Foundation’s efforts to enhance 

transparency and accountability and strengthen its workforce. And 

Dr. Co ́rdova is a terrific ambassador, as many of you know, for the 

agency connecting with other nations and scientists across all fields 

so that NSF can achieve its mission in advancing the frontiers of 

science. 

Chairwoman Comstock, this morning on behalf of my 24 colleagues on the National Science Board, the science and engineering 

education communities which I represent as well, I would like to 

thank Members of the Subcommittee for their long-standing support of the NSF. The board takes very seriously our shared responsibility to provide strong governance and proper stewardship of this 

critical taxpayer investment. 

As you know, NSF is the only agency that supports fundamental 

science and engineering research across all fields advancing the national interest by enabling scientific breakthroughs and the next 

generation of scientists and engineers. At the core, NSF is simple. 

We fund the best ideas, proposed and evaluated by scientists and 

engineers throughout the country, and we do this in fact relying on 

a lean, dedicated workforce that is supplemented by rotating experts and volunteers and volunteer reviewers. This approach has 

delivered enormous value to the U.S. taxpayer and become part of 

the well-known international gold standard, as we like to say, that 

the Foundation has always worked to both protect and improve. 

NSF discovery science exists at the core of much larger national 

science and technology ecosystem. The early-stage research that 

NSF drives lays the foundation for the application-oriented science 

pursued by other agencies and the technological innovations devel-
32 

oped by our nation’s businesses. For example, ten years ago NSF 

invested in research on how to design and build a secure cyber infrastructure for the power grid. The DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Department of Homeland Security have carried this research forward, and thanks to these successive investments, today, the trustworthy cyber infrastructure for 

the power grid project is collaborating with national labs and utility sectors to improve the design security, safety, and resiliency of 

the U.S. power grid. 

We are always looking to improve our processes, and as a result, 

NSF, as you know, the agency has implemented new policies to 

begin and to better communicate how awards serve the national interest, how management of the NSF’s large facilities is—are managed as well, and the Board and the Director planned a joint commission, an external independent review, to look at how NSF manages its cooperative agreements and to explore areas where they 

might make improvements to our procedures and processes. 

The National Science Foundation’s 2016 budget request reflects 

a strategic commitment to support the best basic research, economic growth, job creation through innovation, and a globally competitive science and engineering workforce. The Board believes that 

the proposal reflects the priorities set by the scientific community 

and a clear commitment to investments that will strengthen our 

nation over the long term. 

I particularly ask for your support for funding of—full funding of 

the Agency Operations Award Management account. This request 

reflects the need to bring on additional staff to meet the requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, cost effectively supporting high-quality, transparent federal spending information. 

Like all Americans, the research community must make tough 

choices and set a priority, a challenge that my colleagues and I, 

along with the Director, have embraced. Even in times of severe 

budget constraints, the Board believes that the investment in our 

science and technology capabilities, including our S&E workforce 

are essential to our Nation’s long-term prosperity and security. 

Our researcherships, observatories have led to revolutionary 

technologies, Nobel prizes, and even new states of matter, accomplishments that are a result of 65 years of a partnership among scientists, universities, NSF, and Congress. 

Thank you for your leadership and for this opportunity to testify 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Arvizu follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr. 

May for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIE E. MAY, 

ACTING DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. MAY. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request 

for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 

whose mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science standards and 

technology in ways that enhance our economic security and improve our quality of life. The budget reflects NIST’s important role 

in establishing and addressing the Nation’s top scientific and technical challenges that will indeed foster the innovation that creates 

jobs and strengthens the U.S. economy. 

Specifically, the President has proposed a budget for NIST of $1.1 billion that we—as we have heard earlier. This is a $256 million increase in the 2015-enacted level. The budget will support 

U.S. manufacturers, aid our communities in recovering from disasters, and improve the ways that we connect to the world around 

us from online banking transactions to using technology to effectively and efficiently manage the smart grid to support the implementation of smart cities. 

The largest portion of the requested increase, $194.4 million, focuses on U.S.-based manufacturing. This includes research in the 

NIST labs, support for the Hollings Marine—Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and a new request for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. 

The NIST laboratories represent the core of our mission. Our researchers conduct world-class research that advances the Nation’s 

technological infrastructure and helps U.S. companies continually 

improve their products and services. The basic research in the 

NIST laboratories has garnered five Nobel prizes over the last 18 

years, a Kyoto Prize in material science, two National Medals of 

Science, and over 100 other national and international scientific 

awards and prizes. 

NIST conducts more applied research in the standards area in 

areas of national and global importance including but not limited 

to cybersecurity, advanced communications, advanced manufacturing, advanced materials, and strengthening the science that underpins the forensic data and information used to make decisions 

in our criminal justice system. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for—on Standards and Technology Research Services account is for $754.7 million. This is 

an increase of $79.2 million over the 2015 budget, and this is to 

grow our capacity in advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity and 

privacy for our nation’s growing digital economy and for the fundamental measurement science and technology that is critical to U.S. 

innovation and improved quality of life. 

The increase will also provide for continued operation of our 

world-class Center for Neutron Research and will strengthen our 

efforts to support the Nation’s community disaster resilience programs. 
41 

Madame Chairwoman, NIST Industrial Technology Services appropriations supports our External Partnership programs designed 

to enhance American innovation and global competitiveness 

through partnerships at the state and local level. For ITS account 

the Fiscal Year 2016 request is for $306 million. That is a $167 

million increase and we recognize that. $150 million of that would 

support the establishment of the NNMI that we have heard about 

envisioned to be a globally diverse set of regional hubs coordinated 

by NIST to accelerate the development and adoption of new cutting-edge manufacturing technologies. 

The major portion of this amount is to establish two manufacturing innovation institutes to address the advanced manufacturing needs identified by industry. The eight institutes that have 

been identified to date are focused on U.S. Government agency 

needs, namely those of the DOD and the DOE. The ITS report also 

supports an $11 million increase—$11 million to increase the ability of our MEP centers to service small, rural, and young companies. 

Our construction budget request is for $59 million. It represents an $8.7 million over 2015. Simply put, the aging and deteriorating 

buildings and infrastructure on our two campuses are beginning to 

threaten our ability to accomplish our mission. 

Ms. Chairwoman, the NIST labs play a unique role in the Nation’s research and technology development enterprise. We sit at 

the nexus of the science and industry conducting cutting-edge 

world-class science and developing standards that will allow industry to innovate and compete successfully. Both our labs and our extramural programs are clearly focused on providing the tools to 

allow U.S. manufacturing to experience a renaissance of technological leadership. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today and I will be happy 

to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. May follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And thank you to all of our 

witnesses. I appreciate having you here today and now we are 

going to have five minute question rounds. And I will recognize myself initially for a five minute round. 

Following up on really what all of you talked about in some regard, could you give us a little bit more detail on the role that private industry plays in terms of creating and retaining science and 

engineering jobs and how—versus the public and how the money 

that we are spending can then leverage that private money? I 

think you all spoke to that a little bit but if maybe we could detail 

that a little bit more and how can we ensure that we are targeting 

our resources into areas that will leverage and create these new 

21st century jobs that we all are very committed to expanding? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I will be happy to start, Madam Chairwoman. So 

just two comments. One is that, as you know, NSF has a very 

strong STEM workforce investment, and we—especially at the undergraduate and graduate level but also in K through 12 and really 

the whole spectrum of training for science and engineering careers. 

In my experience as a university professor being very close to the 

students and close to their passion for getting a job and contributing to the economy and being happy was that business—private 

business was very, very interested in our students because of the 

skill sets that they got when they were at the university, and most 

of our students have the opportunity to participate because of the 

funding of places like NSF and NIST in science and engineering 

with—along with their faculty members. And this was just excellent training. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. In terms of internships and things that 

were—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Absolutely. Internships for the summer and engineering programs. There are internship programs for a whole year. 

So that is one aspect of this investment. 

And the other is that NSF—I did a broad survey of the partnerships that our agency has with private industry, and we have over 

a couple of hundred partnerships, maybe even more than that 

across the whole spectrum of dollar funding that really leverage 

our federal investment with private funding. And sometimes that 

is on workforce and investment in students and university, say, 

centers, engineering centers, industry university research centers 

that we fund, and sometimes it is in the actual science and engineering programs themselves. So we are—I think we are very good 

partners. We have an emphasis this year in particular on accelerating the numbers and kinds of partnerships that we have with 

the private sector. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

Dr. ARVIZU. If I may just add slightly to that, I will be brief. I 

mentioned the ecosystem of the Nation and how NSF supports fundamental research that ultimately finds its way into the marketplace. There is probably nothing better than a few examples—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Yes. 

Dr. ARVIZU. —to describe kind of how that might occur and so 

I have got a couple that I think might be useful. I will just focus 

on one. 
54 

NSF has sponsored fundamental research on synthetic chemistry 

and transforming positron emission tomography, PET imaging, 

which is an important new technique, and an NSF-funded chemist, 

Stephen DiMagno, discovered how to create some organic compounds rapidly and efficiently. After that, PI was recognized and 

went through the I–Corps program that NSF sponsors along with 

SBIR, which is special grants. That has resulted in ground-floor 

pharmaceuticals from Lincoln, Nebraska, a company that produces 

radio tags for this kind of imaging and they have recently signed 

an exclusive license with Massachusetts General Hospital, which 

will give rise to a whole suite of new diagnostic techniques in a 

competitive manner and allow there to be the fundamental work 

that was done to provide a great opportunity for an expansion of 

things that really I think offer great and wonderful applications in 

the marketplace. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Great. Very good. 

Dr. MAY. I think each of us is going to answer this a little different, so here is my spin on this. 

When I came to NIST 43 years ago we had 3,000 employees. 

We—actually we had 3,300. Today, with all of the new assignments 

and the growth in the organization, we have 3,000 employees, less 

than we had then, but we have 3,500 associates. These are people 

who work on our campus almost on a daily basis that are not employees that we interact with. So we have changed our interaction 

platform considerably. 

We have associates from industry, from academia, from other 

government laboratories, some foreign laboratories. A large portion 

of those are with our students, postdocs and students who spend 

time on our campus. We are also gaining new capabilities that we 

need to carry out our mission and do some of the new activities 

that I heard many of you speak about through something called 

joint institutes or centers of excellence that we are establishing 

with the university sector. 

So as we are growing our program, addressing the new challenges that we are being asked by the Administration, the Congress, and industry to take on, we are not doing that by hiring 

more federal employees; we are doing more collaborations and 

using the talents in the university system and the private sector 

to work with us to deliver our mission. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. Thank you. 

And I would ask any of you, if you have additional examples because those examples are always very helpful for us to really have 

the object lessons on how this is impacting, so thank you. 

And I did—my time is up but I did want to maybe for the record 

ask about regulatory and reporting burdens that might—you know, 

we have heard that from the universities and researchers and any 

of those things that might limit your ability to target the resources 

to the best use, and if you would like to identify any of those for 

us for the record. 

So now I will recognize our Ranking Member Lipinski for his 

questions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to start with Dr. Co ́rdova, and 

I have a number of questions. Hopefully we can have a second 

round and maybe get through a couple here. But, Dr. Co ́rdova, I 
55 

know you have been actively engaged on improving transparency 

and accountability at NSF and I want to thank you for that. I want 

to join the Chairman in thanking you for that because all of us 

want to make sure that the research dollars are being spent in the 

best way possible. 

But I want to give you an opportunity to explain to the Members, 

especially new Members on the Committee, just what you are doing 

that is new for transparency and accountability. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Member Lipinski. 

So we have been very engaged in enhancing our transparency 

and accountability processes since I came 11 months ago to the 

agency, and the first thing I want to do is just thank Chairman 

Smith and the Members of the overall Committee for moving us 

more in that very important direction. It was definitely the right 

time and we want to be very responsive. We completely agree that 

this is very, very important that the public understands the investment that this country is making in science and engineering and 

STEM education. 

We—so we—as of last May, we instituted some new practices, 

which—on transparency and accountability which focused on clarifying, communicating better the titles and the abstracts for proposals. Those two things were online for all proposals, and having 

a nontechnical description which would clearly say what the proposal’s goals were about in clear English and also what is the potential impact of the research and how it serves the national interest. 

And so that was the order of the day as of last May. As you can 

imagine, this is a big change. We get over 50,000 proposes a year 

from which we select about 11,000, so it is a big, complicated engine that works on the whole merit review process. So we then instituted our practices into guidance, which came out at the same 

time as the OMB Uniform Guidance that—they come out together. 

We changed our manuals, which are both internal for program officers doing the overseeing of the review process and for—and another one for the external community so that they could see what 

the expectation was. 

And so the effective date of all these changes I would like to call 

January 1 of 2015 that we will really see a difference in what is 

being done and how it looks to the public and how they proposals 

are being reviewed. 

On top of that we have training, new kinds of training for the 

program officers and division directors that really do the bulk of 

the merit review process, and it is—basically it is a cultural change 

for the agency. And as you know, Representative Lipinski, culture 

change takes a while to take hold. And so—but all the system directors who are sitting behind me are just firmly committed to this, 

each in their own disciplinary area, and I expect that we will see 

some real changes here. 

I also should add I sent a so-called important notice, which is 

sent very rarely—I have only sent out one as NSF Director so far— 

to all the university presidents letting them know of these changes 

and we have a website of course for further clarification. We have 

working groups internally. Every speech that I have made—I 
56 

would say every speech that I have made for the last few months 

has included a description of our efforts in this regard. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. I know as a former academic how tough cultural change is. 

I don’t have much time but I want to throw this question out. 

SBE, the Social and Behavioral Science and Economics directorate, 

can you—Dr. Co ́rdova, can you talk about how important that is 

to solving grand challenges that we have in health, energy, education, national security, cybersecurity, and so many other things? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. So the social and behavioral economic sciences are 

incorporated—when I go around my university visits—and I just 

came back from visiting a few universities and research centers in 

the country—are incorporated into really everything we do and 

think about as scientists and engineers. So there are lots of centers, some of which have been funded by NSF, some by other agencies and some by the universities themselves, or all of them, and 

they invariably include social and behavioral and economic scientists now because they are trying to address some grand challenges that face our country and our world and they realize the importance of having the social and behavioral sciences there to inform. 

Let me just give you one example for Chairwoman Comstock that 

there is—and the Arizona State University there is a big bio-design 

center that embraces lots of particular kinds of research around 

that incorporates physics and biology and so on. They also have as 

an integral part of that a center called Nanoscience in Society 

which everyone goes through, all the other centers connect to, to 

evaluate if you are thinking of a new concept in nanotechnology or 

really any of the bio and physical sciences what could be the potential impact and what are the ethical and legal and kind of public 

considerations for how that technology could be used? And I was 

told that sometimes scientists just actually make a pause and head 

off maybe in a different direction based on being informed by social 

and behavioral economic scientists sitting at the table with them 

and looking at the potential impact of what they are developing in 

their new technological approaches. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. I—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I thank the Chairwoman for indulging 

me there. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Great. 

And I now recognize Chairman Smith for questions. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, let me say at the outset that that was wonderful 

to hear your three examples of breakthrough winners dealing with 

treating diseases and oil spills and the brain. And you quoted the 

individual I think who won the award for treating diseases as saying that there is a scientist in every child. That is a wonderful 

quote. I intend to plagiarize that in the future. But I think it does 

point to frankly the responsibility we all have and that is to make 

the study of science more interesting to young people. And that is 

the subject of another hearing, but that certainly should be a goal 

of ours in lots and lots of ways. 

Thank you, too, for mentioning the computer—the supercomputer 

at University of Texas. I only wish I became Chairman of the Com-
57 

mittee a few years earlier so I could have taken more credit for 

that supercomputer. But they are pleased with it and it is doing 

a lot of good work. 

I would like to address my first couple of questions to you and 

ask about your policy, which I appreciate and which you mentioned 

a few minutes ago as well. And I just want to make sure that I 

understand the policy and see if you feel if the National Science 

Foundation policy is compatible and agreeable to the similar provision in the FIRST Act. I am not asking you to endorse the FIRST 

Act but just to focus on that provision as parallel. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for—and Mr. Lipinski 

for raising the important issue of greater transparency and accountability. Your legislative provision—I think it was Section 106 

of the FIRST Act from the last Congress, which focuses on the national interest is very compatible with the new NSF internal guidelines and with the mission statement of NSF, which I quote ‘‘to 

promote the progress of science to advance the national health, 

prosperity, and welfare and to secure the national defense.’’ We 

share the same goals and believe that these policies—transparency, 

accountability, the national interest—are to be found in the 1950 

law that created NSF and established our mission. 

And so we likewise thought it was important and appropriate to 

add the explicit reference the national interest in our revised 

guidelines. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And you I assume then support the language we have in the FIRST Act that deals with that particular 

subject? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, we do. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Arvizu, as Chairman of the Science Board, do you concur with that? I shouldn’t ask you if you agree with Dr. Co ́rdova 

because that is not fair but do you agree with the idea that the provisions in the FIRST Act that we are talking about and the NSF 

policy that Dr. Co ́rdova has been promoting and when—we appreciate that—are compatible and similar and you support the language in the FIRST Act as well? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for the questions 

and for asking our input on that. 

I think I can speak without reservation that my colleagues and 

I on the board—I support the goal that is clearly articulated in this 

section and we agree that awards that NSF makes need to be able 

to support the best ideas and fulfillment of the mission that was 

essentially just quoted by Dr. Co ́rdova. And we like the whole 

quote, which includes ‘‘and other purposes’’ but I think the main 

thing to say here is that we concur with her assessment of the 

changes that are being made—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. ARVIZU. —so I want to thank you for your leadership on that. 

Chairman SMITH. And again, it goes below—it goes beyond 

agreement, you agree with our language as well and you support 

the language we have? 

Dr. ARVIZU. I think, again, we will offer the opportunity to offer 

additional input to make and strengthen that but—— 
58 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Co ́rdova said she agreed with the language. Don’t you as well or—— 

Dr. ARVIZU. Well, we agree in principle that this is actually 

meeting the goals that we are trying to accomplish and I think it 

is probably best to wait until the language actually comes out, but 

I—with what I have seen so far, I think we can agree with that 

language. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I have two other questions. Let me come back to transparency 

and accountability because I want to ask you, Dr. Co ́rdova, what 

you think needs to be done yet. But before I get there, you had a 

question a while ago about the SBE directorate. Do you consider 

the SBE directorate any more important than any other directorates? I mentioned in my opening statement that SBE got a 

seven percent increase. The others—Biology, Computer Science, 

Engineering, Mathematical, and Physical Science Directorates got 

less. Do you think SBE is there—more important than the other 

directorates? Why should it get a greater increase than the others 

if it should? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Well, Chairman Smith, those are two different 

questions. 

The reason why they have a bigger increase is in large part because of the funding—the increase in funding for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, which is within SBE. 

Chairman SMITH. If you take that out—what is the increase if 

you take that out? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Well, let me just ask Mr. Sievert behind me—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —what is the increase if we take out the Center 

because that center of course is the basis for the science and engineering indicators and the Congressional Research Service depends 

on—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Well—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —the statistics—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, that is being—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Sure. Thank you. Fine. 

Chairman SMITH. —determined—if I can, let me just ask you to 

elaborate because I know you are doing some—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. 

Chairman SMITH. —positive things in this regard and that is 

what remains to be done in the areas of transparency and accountability? I know you are making some changes and I didn’t know if 

you wanted to elaborate on those or not. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I think improving communication is always important when you are making cultural change and so that people understand clearly what the expectations are. I think we will have a 

lot of work to do internally which we would like to share with the 

external proposing community on writing nontechnical descriptions 

of the research. This will be—this is kind of a new adventure for 

some, not for all, and so we—rather than—as you know, the number of proposals has—over the last decade has increased tremendously and the number of FTE have not, so workload is a consideration so we will have to figure out and we are trying out new pilot 

programs and merit review, including virtual panels and all the 
59 

rest of it to try to have the merit review process itself be efficient 

and effective. And this is all part of it is communicating how we 

do this work in that overall context. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Co ́rdova. My time is way over. 

And do you have a quick percentage—and here comes the answer. You feel like you are—oh, not yet? Okay. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. For the record. We will submit it for the record. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. We will look forward to getting that. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. That is the answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

And thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I now recognize Mr. Tonko for his questions. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all of our 

panelists. The information feed is awesome. 

I represent the capital region of New York, which has been 

dubbed by many to be one of the strongest hubs of growth—job 

growth in the clean energy innovation high tech economy. And with 

that we have great organizations like Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the corporate headquarters of GE with a lot of their innovation that they are incorporating, and the Polytechnic Institute. 

So my desire is to continue to build the foundations to further underpin that regional economy and certainly the Nation’s economy 

with this growth that is so important. 

By the two agencies that you speak for today, I am really impressed by the work that you do. So my question is—my focus is 

on the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, the NNMI 

effort. Dr. May, can you discuss the level of demand for additional 

institutes under NNMI and what area of focus do you envision for 

those future institutes? 

Dr. MAY. Well, there is a lot of pent-up demand. There is more 

than 135 needs that have been identified by NIST, and as I said 

earlier, there are eight institutes that have been stood up and they 

are mainly stood up to address the needs that were coherent with 

the needs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. 

What are the specific needs that we address? Once we—when 

and if we have funding in ’16, we will begin a process to winnow 

down those unmet needs and have plans to move forward and establish two institutes going forward and then begin processing 

those needs that we have, allowing additional input obviously to— 

and then set up a plan for setting up additional institutes in the 

out years. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I am a solid advocate for additional funding for those innovative concepts. What—when making a selection 

for a new institute, what other factors are given consideration? Is 

it geography, for instance, taken into account or any prioritization 

for legacy cities that are transitioning from an older industrial reliance to perhaps a new day for—that comes via advanced manufacturing? 

Dr. MAY. Excuse the analogy but we are looking to pick the best 

horse and the best jockey. 
60 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. 

Dr. MAY. We don’t care where that horse and jockey comes from. 

Mr. TONKO. I represent Saratoga so I understand the language. 

I understand that language very well. 

Dr. MAY. So we expect to make merit-based decisions. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. I appreciate that. 

And to Dr. Co ́rdova, again, welcome. My district includes the 

Stratton Air National Guard Base, which hosts, as you know, the 

109th Airlift Wing in Schenectady, and I am proud of the fact that 

this year we share the 27th year that the 109th Airlift Wing has 

been supported by the National Science Foundation’s Antarctic program as part of Operation Deep Freeze. 

Over the past few months the Guard flew 241 missions delivering more than 3,000 passengers and 4.5 million pounds of cargo. 

Can you provide a brief update on NSF’s polar research? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. With respect to the 109th I can provide what the 

investment is for both Arctic and Antarctic, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. That is fine. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. And then more globally, polar research, whatever your particular questions are, I would be happy to do that. 

So we have—the Arctic research, the expenditures for 2014 were 

approximately $2.5 million and we expect to spend the same in 

2015. Spending for the 109th for the Antarctic program were about 

$29 million in the last fiscal year. In this Fiscal Year they will increase to $31.5 million due to higher personnel and aircraft maintenance costs. 

And, by the way, Representative, we are pleased to be part of 

that cargo as well. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. That is really a wonderful contribution to our overall program. We depend on the logistics of the Department of Defense. 

Mr. TONKO. And, further, do you see any future plans to modernize the polar program’s aging equipment and aircraft? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We—I—since we get the aircraft support from a 

different agency, that is really a question I think that is appropriate for them. We are looking at substantial modernization program for the ground support, which of course services the aircraft, 

the landing bases and so on. And we are heavily engaged in preparing a modernization proposal for the coming fiscal years that is 

in response to the Blue Ribbon Committee known as the Augustine 

Committee. It is desperately needed after so many decades. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I see my time is out. Just let me throw 

a thank you out there for a focus on STEM education. We are 

working via some legislation that I have authored that I hope will 

continue to bolster our efforts in STEM. 

And with that I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, at one point the National Science Foundation had 

over $1 billion in expired grant money. Is that still the case? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I have no idea, Representative. Does—we will certainly supply that response for the record but— 
61 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Well, one of the reasons I ask is when you 

have—you are under a time limit, that that can create some incentives to fund projects that I would say the public would find questionable in terms of scientific research. For instance, I believe we 

funded a grant to study the gambling habits of monkeys at 

$171,000. You spent $856,000 on studying—teaching lions to run 

on a treadmill and I am just wondering if—what the rationale 

would be for funding some of those projects because as a Member, 

we get some pretty intense criticism, particularly in such a tight 

budget environment that we are living in right now. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I understand the question. I don’t know about 

those proposals. We can certainly get back to you on that detail. 

But this really goes to our discussion earlier, Representative, on 

the transparency and accountability, and we just have to be better 

at communicating what are the goals of research and what are the 

potential impacts because sometimes things that sound obscure can 

actually be just absolutely revolutionary and groundbreaking, as 

you know. The—I—we like to point out that the original proposal 

that turned into Google was called Backrub. Now, that would be 

something that would catch your eye, would it not? And— 

Mr. PALMER. And I would be interested. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. So—but you see the point and that is why we 

really need good titles and nontechnical descriptions and that 

makes everybody stop and pause and say, yes, what are the goals 

and what could be the impact for society. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. Also, could you update us on your decision to relocate headquarters to Alexandria and explain some of the 

factors that are causing a delay in that move? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, of course. So we will—we are in the process 

of moving to Alexandria. We should have the shell of the building 

all completed I am told by this fall and so our budget for the relocation effort includes some systems, IT systems, and some furniture 

consistent with having that all ready by Fiscal Year 2016. 

You—about the delay, we were told by GSA that they had accepted the proposal of Alexandria to move there and I believe that was 

in the summer of—before this summer in 2013 and then we 

reached an impasse with the union on what the—in particular the 

office space size would look like and that went to the Federal Impasse Panel in the late spring and we got the response in the fall 

on how that would settle out. And so we have been working with— 

we are following the guidance of the Federal Impasse Panel and actually I—they are—we are able to—because of the hard work of the 

team, a very talented team which I assure you is on this constantly, we are able to actually be cutting substantially the—in 

time delay the initial projections of how long this impasse would 

lead us to be delayed, Representative. And so—— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —this is—this situation is actually got worse and 

now is improving substantially and we are hoping to bring this is 

close to—as we possibly can—— 

Mr. PALMER. So you asked for—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —by making compromises. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me throw this in—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yeah. 
62 

Mr. PALMER. —real quick. You asked for almost $31 million 

to—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. —to fund the move. Does that include a potential 

cost as a result of the delays? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. No, it doesn’t because those would be in 2017—— 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —the delays. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, thank you all for being here. I am fascinated 

with the work you are doing, particularly the quantum-based information, Dr. May. 

My time is expired. I now yield to Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Chairman 

and Ranking Member for today’s hearing and to the three of you 

for the tremendous work you are doing every day and for being so 

informative for us and ensuring that our country maintains its position as the leader in research and development really for the 

world. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, you had spoken about NSF’s risk and resilience initiative so I want to hit two—your topics 3 and 4, risk and resilience 

and STEM education. So starting with the first one, living in Connecticut as I do and we are seeing the effects—still seeing some of 

the effects from Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Irene. We are 

acutely aware of the impact that it is having on our economy as 

we see more and more extreme weather events and we are seeing 

it again with subzero temperatures almost into March now. Could 

you speak a little bit further about what NSF’s goals are in focusing on risk and resilience; and as a follow-up, as someone who 

serves on the Transportation Infrastructure Committee where we 

are also looking at these issues, can you let us know whether you 

will be working with other agencies, including particularly FEMA 

and Department of Transportation as part of these initiatives? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. So risk and resilience is one of the four cross directorate initiatives that we are putting a focus on for the Fiscal Year 

2016 budget just because of what you said, Representative Esty. It 

is a—we have been experiencing significant events that are natural, as well as human-made, but mostly natural events and we 

just feel that we have to put in an investment in basic research so 

that we can be prepared for those events. The Fiscal Year 2016 request includes $8.5 million for cross directorate program that is called Critical Resilience Interdependent 

Infrastructure Systems and Processes, so we call it CRISP for 

short. It further—it goes a step further than our other programs 

that enable research on earthquakes and winds to include being resilient to all kinds of hazards like tornadoes and storms and so 

forth. It focuses on multiple interconnected systems like electrical 

power, water, gas, roads, and communications. And as you know, 

we have to consider all of these as a system to be truly prepared 

and resilient. 

We do of course work with other agencies on this and I don’t 

know the details about what their investments are but we could describe our particular programs and where they come into this, but 

this is something that concerns all the other agencies. I think our 

unique contributions are in a systems approach that brings in engi-
63 

neering as well as basic science and the social sciences, too, because as you know, you can be told that a tornado is coming but 

if you don’t have the right social preparedness among agencies on 

the ground and the mayor and the police force and respond to crises appropriately, lives can still definitely be lost. And so to make 

us more resilient so we—because we embraced all of the sciences 

and engineering, we figured we can do a lot of basic work. 

And also in computer modeling, we have mentioned throughout 

this testimony that we have these big supercomputers, and those 

are really working very hard and I have gone to see the effort that 

they are doing on risk and resilience to really model the interactions of all the different components, you know, social and natural. 

Ms. ESTY. Terrific. That is very helpful, and I am pleased to hear 

about that systems-wide approach, sort of an ecosystem of utilities, 

as well as transportation, critical infrastructure, which is also our 

schools and, you know, our core institutions. 

I was struck by your testimony and highly supportive to hear you 

quotes the ‘‘there is a scientist in every child.’’ So I wanted to give 

you an opportunity to expand a little bit on the INCLUDES initiative. I have been doing an enormous amount of work in my district 

on ensuring that every child, particularly that young women and 

children of color have an opportunity to get excellent STEM skills 

in each and every one of our schools and can see themselves as future engineers, scientists, researchers. So can you tell me a little 

bit about what you are doing, how you are collaborating with stakeholder communities? Thank you. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Representative Esty. The—INCLUDES 

is something that is a very personal effort to me. In fact, I have 

nominated myself team captain for this effort. It is—we spend— 

just if you look at the Congressional Research Service report, we 

do make a great investment in what we call broadening participation, which is another way of looking at inclusion. We have focused 

programs, we have emphasis programs in different areas. But—and 

as we go around the country and I do make lots of on-the-ground 

looks at our efforts—we notice that they can be very brilliant in 

their local ecosystem but they—what we have learned from them 

and the best practices are often not communicated to other potential groups and communities that want to do similar work. 

So this emphasis and I think the small amount of money that we 

have requested here leverages that huge investment that we are already making, and this emphasis is on communication of those best 

practices, it is on networking. It is really almost a systems engineering approach and that is why the assistant directors that are 

all sitting in this room are—it is the goal that they are most excited about because they realize that who is sitting in the seats in 

our universities are the engineers of the future is—it should be a 

critical concern to us to tap into our national talent. 

So we are enthusiastic. We will embrace lots of communities. We 

believe that this is a whole community effort. It starts when you 

are born and ends when you leave us, and we want to take advantage of all the talent and excitement and interest around there and 

have different approaches to this challenge. 
64 

Ms. ESTY. Terrific. Thank you very much. And I see my time is 

way expired but we appreciate your commitment on all these 

issues. Thank you so much. 

Mr. PALMER. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici. 

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

Dr. Co ́rdova, welcome back to the Committee. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Oh, welcome back from Antarctica. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Great trip. Thank you. As you have 

heard today in this Committee and as you frequently hear, so much 

of what the NSF does is important to our country’s future and 

there are so many important priorities in your budget. I am glad 

to see on behalf of my constituents in Oregon—I will name just a 

few that are important—clean energy technology, secure and trustworthy cyberspace. In fact at the state level we are working with 

our institutions of higher education and industry on a Center for 

Cyber Excellence. STEM education, thank you for your passion on 

that issue. As a member of the Education Committee, there is so 

much we could be doing. And then as you discussed with my colleague from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, risk and resilience. On the 

West Coast we have different issues from the issues they face in 

Connecticut. However, my constituents are very concerned of 

course about natural disasters being on the Cascadia subduction 

zone. 

But I wanted to ask you, Dr. Co ́rdova, about a particular issue 

that currently the Oregon State University is leading an effort to 

design a regional class research vessel for NSF and will be operating the first of these new vessels that is built. We are very fortunate to have this opportunity in Oregon, not just for the university 

to have that experience of designing a vessel, but also for the potential of what we can learn through the observations made possible by this equipment. 

So I was a little concerned because there was a recent survey 

conducted by the National Academies that recommended some reduced funding for operations within the Ocean Sciences facilities 

budget, so can you give us an idea on how a rebalancing of funding 

within OCE might influence plans to continue development of this 

new vessel? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. And let me 

just first say that I am just so impressed by your method as a Congresswoman. When we were on the Antarctica trip you were so 

committed to the students in your region that you were constantly 

doing very special videos and a whole series to bring back to the 

classroom, and you are a role model so—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I just went out to the school and 

did a presentation before I came back to D.C. and they were 

thrilled. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. So on the regional class research vessels, so you 

are right. This is an opportunity, and ocean observing and understanding 70 percent of the planet and what is in there and how it 

functions with, you know, the whole world system is incredibly important research. 

So there is intense study at NSF on how many regional class research vessels are needed and appropriate for the future. We completed the preliminary design review for this program in August of 
65 

2014 and we presented it as an information item at the February 

National Science Board meeting, and it is being considered right 

now for presentation as an action item at the May National Science 

Board meeting and then the next step would be if it were put in 

front of the NSB to request approval for the advancement to final 

design phase and inclusion in a future budget request. 

Now, you mentioned the decadal panel. Okay. So that is—then 

the decadal panel, as you know, just came to us at the end of January and so that—an initial preliminary report was made to the 

board. It has not been fully digested by the agency. As you know, 

we are a very thinking agency—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —and we study things very closely and all the potential impacts and we always—we like to say we set our priorities 

based on community input. And so here, as you have pointed out, 

Representative Bonamici, there are lots of different kinds of input 

so that is being assessed and we will make a decision. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. That sounds promising and I look forward to keeping in touch on that. 

I wanted to get into questions for Dr. May. Thank you for your 

testimony. I look forward to having you visit the Collaborative Life 

Sciences Building at Oregon Health and Science University. We are 

doing some great work out there. Our Life Sciences Building is a 

great partnership between OHSU, Oregon State, and Portland 

State to expand the research activities and really offer a new approach to healthcare education, so I look forward to your visit. 

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program has really 

done a lot of good in Oregon leveraging federal funds in conjunction 

with state and local funding support. I wanted you to address of 

course the importance of growing American manufacturing. How 

can this budget proposal support a renewed focus on American 

manufacturing, especially through the MEP program? 

Dr. MAY. Well, certainly the MEP program is a program that is 

currently authorized that reaches down and touches small and 

midsized manufacturers. Right now, we are undergoing a reshuffling of the deck if you will in the MEP program to try to do a better job of rightsizing the funding for the individual centers to the 

manufacturing ecosystem that they sit in. Initially for the—most of 

the MEP grants were made more than ten years ago. The world 

has changed a lot in the last ten years so we are right now trying 

to—we have just completed the re-competition for 10 centers. We 

will do an additional at least 10 States. We will do an additional 

12 this year to try to make sure we can make sure that the federal 

contribution to the state is congruent with the needs of that particular manufacturing community. 

Ms. BONAMICI. It is a very important program. I have seen it 

working on the ground at some of our businesses so thank you for 

your work on that. 

My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. I now recognize Ms. Clark. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all the 

panelists for being here today. 

I am extremely lucky to represent the 5th District of Massachusetts, which is really a center of life sciences, biotech, and it is not 
66 

only an economic engine for Massachusetts and for the country but 

it is also, as I—a very personal effect on the research that you do 

and sponsor. As I heard one dad say, a rare disease is only rare 

until it affects your child. And the difference is that you are making not only in jobs and the economy in Massachusetts and across 

this country but also in the real effect on people’s lives. 

And people do not come to my district for the weather. In fact, 

when Dr. Co ́rdova was welcoming back my colleague from Antarctica, I thought you had mixed us up. 

But I am concerned. They come to Boston because we have incredible universities and we have incredible institutions doing research. That is why they come and that is why keeping that innovation pipeline is so critical. But there is cynicism and there is criticism of much of the work that you are doing. And so I am very 

interested if any of you can tell me a little bit more about the 

STAR METRICS program and how you are proceeding in being 

able to put real dollars and really track the impact of the investment and research that is going forward. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Should I start? 

Ms. CLARK. Sure. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. All right. Thank you very much. And actually my 

first experience as a graduate student, my first field trip from California was to one of your great institutions to the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory to do some research—satellite research. 

So NSF really cares about the evaluation of its programs, especially in the STEM area that you are referring to. We lead the 

STAR METRICS, and STAR stands for Science and Technology for 

America’s Reinvestment Measuring the Effects of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science. It is federal and research 

institution collaboration, as you know, Representative Clark, to create a repository of data and tools that would be useful to assess 

the impact of federal R&D investments. So we are very heavily engaged in that. 

In addition, our Directorate of Education, Human Resources invests in foundational research and evaluation through a program 

we call PRIME, which stands for Promoting Research and Innovation in Methodologies for Evaluation program. It encourages the 

community to develop new evaluation methodologies, adapt methods that are successful in other disciplines, and expand the workforce with the capacity to conduct evaluation. In addition, we have 

an evaluation and monitoring group, which has a five-year evaluation monitoring plan for everything we do. 

So we do take evaluation and educational research very seriously. In fact, when you see the 11 percent increase in the EHR, 

Education Human Resource Directorate, it is mainly for an increase in undergraduate education and in what you are talking 

about in educational research, which includes evaluation and monitoring. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you very much. 

And, Dr. May, back to our historic snowfall, I wonder if you could 

discuss the progress around the disaster resilience framework that 

NIST is developing and other efforts that might be underway 

around disaster resilience. 
67 

Dr. MAY. I would say that—well, NIST is not operating by itself 

in this space—— 

Mr. PALMER. Dr. May, will you hit your button please? 

Dr. MAY. I apologize. We don’t operate alone in this space. I 

mean you have heard some of the things that NSF does. Even 

within the Department of Commerce there are equities when—in 

NOAA—— 

Ms. CLARK. Yeah. 

Dr. MAY. —since they predict the weather and they look at the 

coastal environment, the Economic Development Agency, the Minority Business Development Agency, so we are all working together. But the unique thing that NIST does is sort of looks at 

what our science and engineering investigations can do to influence 

regulations and codes that might support the built environment. 

And speaking to recent activities in your area of the country, we 

have not dispatched a team there yet because one of the guidelines 

we have is that there is some new occurrence where we can glean 

things, so we don’t go out like FEMA anytime there is an emergency. Our engagements are highly measured. 

But certainly what will happen and would happen is we would 

look at what changes are there in the climate or whatever that 

would warrant scientific investigations that might need to have 

changes in the building codes and so forth to better protect the 

built environment. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Thank you. 

I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. Without objection, I recognize Ranking Member Lipinski for one minute. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. 

I know we have a hard stop so we can’t ask any more questions. 

I just wanted to thank you all for being here. One thing I was 

going to address but we talked about I–Corps. I am glad—very 

happy to see the strong support, strong number for I–Corps in the 

budget. I have been—everyone knows I have been the biggest supporter of that and it is great to see that it is very successful. 

And, Dr. May, I am going to submit a question for the record 

about NIST activities concerning spectrum sharing also, but thank 

you all again very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable France Co ́rdova 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Responses by The Honorable Daniel Arvizu 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Responses by Dr. Willie E. May 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Æ