U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

74–730PDF 2012

THE ROLE OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 

IN SECURING AMERICA’S FUTURE PROSPERITY: 

CHALLENGES AND EXPECTATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112–93 

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. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Mo Brooks, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 13 

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

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chair, Committee on Research Universities, 

National Academies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Dr. John M. Mason, Jr., Associate Provost and Vice President for Research, 

Auburn University 

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

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

Dr. Jeffrey R. Seemann, Vice President for Research, Texas A&M University, 

and Chief Research Officer, the Texas A&M University System 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Senior Vice President for Research, the University 

of Arizona 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 63 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 66 

Dr. James N. Siedow, Vice Provost for Research, Duke University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 84 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 86 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 100

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chair, Committee on Research Universities, 

National Academies ............................................................................................. 115 

Dr. John M. Mason, Jr., Associate Provost and Vice President for Research, 

Auburn University ............................................................................................... 118 

Dr. Jeffrey R. Seemann, Vice President for Research, Texas A&M University, 

and Chief Research Officer, the Texas A&M University System ..................... 124 

Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Senior Vice President for Research, the University 

of Arizona .............................................................................................................. 143 

Dr. James N. Siedow, Vice Provost for Research, Duke University .................... 149 

(1) 

THE ROLE OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 

IN SECURING AMERICA’S FUTURE 

PROSPERITY: 

CHALLENGES AND EXPECTATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mo Brooks 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman BROOKS. The Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Role of 

Research Universities in Securing America’s Future Prosperity: 

Challenges and Expectations.’’ The purpose of this hearing is to examine the challenges faced by the Nation’s research universities. 

The hearing will provide an opportunity to discuss the future outlook for these universities and to discuss the recently released National Academy Study, ‘‘Research Universities and the Future of 

America.’’ 

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

now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

We are pleased to welcome our witnesses to discuss the challenges faced by the Nation’s research universities, as well as the 

findings and recommendations from the June 14 report issued by 

the National Academies, ‘‘Research Universities and the Future of 

America.’’ I think we can all acknowledge the importance of our 

Nation’s research institutions; therefore, I look forward to working 

with my counterparts on the Subcommittee to review measures 

that Congress, the Federal Government, State governments, research universities, and industry can take to improve these vital 

resources. 

Innovation has remained a part of the fabric of this Nation since 

its founding. Particularly in today’s tough economic times, research 

universities play a vital role in America’s ability to maintain its 

competitiveness in an increasingly technologically developed world, 

and the knowledge and skills produced by our Nation’s research 

graduates provide the fuel for these endeavors. 

The Morrill Act of 1862, signed by President Lincoln, established 

a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to 

build land grant institutions that would address the challenges of 

creating a modern agricultural and industrial economy for the 20th 

century. This partnership continues with an even broader support 

of the Nation’s educational, research, and economic endeavors. 

Three of our distinguished witnesses today come from these land 

grant institutions. It is my understanding that other Vice Presidents for Research from a number of these land grant institutions 

are in the audience today, as they are all in town to celebrate the 

150th anniversary of the Morrill Act. To them, I offer a special welcome and thank you for your hard work and dedication. 

According to the recently released National Academies report, requested in 2009 by now-Full Committee Chairman Ralph Hall and 

other Members of Congress to identify the top 10 actions to be 

taken in order to maintain the excellence of United States research 

and doctoral education, America’s research universities have 

emerged as a major national asset, which supports the Nation’s 

economic goals, among many other things. The challenges faced by 

these institutions, which are discussed in the report, range from 

unstable revenue streams and antiquated policies and practices to 

increasing competition from universities abroad. 

Today, we will continue to examine the future outlook for these 

universities, while taking into account the recommendations from 

the National Academies report. I look forward to a comprehensive 
14 

discussion with our witnesses, and I thank them for taking the 

time out of their busy schedules to help the Subcommittee with 

this important oversight role. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski from the great State of 

Illinois for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MO BROOKS

Good morning. We are pleased to welcome our witnesses to discuss the challenges 

faced by the Nation’s research universities as well as the findings and recommendations from the June 14 report issued by the National Academies, Research Universities and the Future of America. 

I think we can all acknowledge the importance of our Nation’s research institutions; therefore, I look forward to working with my counterparts on the Subcommittee to review measures that Congress, the Federal Government, State governments, research universities, and industry can take to improve these vital resources. 

Innovation has remained a part of the fabric of this Nation since its founding. 

Particularly in today’s tough economic times, research universities play a vital role 

in America’s ability to maintain its competitiveness in an increasingly technologically developed world, and the knowledge and skills produced by our Nation’s 

research graduates provide the fuel for these endeavors. 

The Morrill Act of 1862 established a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to build land grant institutions that would address the challenges of creating a modern agricultural and industrial economy for the 20th century. This partnership continues with an even broader support of the Nation’s educational, research, and economic endeavors. Three of our distinguished witnesses 

today come from these land grant institutions. It is my understanding that the Vice 

Presidents for Research from a number of these land grant institutions are in the 

audience today, as they are all in town to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the 

Morrill Act. To them, I offer a special welcome and thank you for your hard work 

and dedication. 

According to the recently released National Academies report, requested in 2009 

by now-Full Committee Chairman Ralph Hall and other Members of Congress to 

identify the top 10 actions to be taken in order to maintain the excellence of U.S. 

research and doctoral education, America’s research universities have emerged as 

a major national asset, which support the Nation’s economic goals, among other 

things. The challenges faced by these institutions, which are discusssed in the report, range from unstable revenue streams and antiquated policies and practices to 

increasing competition from universities abroad. 

Today, we will continue to examine the future outlook for these universities, while 

taking into account the recommendations from the National Academies report. I 

look forward to a comprehensive discussion with our witnesses, and I thank them 

for taking the time out of their busy schedules to help this Subcommittee with this 

important oversight role. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, and I thank you for 

holding this hearing and thank the witnesses for being with us 

today. And I think this is probably the biggest audience that we 

have had here for a hearing, so that is good to see. 

I fully agree with Chairman Brooks’ comments about the importance of the Morrill Act. Its passage 150 years ago was undoubtedly an important milestone in our country’s history. 

Research universities are extremely vital to our Nation’s—a vital 

part of our Nation’s R&D infrastructure and are thus critically important to America’s future economic success. And that means 

American jobs, so it is especially important today when everyone 

is asking us where are the jobs going to come from? They are going 

to come from innovation. Innovation, really, to a pretty significant 

extent—and I think we could do more with that—comes from our 

research universities. 
15 

I understand all this from personal experience as a student and 

Assistant Professor at some of our Nation’s finest research universities. I never pass up an opportunity to name them—Northwestern, Stanford, Duke, University of Tennessee, and Notre 

Dame. I appreciate the opportunity to explore in depth the challenges all of our research institutions currently face and discuss 

possible steps that both the government and universities can take 

to help address these challenges. 

Research universities’ contributions to the health, security, and 

prosperity of the American people cannot be overstated. Advances 

in the fields of medicine, biotechnology, the development of critical 

new military technologies, and countless economically important 

companies and products can be traced back to research conducted 

in university labs. 

In addition to contributing immeasurably to our economic prosperity and well-being, research universities also train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators. For anyone who is 

interested in the role that the Federal Government played in starting up Silicon Valley by funding research at Stanford University, 

you should read online at SteveBlank.com; he has a secret history 

of Silicon Valley, which is very interesting. Now, that is military 

funding, but we are looking at all federal funding here. But a lot 

of people don’t understand the role that federal funding does play 

at our research universities. And then, as you see with the history 

of Silicon Valley, that a lot of people think that it was all private, 

but much of that was originally started from public funding. 

More broadly, university-government partnership that began 150 

years ago with the Morrill Act has been critical to making many 

of these contributions possible. The Federal Government’s support 

of academic research and patent laws to expedite the commercialization of such research has helped make many of our research 

universities the best and most productive in the world. Today, a 

number of countries are attempting to emulate our system, and 

they are increasingly competing with us to attract the world’s top 

talent. 

Unfortunately, I say this is a time when research universities 

face acute challenges that threaten their ability to continue to provide a world-class education and help ensure the United States remains a global leader in innovation. The financial stress and resulting budget deficits our country has faced in recent years have 

forced the Federal Government to back away from bipartisan commitments to significantly increase support for basic research at 

universities. At the same time, public universities have received 

less financial support from state governments, putting increased 

pressure on funding sources like tuition to make up the difference. 

Despite the fiscal challenges we face, we in government cannot 

afford to jeopardize our Nation’s future prosperity by not providing 

sustained and predictable support for scientific research and affordable education. At the same time, I believe that research universities need to adjust to this new fiscal environment by finding new 

and innovative ways to operate. I also believe that it remains well 

within the ability of our universities to continue to deliver a topnotch education, allow creativity and innovation to thrive, and at-
16 

tract some of the best researchers and students from around the 

country and the world. 

In closing, there are a couple of issues in particular that are 

raised in the NRC report that I look forward to discussing today. 

First, I am very interested in hearing about efforts to accelerate 

the pace at which discoveries make their way from lab to the market, and we welcome your thoughts on how the Federal Government can help you in these efforts. 

Also, I would like to hear about any initiatives at your universities aimed at addressing the high attrition rate of students in 

STEM subject areas and the need for greater diversity. Related to 

that, I would like to learn more about how you are working with 

industry to make sure you are graduating students with the skills 

that they need in the workforce. 

Thank you again, Chairman Brooks, for holding this important 

hearing, and I look forward to a productive exchange with our witnesses. With that I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you, Chairman Brooks, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I fully agree with Chairman Brooks’ 

comments about the importance of the Morrill Act. Its passage 150 years ago was 

undoubtedly an important milestone in our country’s history. 

Research universities are an extremely vital part of our Nation’s R&D infrastructure and are thus critically important to America’s future economic success—that 

means American jobs. I understand this from personal experience as a student and 

as an assistant professor at some of our Nation’s finest research universities, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, and the University of Tennessee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to explore in depth the challenges all of our research institutions 

currently face and discuss possible steps that both the government and universities 

can take to help address these challenges. 

Research universities’ contributions to the health, security, and prosperity of the 

American people cannot be overstated. Advances in the fields of medicine and biotechnology, the development of critical new military technologies, and countless economically important companies and products can be traced back to research conducted in university labs. In addition to contributing immeasureably to our economic prosperity and well-being, research universities also train the next generation 

of scientists, engineers, and innovators. For anyone interested in the role the Federal Government played in starting up Silicon Valley by funding research at Stanford University, you should read online The Secret History of Silicon Valley by Steve 

Blank. 

More broadly, the university-government partnership that began 150 years ago 

with the Morrill Act has been critical to making many of these contributions possible. The Federal Government’s support of academic research and patent laws that 

expedite the commercialization of such research have helped make many of our research universities the best and most productive in the world. Today a number of 

countries are attempting to emulate our system, and they are increasingly competing with us to attract the world’s top talent. 

Unfortunately, I say this at a time when research universities face acute challenges that threaten their abililty to continue to provide a world-class education and 

help ensure the United States remains the global leader in innovation. The financial 

stress and resulting budget deficits our country has faced in recent years have 

forced the Federal Government to back away from bipartisan commitments to significantly increase support for basic research at universities. At the same time, public universities have received less financial support from State governments, putting 

increased pressure on funding sources like tuition to make up the difference. 

Despite the financial challenges we face, we in government cannot afford to jeopardize our Nation’s future prosperity by not providing sustained and predictable 

support for scientific research and affordable education. At the same time, I believe 

that research universities need to adjust to this new fiscal environment by finding 

new and innovative ways to operate. I also believe that it remains well within the 
17 

ability of our universities to continue to deliver a top-notch education, allow creativity and innovation to thrive, and attract some of the best researchers and students from around the country and the world. 

In closing, there are a couple of issues in particular that are raised in the NRC 

report that I look forward to discussing today. First, I am very interested in hearing 

about efforts to accelerate the pace at which discoveries make their way from the 

lab to the market, and would welcome your thoughts on how the Federal Government can help you in these efforts. Also, I would like to hear about any initiatives 

at your universities aimed at addressing the high attrition rate of students in STEM 

subject areas and the need for greater diversity. Related to that, I’d like to learn 

more about how you are working with industry to make sure you are graduating 

students with the skills they need to succeed in the workforce. 

Thank you again, Chairman Brooks, for holding this important hearing, and I 

look forward to a productive exchange with our witnesses. With that, I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

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 witness panel for today’s hearing. Our first witness is Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., 

Chair of the Committee on Research Universities for the National 

Research Council of the National Academies. Mr. Holliday currently serves as the Chairman of the Board for the Bank of America Corporation. From 1998 to 2008, he served as the Chairman of 

the Board and Chief Executive Officer for DuPont. 

Our second witness, I have a particular fondness in this area, although I am an Alabama grad as is my wife. My sons and my 

money went to Auburn University. They got good engineering degrees I will add. But our next witness is Dr. John Mason, Jr., Associate Provost and Vice President for Research for Auburn University. He is responsible for the university’s research program development, sponsored programs, and technology transfer and communications initiatives. Prior to joining Auburn University, Dr. Mason 

was the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Research, and Outreach in the College of Engineering at Penn State University. 

Our third witness, I want to welcome him to the Southeastern 

Conference, but without further ado, I am going to yield to Chairman Hall to introduce him more fully. Chairman Hall is Chairman 

of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and from the 

great State of Texas. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honored to get 

to introduce Dr. Seemann and to welcome you, Doctor, to—as Vice 

President for Research at Texas A&M University and Chief Research Officer for the Texas A&M University System. I am pleased 

to introduce you and I am trying to do it exactly as John Sharp 

instructed me to and with his help with getting my wayward 

daughter into Texas A&M. She is waiting for it to start. She may 

be in the crowd somewhere here. I hope you will see her through, 

Doctor, and be considerate with her and patient. All she wants is 

a degree. 

Off the record a little, we have Texas A&M at Commerce and 

Texas A&M at Texarkana in my district, and great schools. Texas 

A&M at Commerce was at one time East Texas State Teachers College. I changed it when I was the Texas Senate to Texas State College. At that time my wife graduated from there and I had—I 

spoke to the student body at their graduation and got to hand her 
18 

her degree, almost made her reach for it two or three times, but 

I knew better than to do that. But as—and Texas A&M at Texarkana is doing wonders, but my wife didn’t seek the diploma of 

Texas A&M diploma. She kept her Texas—the East Texas State 

University and that way that prohibited me from beginning to 

sleep with an Aggie. I was both proud and apprehensive for that. 

But as Vice President, Dr. Seemann worked with faculty, staff, 

and administrative to expand and enhance the university’s $700 

billion plus research enterprise, which is quite a task. Prior to that, 

he—to coming to A&M—he served as Dean of the College of the 

Environment and Life Sciences at the University of Rhode Island. 

Dr. Seemann, we thank you for being here and joining us today as 

we thank each one of you. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Dr. Mason, I would be remiss if I didn’t add not only did 

my money go to Auburn and my sons get degrees but they have 

jobs. That is very important to a dad. 

Our fourth witness is Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Senior Vice President 

for Research at the University of Arizona. As Vice President, she 

supports the creative activities of a 611 million research enterprise, 

promotes the application of new discoveries and innovations, and 

oversees the graduate programs of the university. Dr. Tolbert 

served on the faculty of the Georgetown University School of Medicine before joining the University of Arizona. 

On a side note, my—one of my daughters is a teacher in South 

Carolina. We have a 1,100 square foot, two-bedroom condo in 

Washington, D.C., my wife and I. My daughter brought six people 

from South Carolina with her, teachers, and I can give you the 

play-by-play of Arizona’s win over those Gamecocks on Monday 

night and I wasn’t watching the game. But they were really talking 

to that TV. Congratulations on your national title in baseball. 

Our final witness is Dr. James Siedow, Vice Provost for Research 

at Duke University. I love this panel. I am a graduate of Duke University, and that is where I met my wife most importantly. So 

thank you, Duke University. Dr. Siedow became a full Professor of 

Botany in 1987 and a Professor of Biology in 2000 and has been 

Vice Provost for Research since 2001. A recipient of the Trinity College Distinguished Teaching Award, Dr. Siedow’s research is represented by more than 120 publications. And am I pronouncing 

that correctly? Is it Siedow or Siedow? 

Mr. SIEDOW. Siedow. 

Chairman BROOKS. Siedow, okay. Thank you. I just wanted to 

make sure. Thank you, Dr. Siedow. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. Charles Holliday. Mr. 

Holliday, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. 
19 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR., 

CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES, 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Chairman Brooks, thank you very much. It is an 

honor to be here today representing the National Academies and 

my 22 colleagues on the Committee. A point of reference is the National Academy went out to seek this Committee; they only had to 

call 23 people. So it gives you a feel for how important it was to 

these very busy cross-section of business leaders and academic 

leaders to be a part of this work. 

As you have pointed out our report, if you look at our entire title, 

it is actually 17 words. And I know people will want to shorten our 

title so we have a suggestion. We would like to call it the Prosperity Report. And if you would like a long title, you can call it the 

Prosperity and Security Report, because what I would like to 

present to you today it is because of our Nation’s research universities that we enjoy such prosperity and security today and we 

hopefully laid out a plan to continue that. And I believe my colleagues on this panel here today will reinforce that. 

Let me briefly talk about the findings we had and then some of 

our recommendations, particularly those that we think are actionable right away. The good news is we have a commanding lead in 

research universities in the world. Thirty-five to forty of the top 50 

are in America and that is extremely strong. And as I mentioned 

earlier, that is contributing greatly to our prosperity. But I must 

report to you we also found that our public universities are on thin 

ice. The cuts in funding—25 percent on average since 2002 to 2010, 

some as high as 50 percent—are straining them significantly. And 

we believe we are in jeopardy of losing that strength. And so many 

of our recommendations speak directly to the importance of them 

and what we must do. 

Keep it in perspective that 60 percent of the federally funded research comes from those public universities and 70 percent of our 

Ph.D.s. So they are absolutely critical to the system. 

The key products—and you have mentioned this in your opening 

comments—are the talent, the people that come out, and the discoveries and so we must be focused on both of those because that 

is critical to our success. 

I would like to comment some about the role of business. I served 

for 37 years with the DuPont Company. For 11 years I was fortunate enough to serve as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. 

Our company was started by a university-trained French immigrant who came here 210 years ago and the reason DuPont is still 

a leading company today is because of our focus on research and 

because of our tight link with research universities. 

I would like to tell you just a very brief story from my experience 

there. I was having a dinner with a researcher who was receiving 

his 100th patent that year, and we were having a discussion about 

what our direction should be around raw discovery research or focused research. I was insisting on more focused because we had to 

deliver to our owners. And when we asked me, well, then, where 

will we get this broad research? I said we will get it from our research universities. He agreed but he said, what if they are not 
20 

there? And my response was, they must be. And I can tell you from 

our two years of working on this Committee, the answer is they 

must be. It is so critical to our prosperity and security and we 

think a key role is to—how to make that happen. 

If I could just comment briefly on some things we can do that 

don’t necessarily take money—obviously, our report requires some 

money—but we think there are things we can do today. And you 

look at the bureaucracy that has built up over time, the regulations 

that we put on my colleagues here on this panel, we believe there 

are things we could do to streamline that, still get the right controls to make sure the taxpayers’ money is being spent carefully, 

but we believe we could reduce that with time. We had the same 

message for the States because they have put too much on it to 

make a difference. 

Second, we believe the business role is very important. Indeed, 

business does take the talented students and we license the great 

discovery research. The university is like that. They want us to 

give jobs to their students; they want us to use their research. But 

what we found from our work is too much of a buyer-seller relationship. We want businesses very actively involved so they are listening to the universities and guiding universities about what 

skills do students need to create jobs? What discoveries can they 

actually commercialize and create jobs? We think that is very important. We believe if you do that, you should take a hard look at 

the R&D tax credit. We think it should be made permanent but 

make it permanent in a very smart way. Reward companies that 

will have a 10-year relationship with the university, my colleagues 

here on this panel so that they can plan and we can plan. I think 

that would start a different system and I believe you can look at 

other countries in the world it is key. We believe funding cyber infrastructure is critical. We believe that will do a lot to improve the 

productivity at universities, which is a big thing that we can deal 

with. 

If I could focus on just one last example, 55 percent of the Ph.D. 

engineering students in this country have temporary visas and we 

must find a way to keep them in this country. We must also work 

on STEM so more of those are native-born Americans. But as you 

think about keeping this country, I would like to leave you with 

one thought. You have one Ph.D. researcher. From my experience 

at DuPont, he likely will have one or two assistants that does the 

more routine tests. In today’s information technology world, he will 

almost have a full-time information technologist helping sort the 

data. And then there are maintenance facilities on the equipment. 

You can easily then create five jobs for every Ph.D. And this is in 

the discovery stage. Once you get to the commercialization stage, 

obviously, it is many fold that. So these positions are not just great 

for discovery; they are really great for massive jobs. 

We present to you the Prosperity Report. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holliday follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Holliday. 

Next, we have Dr. Mason from Auburn University. Dr. Mason, 

you now have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. MASON, JR., 

ASSOCIATE PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR RESEARCH, AUBURN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MASON. Thank you. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Hall, and other Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s panel. My 

name is John Mason. I do serve as the Vice President for Research 

at Auburn University. 

You may have heard it said that ‘‘research is to teaching as walking is to running; you have to do the first in order to do the second.’’ If we want robust learning in this country, all the way from 

kindergarten to post-graduate level and throughout business and 

industry, it starts with the creation of new knowledge. 

To put today’s discussion in context, I offer the findings of a December 2011 report from Battelle and the R&D Magazine. They 

find that Asia, for the first time, will this year surpass the Americas in their share of total global research and development spending. The long-term implications for U.S. prosperity and security are 

profound. 

Research, along with our missions of instruction and outreach, is 

part of Auburn’s balanced attempts at enhancing competitiveness 

of our future leaders and our workforce. We focus on five strategic 

areas at Auburn. They are all interdisciplinary—energy and the environment, health science, cyber systems, transportation, and the 

STEM disciplines—those of science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics. 

We continuously work in partnership with federal agencies, business and industry to accomplish issues that are of national need. 

Auburn has produced breakthrough scientific discoveries such as 

the vapor wake canine that now screens passengers and cargo for 

explosives and also very proud that we educate such leading technology innovators such as Apple’s CEO Tim Cook. 

A priority research area right now at Auburn has been, and continues to be, security, the security of our cyber infrastructure, food 

supply, and energy resources. In that context, we view relevant 

fundamental research as the underpinning of industry. At Auburn, 

we have been referring to this as ‘‘putting ideas to work.’’ Relevant 

fundamental research is that which industry can apply to innovate 

and create products and services. Our Auburn motto includes technology transfer. We have created and are sustaining an incubator 

for startup companies, a research park where technology transfer 

businesses are flourishing, and close collaboration with not-for-profit foundations. 

Although these elements are not unique, very common among 

our universities throughout the United States, the key to all our 

success is how they work together for some goal and function, not 

as independent silos. Throughout this process, we pay particular 

attention to commercializing our inventions, one of the best ways 

of moving new knowledge and creating jobs. 
41 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the recently released National 

Academies report has some insightful recommendations, and in the 

balance of the time, some quick response from Auburn University. 

We recognize and embrace the oversight and transparency that is 

necessary with public funds. However, on certain areas where there 

are redundant reviews and audits, it appears they are focusing on 

process rather than on results. 

Regarding written recommendation number four on university 

productivity, I can assure you we will remain diligent in seeking 

and addressing efficiencies. It is important, however, to recognize 

that once the storehouse of academic and research mindsets are 

eliminated, they are unlikely to be restored in the future. 

Recommendation number five deserves serious attention. Longterm partnerships and our relationship with business and industry 

will remove the uncertainty and will focus us on long-term items 

of national need. Unfortunately, short-term shifting of national priorities creates a perverse incentive to chase funding rather than 

chase the discovery that will create jobs in the United States. 

In closing, I urge the Committee to consider the potential of the 

National Defense Education Act of 1958. It was at that point in 

time when we were focusing on space. The Federal Government 

helped pay tuition for those pursuing advanced scientific and engineering degrees and it helped to focus our research on areas of national need. While the national concern at that time was space, 

today it is the economic issues. Tuition waivers would be a very inexpensive way to accomplish research and economic development 

activities on national needs. 

Mr. Chairman, we are confident that relevant fundamental research enables teaching, enhances our learning, and is a job creator. Thank you for examining these important issues, and I thank 

you for the opportunity to provide my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Mason. 

Our next witness is Dr. Seemann. Dr. Seemann, you have five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFREY R. SEEMANN, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, 

AND CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER, 

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 

Mr. SEEMANN. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Research and 

Science Education, my name is Jeff Seemann, and I have the privilege of serving as both the Vice President for Research at Texas 

A&M University and as the Chief Research Officer for the Texas 

A&M University System. 

I want to begin by thanking you for the chance to come before 

you today to present testimony on critically important issues relating to the challenges and opportunities facing our Nation’s research 

universities, and I want to specifically commend your leadership 

for making this hearing possible. 

I would also like to extend my thanks to a fellow Texan, Congressman Ralph Hall, Chair of the Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology. Chairman Hall continues a long and distinguished 

tradition of Texas leadership on science education and policy going 

back to Olin ‘‘Tiger’’ Teague, who chaired the precursor to today’s 

Committee in the 1960s when Texas A&M made its bold move to 

join the Nation’s major research universities. And I note that the 

portrait of Tiger Teague hangs over Chairman Hall’s left shoulder. 

Today, Texas A&M stands among the Nation’s top 20 research 

universities, and its rapid rise to Tier 1 research status owes a 

great deal to the strong foundation provided by the State of Texas, 

to the institution’s land grant roots, to its heritage as a military 

institution, and to major investments from the Federal Government. The release of the National Research Council’s report on ‘‘Research Universities and the Future of America’’ offers an important 

opportunity to revisit, reevaluate, and reenergize the state of the 

university-government R&D partnership, a partnership that has 

helped make Texas A&M and our peers across America the great 

research universities that they are today. 

It is remarkable how much of the prosperity of our Nation, its 

economic success, its leadership in innovation, and its world leadership have flowed from the R&D pipeline that originates with this 

partnership, a partnership fueled by the taxpayers of our States 

and Nation and catalyzed by the ideas and discoveries of our faculty. The productivity of our research universities and our Nation 

are inextricably linked. This is why we must recommit to and reinvest in this partnership. 

I suggest that we can achieve rapid progress through the following four complementary actions, all reflected in the NRC’s recommendations. First, research universities must take bold and aggressive steps to collectively and strategically focus on solutions to 

grand research challenges and areas of key national interest by 

prioritizing investments of internal resources into these areas and 
47 

breaking down traditional academic and organizational barriers 

that may stand in the way of this goal. 

Second, federal agencies must continue, if not increase, support 

for these research priorities of shared national interest, particularly with targeted grant monies and support for young investigators and infrastructure development. 

Third, research universities must take greater action to ensure 

that we utilize resources even more efficiently and transparently 

than we already do, aggressively eliminating unnecessary and redundant administrative activities and barriers in order to make the 

most of limited resources. 

And fourth and finally, federal agencies and regulators must, in 

turn, act to reduce or eliminate unnecessary, overly burdensome, 

redundant, and costly regulatory and reporting obligations placed 

on the research operations of research universities and faculty. I 

promise you that we can do so without sacrificing accountability or 

safety. 

By keeping our sights set on high-priority current and future national and global problems, by investing in and focusing on solutions and impacts, and by ensuring the efficient use of resources, 

we will guarantee the continued productivity of our world-class 

R&D pipeline. Alternatively, our Nation runs the risk of ceding its 

current leadership in innovation to other countries and reaching a 

plateau in our research competitiveness. This we cannot afford. 

Texas A&M, with our long history of public service and our research enterprise that is dedicated to serving the national interest, 

looks forward to reaffirming our commitment to this partnership 

and to working diligently in collaboration with you and federal 

agencies to ensure that we can continue in the 21st century to 

serve and meet and our Nation’s needs in the same highly successful way we did in the 20th century. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Seemann follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Seemann. 

Our next witness is Dr. Tolbert from Arizona University. Dr. 

Tolbert, you may now proceed with your five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LESLIE P. TOLBERT, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, 

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

Dr. TOLBERT. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

Chairman Hall, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 

about the importance of the research being conducted in our Nation’s research universities. My name is Leslie Tolbert. I am Senior 

Vice President for Research at the University of Arizona in Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Innovation driven by educated people drives our Nation’s economy. The astounding research and education accomplishments in 

U.S. universities have been the backbone of our country’s economic 

competitiveness, high living standard, and national security since 

World War II. During that time, the Federal Government has 

taken the lead in supporting this innovation, providing resources to 

universities to conduct research and graduate education in the national interest. 

In recent years, this essential research support has not kept pace 

with research opportunities or with international investment. At 

the same time, State support available to cover research costs in 

the public universities has declined precipitously. Private industry, 

traditionally another important source of research, is focusing increasingly on applied research and development leaving to the universities most of the fundamental research and the unexpected discoveries that provide the foundation for all future applications. 

How can the federal and state governments, the universities, and 

the private sector work together to ensure the long-term health of 

university-based research, which is the essential starting point for 

the innovation pipeline? The recently released NRC report—‘‘Research Universities and the Future of America’’ or the ‘‘Prosperity 

Report’’—makes some good suggestions. 

I am here today representing one of our Nation’s large public research universities on the 150th anniversary of the first Morrill 

Act, which established the public land grant universities. The University of Arizona is a large, comprehensive land grant university 

of 39,000 students. With annual research spending over $610 million, we rank among the top 20 public research universities in the 

Nation. We consistently rank first or second in the physical 

sciences overall and are among the top four universities in space 

sciences. Among other accomplishments, we design and build the 

largest telescope mirrors in the world, and we are the only public 

university to have served as mission control for a NASA mission, 

this one to Mars. We also provide for the State and the Nation 

leadership in smart agricultural water use and genetically based 

pest control, and advanced mining technologies. Approximately 27 

percent of the University of Arizona’s operating expenses go to support research. 
64 

Our total revenues are roughly 1/6 from State-appropriated 

funds, 1/4 from student tuition and fees, and the remainder from 

other sources, including externally sponsored grants and contracts, 

gifts, and investment income. Sponsored grants and contracts come 

primarily from federal agencies, including the National Institutes 

of Health, NASA, National Science Foundation. 

Support from the State of Arizona has fallen very steeply in recent years. Our university-state support has fallen from 32 percent 

to 15 percent of our budget in the past decade with a reduction of 

almost 180 million in just the past five years. We are over $200 

million behind in building renewal funds. With that reduction, our 

faculty number has dropped by 60 and older—in the last year—and 

older research buildings are being taken offline because of inadequate maintenance even as our student population continues modest growth. 

As State support declines and the competition for federal funding 

gets tougher, efficiency and careful planning are more important 

than ever for us. We are using our limited resources strategically 

to support areas of research and education in which we already are 

clear leaders or where we have clear potential to be competitive for 

projects that will have a major impact on society and still also to 

provide relevant undergraduate and graduate education to students from diverse backgrounds. 

Fundamental exploration and discovery is at our core, but we 

also work increasingly to push new findings out to practical application as quickly as possible, especially through expanding our industry relations to true partnerships. Increasingly, we perform research in large consortia where partners share expertise and share 

resources as an efficient mode of operation. 

Toward bolstering the cutting-edge research and education in our 

universities, we endorse several specific recommendations from the 

NRC report. First, federal and state agencies must understand and 

support the absolutely critical role played by university-based fundamental research and the continuum from fundamental research 

through applied research and development to new product development. New knowledge is the feed corn for the rest of the R&D system. Without new ideas and insights, progress won’t happen. Not 

targeted to particular application, fundamental research has impacts that are unpredictable and may not occur for years or decades, but that research is essential and has the power to transform 

society. 

Second, universities should be able to recover as fully as possible 

the full costs of funded research, including full reimbursement of 

the so-called overhead costs that are intended to reimburse universities for the necessary expenditures that collectively support their 

research. This reimbursement has fallen behind over recent years, 

leaving the universities having to subsidize federally funded research with other funded. For my public universities, State funds 

continue to be key here, but declining state support makes this increasingly difficult. 

And finally, regulatory controls on federally funded research 

should be streamlined as much as possible to minimize the administrative burden on both the Federal Government and the univer-
65 

sities and maximize the impact of federal funds spent on university 

research. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tolbert follows:] 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Tolbert. 

Dr. Siedow, it is now your turn for five minutes. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES N. SIEDOW, 

VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH, 

DUKE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SIEDOW. Chairman Brooks—— 

Chairman BROOKS. Excuse me. Turn on your microphone. 

Mr. SIEDOW. Oh, sorry. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Hall, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for your efforts to highlight research universities and the important role these institutions play in our Nation’s security and 

economic prosperity. I am Jim Siedow, Vice Provost for Research 

at Duke University, and I am grateful for the invitation to be part 

of this critical discussion. 

This is clearly a very important topic, not simply for those of us 

sitting at this table but also for the Nation as a whole, and I think 

it is very encouraging that our elected officials, including three 

Duke alums who sit on this Committee, see the NRC report and 

this topic as sufficiently important to hold this hearing. 

It has been said several times already but cannot be reiterated 

enough that one of the cornerstones of the success of the United 

States has achieved as a Nation over the past 150 years since the 

enactment of the Morrill Act has been the partnership between the 

Federal Government and research universities, operating under the 

notion that universities with the support of federal and State governments would provide the fundamental research and new discoveries that would drive the development of new technologies, which 

in turn would underpin the Nation’s economy. That was true in 

1862; it was even more so in 1945 when Vannevar Bush eloquently 

restated the case in Science the Endless Frontier, and it is even 

more true today when we are locked in a struggle to maintain the 

primacy of our Nation and its economic system in the face of very 

steep competition. 

We believe the NRC report does a very good job of making the 

case of the need to reaffirm and revitalize this unique federal-university partnership. No less important, however, is the case the report makes for the need to strengthen the linkages between research universities and industry. Many people have made note of 

the fact that in the aftermath of the dismantling of the large corporate research laboratories which drove much of this Nation’s industrial leadership in the 20th century, universities and industry 

have yet to come together in a way that fills the resulting gap. 

While most research universities today can point to successful examples of interaction with industry, in some cases interactions of 

large consequence, for the most part industry comes to universities 

today when they have a question they want answered or a problem 

solved, reducing the partnership to more of a fee-for-service transaction and less of a union of coequals trying to address a corporate 

grand challenge or move a university discovery beyond the socalled valley of death and into the marketplace. 
85 

The large corporate laboratories of the past were masters at 

translating basic research discoveries into practical applications. 

Research universities today are hotbeds of basic discovery but remain somewhat slow and undercapitalized when it comes to translating these discoveries into useful applications. 

In light of this situation, what is clearly needed is a new partnership between industry and research universities that is designed to 

address these shortcomings. As outlined in the NRC report, the 

Federal Government is best positioned to broker this partnership 

and to help bring about a more collaborative—and to quote the 

NRC report—‘‘peer-to-peer’’ set of interactions between the two entities. 

As has also been pointed out in previous testimony, a major challenge facing universities relates to costs associated with the growing number of research-related compliance regulations that have 

flowed down from federal agencies over the past 15 or so years. 

Most of the cost of administering these regulations have had to be 

borne directly by the university. To take Duke as an example, the 

research-related and quality-assurance cost to Duke is between— 

between the year 2000 and 2010 rose over 300 percent at the same 

time that our direct and indirect costs only increased 130 percent. 

In addition to presenting the university with a challenge of continually keeping up and paying for new regulations, 

operationalizing our compliance responsibilities in many cases 

means flowing down these additional responsibilities to our research-active faculty. This has led to negative responses on the 

part of the faculty who see more of their time being committed not 

to carrying out funded research but to a myriad of mundane administrative duties. This is not to suggest that these regulations 

are unwarranted, only that the extreme to which some of these regulations have gone of late seems well beyond that needed to accomplish the original regulatory end. We support the recommendation 

in the NRC report that a thorough review of these regulations is 

in order. 

Finally, while not a Committee recommendation per se, the overarching tenor of the NRC report on the development of my testimony for this hearing led me to ask whether another potential outcome of this assessment of the partnership between research universities and the Federal Government might not include a call for 

a formal look at the country’s fundamental research portfolio in 

light of the future strategic needs of the country. In essence, does 

the current distribution of federal support for basic research align 

or not with where technology will most need to be advanced in the 

future if the country is to maintain its competitive scientific and 

technological edge? 

I thank you for your time and interest, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siedow follows:] 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Siedow. 

I want to thank the panel for their testimony, reminding Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. 

The Chair at this point will open the round of questions. Normally, the Chair would recognize himself first, but in this instance, 

I am going to exercise the Chair’s prerogative and recognize a superior Chair, Ralph Hall from the great State of Texas. 

Mr. Hall, you are recognized. 

Chairman HALL. With that description, I am not sure you have 

recognized the right guy but I thank you for it. And I thank you 

for being a Chairman that recognizes the importance, as this full 

room indicates, of the subject matter that we are talking about 

today. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, some three or four years 

ago, back—to be exact—June 22, 2009, Bart Gordon, who chaired 

Science, Space, and Technology for eight years and was a wonderful Chairman, an unusual Democrat, and I was the Ranking Member at that time. There were two Senators—Barbara Mikulski and 

Lamar Alexander—that signed this letter on June 22, 2009, addressed to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy 

of Sciences; and Dr. Charles M. Vest, President of National Academy of Engineering; Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg, President, Institute 

of Medicine. They may be in the audience, some of them; I am not 

sure, but they certainly know about this hearing. 

And we wrote to them asking, what are the top 10 actions that 

Congress, State governments, research universities, and others 

could take to assure the ability of the American research university 

to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national 

goals for health, energy, and environment and security in the global community of this 21st century? That was our letter. Unlike the 

problem Darrell Issa is having of getting any letters out of the Attorney General, they answered back quickly and their answer was 

this: ‘‘Research Universities and the Future of America,’’ the summary there, the 10 breakthroughs and one by one took them as 

they were asked. 

And I have—really the question I want to ask Mr. Holliday—Dr. 

Holliday but I want to ask Dr. Seemann first. In your testimony 

you stated that ‘‘each research university must leverage its respective assets and capacities to pursue those challenge areas that best 

fit their strengths and then aggressively adjust investments and 

priorities around their home field advantage.’’ How has Texas A&M 

identified those assets and how have they handled those capacities? 

Dr. SEEMANN. Well, thank you for the question and let me also 

commend you for your vision in asking the National Academy to 

deliver this report. And let me also promise you that I will look 

closely after your family at Texas A&M University. 

Chairman HALL. Just so she passes. 

Dr. SEEMANN. As we say in Texas, yes, sir. 

Texas A&M was born as a great institution of agriculture and 

engineering and absolutely remains so and we have continued to 

grow on those strengths. More recently, we have begun to focus on 

the 21st century, I think the century that is increasingly about biology and the life sciences and begun to parallel developments in 

that arena. And over the past six to seven years, the State of Texas 
101 

has made important and critical infrastructure investments in this 

arena in very state-of-the-art facilities for preclinical studies, for 

genomic medicine, and most recently, for a national center for 

therapeutics manufacturing that have built on much of our capacity. 

And that was rewarded, as you may know, last week in Texas by the announcement of a $285 million award from Health and 

Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 

Authority to do development and production of vaccines for emerging medical threats, including pandemic flu and bioterror potentials. And again, that has come from our institution recognizing 

what its strengths are, recognizing where the opportunities are 

down the road—and particularly in the biomedical and life 

sciences—putting in place in partnership with the Federal Government, in partnership with the State the necessary infrastructure to 

support this success. And again, last week in Texas was a great 

day for Texas and Texas A&M with this very large award that we 

think will continue to move us forward. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. I only have about 20 seconds left 

so I won’t get to ask Mr. Holliday his question about the outlook 

for federal and State funding over the next seven years and how 

sometimes they glossed over some fiscal constraints that you have 

to take into consideration. 

And my time is up. I yield back, but Mr. Holliday, I probably will 

send you something by letter, appreciate if you will answer it. 

And Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for being generous and 

letting me go ahead with my interrogation. And I am still concerned about my granddaughter because I know my scholastic 

record—one time I made four Fs and a D and my dad punished me 

for spending too much time in one subject. I am not sure that she 

didn’t get a little of that from me. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Know that I will 

defer to your wisdom any time, you just let me know. 

I want to talk a little bit about our country’s financial circumstances, and then I am going to follow that up with a question. 

Just to reiterate where we are, in November we blew through the 

$15 trillion debt mark. Sometime this year, we are going to blow 

through the $16 trillion debt mark. We have had three consecutive 

trillion-dollar deficits—$1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion. We 

are in our fourth year of what is likely to be a trillion-dollar deficit. 

What is the impact of all this? Well, two fiscal years ago our debt 

service cost was $196 billion. This past fiscal year that ended September 30, our debt service cost was $221 billion, which means 

that we had an increase of $25 billion in a one-year period of time. 

What does that mean? Well, that is more than the entire NASA 

budget, one year. And we have lost that for future generations 

where those funds are no longer available for endeavors of a 

NASA-size quantity. 

We have got a lot of competing demands for Federal Government 

monies. We have got the programs that you all have brought out. 

We have got national defense. We have got all sorts of wealth 

transfer programs—food stamps, government housing, you name it. 

We have possibilities of significant tax increases, but to be quite 
102 

frank with you, to balance the budget would require more than a 

doubling of the income tax rates now being paid by all Americans 

who pay income taxes. And for those of you with an economic background, you can imagine the adverse effects that would have on our 

economy, the job losses and whether we would actually have an increase in revenue or a decrease in revenue is an open question. 

So with that situation in hand, I am concerned about the report 

recommendation—particularly the Strategic Investment Program; 

that is item number five—along with some of the other recommendations and whether they are consistent with the outlook 

for federal and State funding over the next several years. Please 

expand on how the study committee considered the current fiscal 

environment in its deliberations. Further, I am concerned that recommendations for the creation of a new program—and that is the 

Strategic Investment Program, number five, that asks for another 

$7 billion per year—and covering the full cost of research don’t 

take into account the Nation’s true economic situation. 

What are your thoughts on this? I understand how what you do is productive, but if we are going to come up with an additional $7 

billion per year, where do you suggest it come from? Or how do you 

suggest we prioritize? That seems to be the task that Congress is 

faced with, properly prioritizing how our funds are spent. 

Mr. Holliday, if you will go first but then we will just work our 

way down the panel. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Thank you, Chairman Brooks. 

Excellent point. We discussed that at great length in our committee. As we stressed in the committee, we believe it will take 

time to fully fund these programs. But we believe—in response to 

your question about where it comes from is we should focus on the 

things we can control today. Many members of this panel have 

talked about the regulations that we believe are choking down our 

universities. In the report, we show three examples of universities 

that have found the ways to save $60 to $75 million per year by 

looking at their own backbone operations, not the research itself 

but the support systems. And we believe those should be implemented. 

Urging companies to partner with universities is a step in the 

right direction. A simple example from the University of Tennessee 

and DuPont—we both were working on next-generation biofuels. 

DuPont and University of Tennessee decided to pool together. It 

would be much more effective and cut through costs. I think if we 

put the framework in place where in the short term we can do 

much more of that. 

If I could close with the question, though, is it is very important 

as you are considering deployment of funds to look at what are investments and what are costs? And we truly believe these are investments that get paid back multiple times—not immediately, but 

over time, to the country. 

Chairman BROOKS. Dr. Mason, again, if there is any ammunition 

you can give me in this debate that we are likely to have in the 

halls of Congress, very much appreciate it. 

Dr. MASON. Yes, Chairman Brooks. From a fiscal point of view 

in our State of Alabama and at Auburn University, cuts are very 

real. We have to make very clear decisions. I will assure you we 
103 

have had to understand with no new monies are coming in what 

do we do? We have made decisions at the local level as the Nation 

will have to what will we need to stop doing in order to do other 

things? 

On the other hand, we tried to align our capabilities and our facilities with what we looked at national strategic areas. One of 

those is in the cybersecurity area. By sharing our research facilities 

with the private sector, with the federal agencies, with State agencies, and various forms of the private sector, we have been able to 

pool funding at a certain level to accomplish and create some new 

opportunities and job creation. 

So my point is the reality is it may not be where all new revenues come from, but I do support the idea of the partnering 

among—across all areas. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Mason. 

Dr. Seemann. 

Dr. SEEMANN. Yes, thank you. 

I remind you what you know about—much better than I—about 

the federal budget and that is we exist as successes that we have 

talked about today, the innovation that comes from American universities in a sense is funded through the Federal Government out 

of that very small part of the budget, the discretionary part that 

is left over when all the big things are funded. So I remind you 

that from that little bit that is there come future cures for cancer, 

come solutions to our energy challenges, come answers to our climate change dilemmas, et cetera, et cetera. So at least holding onto 

the investments that you are making—and thank you for making 

them—I think are critical down the road for this country to continue to see the extraordinary contributions in the future that we 

have seen in the past. 

But I would say as I said in my remarks, there are responsibilities in both—on both sides, the government and the universities. 

The first is to focus, is to pick and choose what it is we want to 

invest in and what we are going to let stand aside for a moment, 

what we are not going to invest in. And that is often one of the 

most difficult discussions both in government and at universities as 

to what we will do and what we won’t do. 

Secondly, again, on both sides—as I emphasized and as Mr. 

Holliday said—I still think there is a great deal of room left for efficiencies. Universities are working every day to be more efficient 

with the resources that you give us, but we think we can be more 

efficient. 

On the other side, the regulatory burdens that are placed on us 

that we think are above and beyond are extraordinary costly to our 

universities and they directly take dollars away from supporting 

research itself. They take away dollars from working on cures for 

cancer. They take away dollars for finding energy solutions. They 

create burdens on our faculty that may consume up to 40 percent 

of a faculty member’s time in non-research functions because of 

that. And that is really not what we want our best and brightest 

minds working on. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Seemann. I am in wholehearted agreement. 

Dr. Tolbert. 
104 

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you, Chairman Brooks. 

I would echo everything that my colleagues have said and simply 

add to what Dr. Seemann just said that in fact this regulatory burden is growing, and it has an impact on federal spending and university spending. We feel across the universities that internally we 

must continue to find efficiencies in the way we respond to regulatory oversight in the use of taxpayer funds, but also that we 

would like to be partners in developing rational policy that will 

streamline federal regulations. I can think of a couple of areas. One 

would be in export controls where there are redundancies and actually inconsistencies in—among some of the regulations. They are 

extremely important regulations. The easier they are to follow, the 

clearer they are, the less work it will take and the better job we 

will do at the universities and also on the federal side in assuring 

accountability. That would be one. 

Another place would be effort reporting as a very specific example of something where we do sort of a whole separate shadow system of following effort on research grants that is probably not necessary and would be a place where we could find efficiencies. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Tolbert. 

Dr. Siedow. 

Dr. SIEDOW. Thank you, Chairman Brooks. 

We may have reached that point where everything that needs to 

be said has been said but not everybody said it, so I will just reiterate a couple of points that have been made, because I think they 

are fairly critical. One is not everything in this report can clearly 

be implemented in the near term. And there are some fiscal realities which you have pointed out which I absolutely agree with that 

mean we are going to have to think—the strategic program that 

they suggested may well have to be thought down the road when 

our economic and fiscal house is in better order. I think the suggestion is still good; it is just not viable at this point. 

I would just—boy, let me hammer home. If you want to get—if 

you want to look at where we can get efficiencies or make strides 

right now, regulations are just burying us and we really do need 

to—as I think was recommended—it wouldn’t be that costly to take 

a very hard look at the regulations now and see where we can 

streamline some of those. 

Just to bring up an example that hasn’t been brought up, I am 

really concerned at Duke at how the conflict-of-interest regulations 

are running right up against orthogonal to our attempts to technology transfer. I mean we talk about—again, we talked about 

speeding up the rate at which technologies get incorporated from 

the basic discoveries into application where that second step we are 

just—we are getting—we are running into potholes because the 

conflict-of-interest rules are taking the very professors who should 

be taking that next step out of the picture or at least marginalizing 

them to some extent. 

Again, collaborations be it with industry, be it with other universities, I think many people in this room would be surprised at how 

much Duke and the University of North Carolina collaborate on a 

regular basis, particularly in the biomedical realm. Collaborations 

are just an excellent way to achieve efficiencies. I could go on. The 

list is quite long but I think there are—I guess the bottom line is 
105 

I think there are plenty of things in this—the NRC report where 

they have recommendations that in fact would not—would either 

cost much or might not even cost much of anything at all that need 

to be looked at very carefully in the near term. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Siedow. 

At this point I would like to thank Mr. Lipinski. It is abnormal 

for two Republicans to go back-to-back, but he and I discussed it 

and he was gracious enough to allow the Chairman of the Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee to go first followed by the Chairman of this Subcommittee. 

And Mr. Lipinski, as you engage in your Q and A, I am not often 

liberal, but I will be likewise liberal and generous with your time 

as you ask questions and seek responses. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do have a lot of 

things that I want to explore with the panel, so I appreciate that. 

So many things, trying to figure out where to start. First thing 

I think I just want to quickly make it clear for everybody the situation that public universities are in right now. I think, as Mr. 

Holliday said, the public universities are on thin ice right now. Dr. 

Tolbert, what is the percentage—can you tell us again what the 

percentage is of funding at the University of Arizona that comes directly from the State? 

Ms. TOLBERT. Our current level of funding in the—is in the 20 

percent range. It has fallen 40 percent in just the last few years. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I don’t know if Dr. Mason or Dr. Seemann can 

tell us anything about their universities, what percent comes from 

the State. Do you know? 

Dr. MASON. Congressman Lipinski, I don’t know the percentage 

but in the—I can do it in a different fashion, if you would allow 

me. I arrived at Auburn in ’08 and since ’08 from an $800 million 

appropriation, over $125 million, I believe, has been reduced. So, 

you know, whether that is a proportion of the entire university 

budget, but the implication of that is profound. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Seemann, do you have any—— 

Dr. SEEMANN. I am not—it is around the number at the University of Arizona. I came three years ago from the University of 

Rhode Island, and during my tenure there, that—the percentage of 

State support slipped below 10 percent. And I know there are a 

number of universities that are down at that end of the percentages of State support. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I was going to say Dr. Tolbert is doing relatively well there at the University of Arizona, from what I hear. 

And I hear more along the lines in the State of Illinois down closer 

to what Dr. Seemann is talking about, 10 percent. So I just want— 

I don’t think most people in this country understand how—they 

still see State universities and they think that there is a large percentage of the money for those universities that is actually coming 

directly from the State. So I just wanted to make that point. 

Commercialization of university research, I think, is critically important here. We are investing a lot—the Federal Government is 

investing a lot, taxpayers are investing a lot in research at our universities across the country, and I think more needs to be done to— 

in commercialization. Is there anything specifically that anyone can 
106 

talk about that their universities are doing to help with commercialization? I will start with Dr. Siedow. 

Dr. SIEDOW. We have—actually, you can go onto the Website. Actually, if you look in my written commentary, I actually pointed out 

we have an innovation and entrepreneurship program that basically tries to coordinate entrepreneurship across campus. And there 

we have the Duke Fuqua School of Business, the School of Law, the 

Medical School are all participants in any number—and when I say 

any number, the number is about—I think there are 12 different 

programs that I counted up when I was putting together the written testimony—that are various programs that are designed to either educate entrepreneurs or, in many instances, take actual IP 

and—as a part of the course—develop that IP and to try and move 

it downstream as it goes along. So we are—we really have—our 

strategic plan of several years ago focused on technology transfer 

and translation of our basic discoveries into application as one of 

our strategic goals. And we have worked very hard to bring that 

about. And again, if you look in my written testimony, there is a 

fairly good list of what we are doing and I think it is fairly impressive. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else like to comment what their universities are doing? Dr. Tolbert. 

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you, Chairman—sorry, Ranking Member Lipinski. 

At the University of Arizona, we are changing the way we do 

technology commercialization, because we have not been as efficient and effective as we know we could be. One of the things we 

have done is to take a new dean of our business college, our College 

of Management, and give him strong control over the new direction 

we are taking with something we call Tech Launch Arizona. We 

have a top-ranked entrepreneurship program, and we are increasingly bringing the students and the faculty into that pipeline from 

basic research through to technology commercialization. We are 

bringing under one umbrella the functions of technology transfer 

and business incubation and movement into our technology park so 

that we can have an easier handoff. To the faculty member who is 

an innovator and an entrepreneur, it will be an easier process than 

it has been in the past. 

And then finally, I would say we know that we are going to have 

to raise philanthropic funds to help us through—I think it was my 

colleague to the left who talked about a valley of death. There are 

several valleys of death for new intellectual property, and we can’t 

raise those funds any way except to go out to the private sector and 

the philanthropic community to help us generate a fund that eventually we expect will be evergreen. 

Dr. SEEMANN. And Texas A&M is doing all the same things that 

our peers are, but I would like to use the question to—in this arena 

to make a point about the relationship between research at universities and education and that they are not two separate things at 

our institutions, but rather they are inextricably linked even in 

this arena. It is critical that we teach our young people and our 

students about what it means and what has to happen to develop, 

commercialize, market technologies, create new companies, and I 

am very proud to say that my office, in this past year, in collabora-
107 

tion with our Mays School of Business, has created a student innovation accelerator bringing some extraordinarily bright students of 

Texas A&M in partnership with faculties and ideas to create for 

them a place, an opportunity, the resources to begin thinking about 

how this happens and in fact probably, if it works like I want, seeing the next Facebook come out of a small investment in putting 

our students in that kind of environment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I think that is a good point that this is all—we talk 

about commercialization; it’s often lost that what we are talking 

about is education, educating students, educating faculty on how to 

commercialize, how to be entrepreneurs. So that is still all part of 

education. So if Dr. Mason—you don’t have to add anything but if 

you have anything, go ahead. 

Dr. MASON. Well, I am an academic so I have to add something 

but I will be very, very brief—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I understand that. 

Dr. MASON [continuing]. And I appreciate the Chairman’s allowance. Just two comments in transition, so in our incubator—that 

is what you will also see in many universities where we have student companies being formed, what better way than to take this intellectual knowledge right from the students, and the students are 

starting companies. These are investments that we are talking 

about. While they often are perceived as costs, but the fact is, 

imagine investing in our next generation in that manner. 

Something even more specific, we are making transitions from 

what used to be referred to as technical licensing officers, a very 

regulatory type of approach. I oversee our 501(c)(3) technology 

foundation, and we now hire business development people who 

come from industry and also bring along with them the private sector investment portfolios and our contacts. So in response to the 

Chairman’s question and to yours, literally, the private sector is 

also willing to invest. It is the partnership that we were looking 

for. So thank you very much for the amount of time. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I wanted to—as people here have often heard 

me say—promote an NSF program called Innovation Corps that is 

teaching faculty members and teaming them up with faculty members, graduate students teaming up entrepreneurs and teaching 

them how to commercialize. And I think that we need to be doing 

more to sort of bring the best practices. From what you all have 

learned, that all of our universities have learned because a lot has 

been done in the past 20 years, especially in the last decade when 

we are talking about tech transfer, commercialization, and there 

are some different ways it is being done at different universities. 

And I think that we really need to collect all the best practices 

and—so that we—everyone learns from each other. 

And the last thing I just want to say I think we could all agree 

up here in Congress to work on easing the regulatory burden, and 

I think that is something that we need to address further time in 

up here on Capitol Hill and making the changes that we can so 

that the Federal Government is not putting too many burdens on 

our universities. 

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 
108 

I appreciate the patience of our two colleagues to my left. The 

Chair first recognizes Mr. Hultgren of the great State of Illinois. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you all for being here, so grateful for your 

time and your work. I am passionate about this subject and really 

do appreciate all that you have done. 

So much of what you said really struck me. One thing right at 

the end of Dr. Siedow’s testimony talked about almost as a—kind 

of a side comment but also maybe a challenge of looking at 

prioritization and how we actually are looking system-wide at basic 

scientific research and how we are spending money and are we 

doing it most effectively as we possibly could. I agree with that. I 

think we need to do that. I am frustrated being one of the new 

Members here in Congress feeling like we have very little vision as 

far as science policy goes for our Nation from the government, from 

our leadership and we need to change that. We need to be working 

with you and I want to be a part of that. I hope this—I know this 

Committee and Subcommittee will be part of that as well. 

I think part of that discussion, though, has to be not just limited 

to basic scientific research but science and what should we be doing 

as a Federal Government? I think this is a really important discussion to have. I am privileged to have quite a few physicist constituents in my district who are much, much smarter than I am and 

they remind me of that often. But they are a wonderful help. And 

one of the things that they talk to me about and it just clicked with 

me is there is really two forms of science. There is Newtonian 

science and Edisonian science. Newtonian science really is basic 

scientific research. Why does something work and how are we 

going to discover new reasons why things work? And Edisonian 

science is how do we apply? How do we use what we know to make 

our lives better? Both are very, very important. 

I absolutely am convinced that the private sector is very good at 

the Edisonian science, that if we are continuing to provide advancements in Newtonian science, private sector for the most part can 

step up and take the ball to the next part of applying it to make 

our lives better. But I am absolutely convinced that the private sector is not good at Newtonian science, that basic scientific research, 

and that is where we need our research universities to continue to 

step up, to continue to be funded, and I would say continue to work 

with our national laboratories. We haven’t talked about that very 

much, but I think that is a key piece. 

And I just feel like right now there is an attack against our national laboratories. I can’t see it any other way where, again, many 

applied science line items are being increased 30 percent, 20 percent, and yet our national laboratories are being cut 10 percent, 15 

percent. It is just—to me it is a misapplication of limited dollars 

that we have got where the private sector oftentimes can step in 

and do this applied science. No one other than universities, our national laboratories with the Federal Government’s direction can 

really do this basic scientific research. 

So I want to be a part of that discussion. We need your help. I 

think you are a really key resource in this along with our national 

laboratories to be able to do that. 

One of the things I would challenge you all with—and I have 

talked to my own universities about this as well. I am privileged 
109 

to represent Fermilab and—so that is how I get my connection of 

all my brilliant physicists that I get to represent. But I am so 

proud of what they have done and the great work that they have 

done but also sense frustration from them right now of really getting the support that they need to do the great work that I know 

they can do moving us into the future. But I have encouraged them 

to continue to build the relationships with their research universities and have research universities reaching out to their Members 

of Congress and Members of the Senate to be talking about how 

important this is. 

We all talk and believe in the importance of STEM education and 

getting young people interested in this, but we are not going to get 

them interested if there is not a place for them to be able to use 

that knowledge and education here in America. If they have got to 

go over to China afterwards to be able to use that or Russia or 

India or Europe, we have lost the battle. 

And so I encourage you just to continue to be talking to your 

Members of Congress of how important this is. I have seen it very 

practically where there has been issues where I have tried to talk 

to one of my colleagues and say, hey, I need your help to sign on 

to this legislation. We don’t get an answer. Finally, we will call a 

university in their district, university president calls this person. 

Five minutes later they are on our letter. So you have a power and 

I just encourage you to continue to use it. We need to hear from 

you of how important this is for current students at your universities, for your professors, for the research they are doing, but also 

for our K–12th graders who are interested in going into science and 

yet are saying maybe there is not a bright future for me in that 

and I will go somewhere else. No, we can’t let that happen; it is 

too important. So I am getting up on a soapbox. I apologize for 

that. 

But real quickly, in the last minute I have, one of the questions 

I had was brought up of regulation and the amount of time that 

is used dealing with regulation. And specifically wondered if one or 

two of you could maybe mention what reform could happen? What 

are some of the frustrations you have that is pulling you away from 

the research that could be done and some regulatory reform that 

we could be doing to free up our research universities to do the 

great work that they can do? Great, thank you. 

Dr. TOLBERT. Congressman Hultgren, thank you for that question. 

Between the two of us at this end of the table, we have suggested 

a couple of areas. There are many areas—I think this really deserves significant attention—many areas where we can imagine important efficiencies are available that will not decrease our accountability. We will be held accountable for spending the dollars correctly. One is conflict of interest, which you heard about from Dr. 

Siedow. And another one is effort reporting. It is an area that is 

too technical to go into in detail here but it—we really do have parallel shadow systems which is just really not necessary. It is not 

a good waste of time—it is a good waste of time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It is a waste of time. 

Dr. TOLBERT. Excuse me. And then the other I would bring up 

again is export control. It is increasingly difficult. Dual use is an 
110 

important issue that has to be dealt with in great technical detail 

but, in fact, I think most universities have had to hire external 

legal counsel to help us interpret the ITAR—the International 

Trade in Arms Regulation—guidelines because they are virtually 

uninterpretable by us internally. And I think that that could be improved. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you very much. Again, thank you all. If 

you have other suggestions and if it is okay if I can ask permission 

to follow up with you or my office to follow up with you on specifics 

of what we can do because we want to—I want to go after some 

of this. And again, we want accountability and I believe we can 

still have an accountable system without some of this crazy redundancy, without this waste of time, without a lot of things that are 

just outdated that just don’t make sense any longer, new ways of 

doing something more efficiently. 

My time is up so thank you so much. I will be following up with 

you if that is okay just to get other suggestions you might have. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

At this point, the Chair recognizes the Chairman of our Space 

and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Mr. Palazzo from the great State 

of Mississippi. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lipinski brought up some good points when he was talking 

about the commercialization and entrepreneurship and I think, Dr. 

Tolbert and Dr. Siedow, you pretty much covered those. But as a 

follow-up question—this was going to be for Mr. Holliday, so if you 

could just put your entrepreneurship caps back on—when the study 

committee was assessing the needs of our research universities, did 

you discover that most research campuses now have tech transfer 

offices? Or is it still a major impediment to moving research out 

of the labs? And also how about entrepreneurship programs like 

the ones Dr. Tolbert and Dr. Siedow mentioned in their testimony? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Great question, sir. 

Yes, universities have tech transfer offices, but they are not as 

efficient and effective as they should be. From my experience with 

DuPont, we actually deployed three of our best tech transfer people 

to go around and coach universities on how to do that. We put in 

place a net company that—where they could actually sell that 

from, so we think that is a very important place. 

But what I would stress is if you start early on with partnering 

with entrepreneurs, partnering with businesses as they are developing the technology, then those routes to transfer it out become 

much more obvious and the technology is more fit for commercialization. Most discovery research at university is not ready to be 

commercialized. It still may take a year or two to be done so you 

have got to find the right partner to actually commercialize it, and 

that is what is critical. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you. 

Dr. Mason, in your testimony you mentioned that Auburn’s 

Space Research Institute was recently closed. What happened to 

the students, professors, and researchers who had been working at 

and through the Institute? 
111 

Dr. MASON. Yes, Congressman. When we all take on new jobs, 

you open a door and then you have to deal with what is behind the 

door. In that situation, we—the university had been trying to sustain the operations of that Space Research Institute. When I arrived there, the funding was not available through NASA and 

through others. Fortunately, over a four-year period we were able 

to, through attrition, some people were absorbed in other units, 

several of them went out and started some small companies, and 

then some of the facilities are now going to be shared with the University of Alabama at Huntsville. So in reality it was the productivity of trying to sustain something in separation from—so we primarily allocated to the locations that were best suited for trying to 

continue it. 

But the fact is that no longer exists at that university, so if one 

were to stand up some new initiatives, one has to recognize that 

infrastructure and that personnel are not there. So whether it is 

my university or others, when we go through these cuts, that is 

what will happen. Things will have to be redeployed elsewhere. 

That will cause some inefficiencies to start them up again. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Dr. Mason, that was well said. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this point, I am going to close with one set of remarks. And 

I focused on recommendation number seven from your report, and 

it is one that the Committee and its witnesses have focused on extensively—reducing regulatory burdens. And it seems to me that to 

a large degree we have been talking at the 30,000-foot level, maybe 

even have gotten down to the 10,000-foot level, but as much as possible I would ask our witnesses and their colleagues to get into the 

weeds a little bit. 

With respect to recommendation number seven, it says—and I 

am going to quote some particular parts—‘‘federal policymakers 

and regulators and their state counterparts should review the costs 

and benefits of federal and state regulations eliminating those that 

are redundant, ineffective, inappropriately applied to the higher 

education sector, or that impose costs that outweigh the benefits to 

society. The Federal Government should also make regulations and 

reporting requirements more consistent across federal agencies 

that universities can maintain one system for all federal requirements rather than several thereby reducing costs. Reducing or 

eliminating regulations can reduce administrative costs, enhance 

productivity, and increase the agility of institutions.’’ 

If you would, I would appreciate it if you all could get some of 

your colleagues and yourselves to get into the weeds a little bit and 

identify specific regulations that you think that this Congress 

should be involved in the change of or the repeal of. Now, I would 

very much welcome that kind of in-the-weeds insight that you can 

share with us, this Committee, in written form. You can also address my congressional office in a written summary of the regulations that I am talking about with the C.F.R.’s. If you can identify 

them by number and section, that would be wonderful. 

I was going to close my remarks at this point, but I see Dr. 

Siedow has his hand going up so if you would like to add a few re-
112 

marks, inasmuch as I do have a degree from your university, I feel 

great deference. 

Dr. SIEDOW. I appreciate taking advantage of that, and thank 

you for recognizing me. 

I would just like to point out we can do that relatively easily. 

And point of fact, because last summer, in response to the OMB A– 

21 Task Force, they asked for examples of where we saw regulatory 

burdens, and we have actually—through the AAU, the auspices of 

AAU and COGR have actually developed a bunch—a whole list of 

in-the-weeds regulations that we think could use some help. So it 

will be a very easy thing for us to put together because we have 

done that within the past year. 

Chairman BROOKS. Well, fantastic. If you could please communicate that list to the Subcommittee staff and to my office along 

with any justifications or reasonings, explanations as to why that 

particular provision needs to be changed or eliminated, I would 

very much welcome it. And I would love to be your champion with 

respect to overregulation by the Federal Government. I am familiar 

with the well-intentioned but sometimes counterproductive effect 

some of our regulators have in the Federal Government. 

With that being the case, I want to thank the witnesses for their 

valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. In particular, I want to thank Mr. Lipinski for allowing the Chairman of 

the overall Committee, Mr. Hall, to go out of order. 

The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
113 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
114 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

Æ