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

81–722PDF 2013

STEM EDUCATION: 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

PROPOSED REORGANIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013 

Serial No. 113–33 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

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

Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF) 

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

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

Mr. Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 34 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President .............................................. 62 

Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF) ................................... 71 

Mr. Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ........................................................ 79 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement for the record by Representative Frederica Wilson, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 96 

Letter submitted by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 97 

Submitted list of STEM programs for the record by The Honorable John 

Holdren ................................................................................................................. 99 

Submitted letter to correct statements in the record by The Honorable John 

Holdren ................................................................................................................. 106 

(1) 

STEM EDUCATION: THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

PROPOSED REORGANIZATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing, which is on the subject of ‘‘STEM 

Education: The Administration’s Proposed Reorganization.’’ Nice to 

see a full house today, and those who are standing, you are welcome to come forward if you can find some seats. And if not, you 

are welcome to stay where you are, too. I am going to recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member for 

her opening statement. 

The topic of today’s hearing is the President’s Proposed Reorganization of Federal STEM education programs. The proposal is part 

of the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request to Congress and 

includes the consolidation of over 100 Federal STEM education programs. 

In order to achieve the innovations of tomorrow, we must better 

educate American students today. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee looks for ways not only to encourage students to 

study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics but also to 

inspire them to pursue careers in STEM fields. 

Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it 

comes to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in math 

and 31st in science. This is not the record of a great country. And 

it is not the record of a country that expects to remain a world 

leader. 

The COMPETES Act of 2010 required the National Science and 

Technology Council to establish a committee on STEM. Today, this 

is commonly referred to as CoSTEM, which seeks to ‘‘coordinate 

Federal programs and activities in support of STEM education.’’ 

CoSTEM was directed to develop and implement a five-year strategic plan for the coordination of Federal STEM programs. 

Unfortunately, the Strategic Plan was significantly delayed and 

was only received by Congress last Friday. The Administration proposed a reorganization of Federal STEM programs as part of the 

budget request in April, prior to the release of the final Strategic 

Plan. 

We need to carefully consider how best to streamline, coordinate, 

and consolidate programs that specifically engage children and the 

public in STEM subjects. Our country continues to face a fiscal crisis, and part of our challenge is how to achieve the most benefit 

from our limited resources in the current budget environment. 

More graduates with STEM degrees means more advanced technologies and a more robust economy. A well-educated and trained 

STEM workforce undergirds our future economic prosperity. But 

we have to capture and hold the desire of our Nation’s youth to 

study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. 

Our hearing today will help us evaluate if the Administration’s 

proposal effectively accomplishes those goals. 

Now, that concludes my opening statement. And the Ranking 

Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized 

for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

The topic of today’s hearing is the President’s proposed re-organization of federal 

STEM education programs. The proposal is part of the President’s FY14 budget request to Congress and includes the consolidation of over 100 federal STEM education programs. 

In order to achieve the innovations of tomorrow, we must better educate American 

students today. The Science, Space and Technology Committee looks for ways not 

only to encourage students to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics but also to inspire them to pursue careers in STEM fields.Unfortunately, 

America lags behind many other nations when it comes to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in math and 31st in science. This is not the record of a 

great country. And it is not the record of a country that expects to remain a world 

leader. 

The COMPETES Act of 2010 required the National Science and Technology Council to establish a Committee on STEM. Today this is commonly referred to as 

CoSTEM, which seeks to ‘‘coordinate federal programs and activities in support of 

STEM education.’’ CoSTEM was directed to develop and implement a five-year Strategic Plan for the coordination of federal STEM programs. 

Unfortunately, the Strategic Plan was significantly delayed and was only received 

by Congress last Friday. The Administration proposed a re-organization of federal 

STEM programs as part of the budget request in April, prior to the release of the 

final Strategic Plan. I hope our witnesses can tell us what was wrong with the programs the Administration wants to cut or consolidate. 

We also need to carefully consider how best to streamline, coordinate and consolidate programs that specifically engage children and the public in STEM subjects. 

Our country continues to face a fiscal crisis and part of our challenge is how to 

achieve the most benefit from our limited resources in the current budget environment. More graduates with STEM degrees means more advanced technologies and 

a more robust economy. A well-educated and trained STEM workforce undergirds 

our future economic prosperity. 

But we have to capture and hold the desire of our nation’s youth to study science 

and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. Our hearing today will 

help us evaluate if the Administration’s proposal effectively accomplishes those 

goals. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing, and thanks to all of our distinguished witnesses 

for taking time to appear before the Committee this afternoon. 

Improving STEM education is the United States—in the United 

States has been a major focus of mine since before I came to Congress and I am happy to see the increased focus on STEM education across the Nation. States, universities, companies, and nonprofits are working together in unprecedented ways to improve 

STEM education at all levels. We have also increased our efforts 

at the Federal level in both Congress and our agencies to improve 

the effectiveness of our STEM education investments. 

In the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization, this Committee required OSTP to form an interagency committee, which became 

known as CoSTEM, to coordinate Federal STEM programs on an 

ongoing basis and develop a five-year Strategic Plan for Federal investments in STEM education. I was very supportive of this mandate because I believed it was important to look at what the Federal Government has been doing and how we can improve our efforts. I appreciate all of the hard work that Federal education leaders—especially Mr. Melvin and Dr. Mundy—have put into developing the STEM education Strategic Plan. 

Unfortunately, prior to the release of the CoSTEM Strategic 

Plan, OMB included a proposal in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 

budget of a sweeping reorganization of Federal STEM education 

programs. In addition to being concerned about the process, I have 
8 

serious concerns with the budget proposal itself. To be blunt, it 

seems to me that it was not very well thought out. 

While I have many questions and concerns, one point I want to 

emphasize here is the important role of NASA in supporting outreach activities and informal STEM education. NASA seems to 

have taken the biggest hit in the budget proposal, and this doesn’t 

make any sense to me. I have visited many classrooms in my home 

State of Texas, and I can tell you there is nothing that can replace 

the excitement for kids of hearing directly from a NASA astronaut 

or visiting a NASA facility. Since the 1960s, NASA has been key 

in encouraging students to study science and engineering and I 

hope we don’t do anything to compromise this. 

That is just the beginning of my own concerns, and I am sure 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have many questions 

about both the process and the specifics of the budget proposal. But 

in the end, all of us today share the same goal of improving the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Federal investments in STEM education. 

We have been investing a lot of money in many programs over 

many years, and while there are many positive anecdotes and some 

programs that have been evaluated rigorously, we are failing—falling much too short on evidence and accountability. This also applies to the programs to increase participation in STEM by females 

and underrepresented minorities. It is not enough just to fund 

these programs. We need to ensure that they are effective. 

Therefore, I hope we can use this hearing for more than just attacking the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal. The five-year Strategic Plan that we just received on Friday after much delay is a 

separate document and hopefully one that stands on its own and 

remains viable even if Congress refuses to support the specifics of 

the Fiscal Year 2014 proposal. My hope is that the CoSTEM Strategic Plan can serve as a new starting point for more sensible and 

well thought out implementation steps in Fiscal Year 2015 and beyond, and I look forward to discussing this further with the panel 

today. 

It is our responsibility on this Committee to work with the agencies and the stakeholder groups to make sure that CoSTEM process 

we required in COMPETES is successful. 

I want to thank Chairman Smith again for calling this hearing 

and the witnesses as well for being here and I look forward to your 

testimony and a productive discussion. Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing, and thank you to our distinguished witnesses for taking the time to appear before the Committee this afternoon. 

Improving STEM education in the United States has been a major focus of mine 

since I came to Congress, and I am happy to see the increased focus on STEM education across the nation. States, universities, companies, and nonprofits are working 

together in unprecedented ways to improve STEM education at all levels. 

We have also increased our efforts at the Federal level, in both Congress and our 

agencies, to improve the effectiveness of our STEM education investments. In the 

2010 COMPETES Reauthorization, this Committee required OSTP to form an interagency Committee, which became known as CoSTEM, to coordinate federal STEM 
9 

programs on an ongoing basis and develop a five-year strategic plan for federal investments in STEM education. 

I was very supportive of this mandate because I believed it was important to look 

at what the Federal government has been doing and how we can improve our efforts. I appreciate all of the hard work that federal education leaders, especially Mr. 

Melvin and Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, have put into developing a STEM education strategic plan. 

Unfortunately, prior to the release of the CoSTEM strategic plan, OMB included 

a proposal in the President’s FY14 Budget for a sweeping reorganization of Federal 

STEM education programs. In addition to being concerned about the process, I have 

serious concerns with the budget proposal itself. To be blunt, it seems to me it was 

not very well thought out. 

While I have many questions and concerns, one point I want to emphasize here 

is the important role of NASA in supporting outreach activities and informal STEM 

education. NASA seems to have taken the biggest hit in the budget proposal and 

this doesn’t make any sense to me. 

I have visited many classrooms in my home state of Texas and I can tell you there 

is nothing that can replace the excitement for kids of hearing directly from a NASA 

astronaut or visiting a NASA facility. 

Since the 1960s, NASA has been key in encouraging students to study science and 

engineering, and I hope we don’t do anything to compromise this.That’s just the beginning of my own concerns, and I’m sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

will have many questions about both the process and the specifics of the budget proposal. 

But in the end, all of us today share the same goal of improving the effectiveness 

and efficiency of federal investments in STEM education. We’ve been investing a lot 

of money in many programs over many years, and while there are many positive 

anecdotes and some programs that have been evaluated rigorously, we are falling 

much too short on evidence and accountability. 

This also applies to the programs to increase participation in STEM by females 

and underrepresented minorities. It’s not enough just to fund these programs, we 

need to ensure that they are effective. 

Therefore, I hope we can use this hearing for more than just attacking the FY14 

budget proposal. 

The five year strategic plan that we just received on Friday after much delay is 

a separate document, and hopefully one that stands on its own and remains viable 

even if Congress refuses to support the specifics of the FY14 proposal. My hope is 

that the CoSTEM strategic plan can serve as a new starting point for more sensible 

and well-thought out implementation steps in FY15 and beyond and I look forward 

to discussing this further with the panel today. 

It is our responsibility on this Committee to work with the agencies and the 

stakeholder groups to make sure the CoSTEM process we required in COMPETES 

is successful. 

I want to thank Chairman Smith again for calling this hearing, and the witnesses 

as well for being here. I look forward to your testimony and a productive discussion. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

You all heard the bells and they indicate that the votes have 

been called. We originally thought there were three votes; there are 

only two votes, so we should be able to return in about 30 minutes. 

And I hope you all will stay here and we will come back as soon 

as we can. I would also like to encourage all the Members who are 

here to return as well. We will resume this hearing immediately 

after that second vote. And until then, we will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SMITH. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

will reconvene. I will introduce our witnesses and then we will hear 

their testimonies. 

Our first witness today is the Honorable John Holdren. Dr. 

Holdren serves as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House where he is both the Assistant 

to the President for Science and Technology and Co-Chair of the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or 

PCAST. Prior to his current appointment by President Obama, Dr. 
10 

Holdren was a professor in both the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth Science at Harvard. Previously, 

he was a member of the faculty at the University of California 

Berkeley where he founded and led a graduate degree program in 

energy and resources. Dr. Holdren graduated from MIT with degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics. 

Our second witness is Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources at the 

National Science Foundation. From 2007 to 2009, Dr. FerriniMundy was a member of the National Science and Technology 

Council Subcommittee on Education. She currently co-chairs the 

Strategic Plan Workgroup of the NSTC’s Committee on STEM education or CoSTEM. From 1999 to 2011, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy held an 

appointment at Michigan State University where she was a University Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education in the 

Departments of Mathematics and Teacher Education and Associate 

Dean for Science and Mathematics Education in the College of Natural Science. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2011. She holds 

a Ph.D. in mathematics education from the University of New 

Hampshire. 

Our third and final witness is Mr. Leland Melvin, the Associate 

Administrator for Education at NASA. Mr. Melvin chairs the Education Coordinating Committee, an agencywide collaborative structure that maximizes NASA’s ability to manage and implement its 

education portfolio. Mr. Melvin entered NASA’s astronaut corps in 

1998 and served as a mission specialist on two space shuttle missions to the International Space Station. Mr. Melvin earned a 

Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from the University of 

Richmond where he also excelled as a wide receiver for the Spider 

Football team. He became an academic All-American and a University of Richmond Athletic Hall of Fame inductee. He was then 

drafted into the National Football League by the Detroit Lions in 

1986 and also spent time at the Dallas Cowboys and the Toronto 

Argonauts. After injuries sidelined his football career, he returned 

to academia and earned his Master of Science degree in materials 

science engineering from the University of Virginia. 

We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony. And Dr. 

Holdren, if you will start us off. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN, 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP), 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Smith, 

Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. I am happy 

to be here today to discuss with you the current state of Federal 

support for science, technology, engineering, and math education— 

that is STEM education—in the context of the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2014 budget; the five-year Strategic Plan for STEM education 

delivered to Congress last Friday; and our shared interest in improving the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal 

STEM ed programs. 
11 

I think all of us in this room understand that high-quality education in the STEM fields is essential not only to provide our citizens with the skills and training they will need to create and fill 

the high-tech businesses and jobs of the future but also to ensure 

that we have a science-savvy citizenry needed for a well-functioning democracy in an era when many of the issues facing government have significant science or technology content. 

The President certainly understands this and his Fiscal Year 

2014 budget supports that recognition with a STEM education investment of $3.1 billion, a six percent increase over the 2012 enacted funding level. As important as that dollar amount, though, 

is the thought that the Administration has given to how to derive 

maximum value from this investment. That is the focus of the Administration’s five-year Strategic Plan for STEM education recently 

submitted to Members of this Committee and others in Congress, 

and it is reflected in the STEM education reorganization proposals 

in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget. 

Before I describe the key elements of that reorganization, let me 

note that it is a priority of this Administration to leverage the Federal Government’s direct investments in STEM education through 

partnerships with the philanthropic and private sectors, partnerships that to date have resulted in more than $700 million in contributions and in-kind services in support of our STEM education 

goals. 

The reorganization of the Federal STEM education programs proposed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget would designate 

a lead Federal agency for each of four key families of educational 

activity. The Department of Education would have the lead for K– 

12 instruction, the National Science Foundation would have the 

lead both for undergraduate education and for graduate fellowships, and the Smithsonian Institution would have the lead for the 

informal education activities that typically take place outside the 

classroom. 

As part of the reorganization, 78 of the 226 STEM education programs currently spread across 13 different Federal agencies would 

be eliminated and another 48 would be consolidated within agencies. Ten new programs would be added, making 110 programs altogether going forward. The 78 programs that would be eliminated 

accounted in Fiscal Year 2012 for about $175 million or about six 

percent of the total appropriation for Federal STEM education activities in that year. Those savings would be distributed to the lead 

agencies, roughly 100 million to the Department of Education, 50 

million to NSF, 25 million to the Smithsonian to help support their 

added responsibilities. 

The Proposed Reorganization was designed to preserve the most 

viable of the STEM education programs in the mission agencies, 

those most effectively leveraging unique agency assets were serving 

unique agency STEM education pipeline needs, and every agency 

that had a STEM education portfolio in 2012 will continue to have 

one in 2014 with the addition of the Smithsonian making a total 

of 14 Federal agencies active in the STEM education domain. I believe that this new structure will help ensure that related programs are coordinated, redundancies are minimized, evaluation is 

improved, and resources are focused on programs that can deliver 
12 

the most impact per dollar in their respective domains. I look forward to working with this Committee on our common vision for improving STEM education for all of America’s students and I will be 

pleased to try to answer any questions the Members may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE 

FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson, and other distinguished Members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. My name is Joan 

Ferrini-Mundy and I am the National Science Foundation Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources. It is a pleasure 

to testify before you today on the Proposed Reorganization of Federal STEM education programs and to focus on the role of the National Science Foundation in STEM education. 

From its beginnings in 1950, the NSF has supported basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. 

The Education and Human Resources Directorate has a unique 

Federal mission: supporting the preparation of a diverse, globally 

competent STEM workforce and a STEM-literate society. We do so 

by investing in research on and development of evidence-based 

models and materials and approaches to better understand and improve STEM learning and education for the Nation. 

Opportunities to learn STEM effectively are the foundation for 

the diverse, strong workforce that this Nation needs, yet today, the 

country is educating neither a diverse enough nor a strong enough 

STEM workforce to power our Nation’s economy in the 21st century. NSF’s ongoing investments in STEM education are intended 

to address those complex challenges. 

In the Fiscal Year 2014 President’s budget request, NSF proposes a coherent framework of investment and undergraduate 

STEM education and an expansion of the Graduate Research Fellowship program, activities that build on ongoing NSF investment. 

In the Proposed Reorganization, NSF would have a governmentwide leadership role for undergraduate STEM education improvement. 

A new NSF-wide activity, Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate 

STEM Education, or CAUSE, will consolidate several programs 

from across the NSF and will emphasize the strong coupling of 

STEM disciplinary expertise with education research expertise to 

improve undergraduate persistence and diversity in STEM learning. Development of the framework for CAUSE will be undertaken 

across all of NSF in concert with other agencies that have been 

managing undergraduate programs. These conversations build 

upon and are guided by ongoing work of the NSTC Committee on 

STEM education, CoSTEM, to leverage the Agency’s collective expertise and assets. At NSF, CAUSE will be implemented with full 

participation of the Science and Engineering Directorates. 

For Fiscal Year 2014 the President’s budget also proposes that 

our long-standing successful Graduate Research Fellowship program be expanded into a National Graduate Research Fellowship 

program. This expanded program will facilitate the opportunities 

for fellows to gain special experiences and training in key STEM 
20 

areas of particular interest to the Nation and to the mission agencies. It will also provide those agencies access to a large pool of fellows to consider for training that might be critical to their missions. 

The interagency working group on STEM graduate fellowships 

has been meeting since 2010 to share best practices in the administration of Federal graduate fellowship programs and it is now extending its work to collaborate on designing the expanded program. 

NSF is continuing its programs in informal STEM education and 

in K–12 STEM education. These programs focus primarily on 

STEM learning, research, and development. The evidence-based 

materials and models that result are then available for use at large 

scale through partnership and leveraging. 

CoSTEM has a task force called the Federal Coordination in 

Stem Education Task Force that I co-chair with Leland Melvin. 

This task force was charged to produce a five-year strategic plan 

for STEM education. Federal agencies, including the NSF, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy all have participated actively in the discussions 

of this Committee, and earlier drafts of the plan have been available to inform the development of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 

2014 request, including the reorganization. 

The proposed Federal STEM education reorganization is designed to provide a coherent, cohesive set of STEM education programs to serve the Nation more effectively. NSF is committed to 

better coordination within our own organization and to participating in collaborations across agencies to leverage investments, all 

in support of the goal of improving STEM learning for the Nation. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today and 

thank you for your support of, and interest in, STEM education. I 

will be pleased to answer any questions that you and other Members of the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. 

And Mr. Melvin. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. LELAND D. MELVIN, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR EDUCATION, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Mr. MELVIN. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Johnson, and Members of the Committee, thank you for today’s invitation to talk about the Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education and NASA’s involvement in 

coordinating our STEM education assets with a broader STEM 

framework. 

When Congress formed NASA in 1958, it was with a bold goal. 

Your predecessors charged us to reach for new heights and reveal 

the unknown so that all we discover and all that we learn will benefit all humankind. This is what inspires us to come to work every 

single day. For me specifically, I know that the discoveries we 

make and the things that we learn are directly tied to the quality 

and quantity of future scientists, technologists, engineers, and 

mathematicians that are available and inspire to join us in our 

mission. 

To that end, NASA Education’s vision is to advance high-quality 

STEM education using NASA’s unique capabilities. NASA’s education programs are deliberate in developing and executing strategic partnerships with governmental, academic, industrial, entrepreneurial, and international communities to ensure NASA’s education mission and vision are properly addressed. 

I am the Co-Chair of the Federal Coordination in STEM Education Task Force, which helped guide the development of the Administration’s five-year strategic plan for STEM education. I am 

also NASA’s representative on the CoSTEM. My staff has served 

in leadership roles on the Fast Track Inventory, Evaluation, and 

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Subcommittees and working groups. 

NASA enthusiastically supports greater coordination among the 

Federal agencies and strengthening the Nation’s focus on STEM 

education. NASA also supports the STEM education reorganization 

proposal in the President’s 2014 budget. 

For over two years, 13 Federal agencies have contributed expertise from their education and technical workforce. The strategic 

plan that my Co-Chair, Joan Ferrini-Mundy and I provide a framework for increased collaboration among agencies. The plan 

strengthens accountability of Federal project managers, places an 

emphasis on rigorous evaluation, and establishes increased linkages between federal, state and local education efforts. 

NASA’s education portfolio will focus on four priorities that contribute toward the Administration’s STEM education goals. Those 

priorities are STEM engagement; NASA internships, fellowships, 

and scholarships; educator professional development; and institutional engagement. 

An overarching operating principle throughout NASA’s portfolio 

is a focus on creating opportunities for diverse groups of institutions, educators, and learners. This includes women, minorities, 
29 

and persons with disabilities. NASA will consolidate the education 

functions, assets, and efforts of the Mission directorate, offices, and 

field centers into a single STEM Education and Accountability 

Project managed by my office. 

As part of NASA’s STEM interagency coordination effort, our 

available assets will support STEM activities that will be directed 

by the NSF, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Department of 

Education. This includes the infrastructure that supports the rigorous collection, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence of 

NASA’s contributions to the Administration’s goals. 

The Executive Office of the President recommended and the 

President accepted a Fiscal Year 2014 budget request based in part 

on the work of the Committee on STEM and the goals are the 

same. Representatives from the 13 Federal agencies will continue 

to meet to ensure the Federal assets are coordinated and put to use 

in support of the Nation’s educators and learners. NASA is committed to close collaboration with other STEM agencies and to inspiring future generations to seek careers in aerospace. 

NASA has the ability to engage, educate, and prepare a future 

generation of explorers for employment in the aerospace fields. 

NASA’s people, missions, and spirit of discovery inspire our Nation’s youth to pursue STEM careers to benefit all of humankind. 

Thank you for letting me testify, and I am happy to take any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melvin follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Melvin. 

I recognize myself for questions. And let me direct my first question to Dr. Holdren. Now, Dr. Holdren, I just want to understand 

the process a little bit better by which current programs were designated as low priority, and I am just curious as to who made the 

decisions and who evaluated those current programs. Was it your 

office? Was it the agencies themselves? Was it Office of Management and Budget, OMB? If you could explain the process to us. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, the process within the Executive Office of 

the President involved OMB, OSTP, the Domestic Policy Council, 

which has—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —responsibility for education in general in the Executive Office of the President. Of course, all of us interacted. It 

was an iterative process. It involved, of course, the usual budget inputs from the various agencies, and it involved the use of a set of 

criteria that were developed out of various reports that had led up 

to this reorganization and had in part inspired the President to encourage it, starting with the PCAST report in September 2010 and 

continuing with the GAO report in January 2012. 

Chairman SMITH. Whose idea was it—who came up with the 

original idea for consolidation and for elimination, that whole subject? Was that OMB? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I wouldn’t say that that was OMB. I would 

say that, again, leading out of these major reports both from the 

Congressional side and from the Executive Branch side there was 

clearly a need to focus more resources on high-priority programs, 

and the only way you can focus more resources on high-priority 

programs in a highly constrained budget is to find lower-priority 

programs to reduce, and that is what we did. It wasn’t fun. Those 

are tough decisions. They are the kinds of tough decisions that are 

made under constrained budgets with a focus on feeding the most 

important priorities. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. I am glad the funding was 

increased, as you mentioned, by six percent. That is a good sign. 

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, why was the strategic plan not proposed 

when the budget was released last April? By coming out with the 

strategic plan after the budget, in fact just last Friday, it seems to 

me that it has made CoSTEM almost irrelevant. In other words, 

it would have been, I think, a lot more helpful had the strategic 

plan come out either before the budget or concurrent with the 

budget and I just was going to ask for an explanation. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you for your question, sir. The team 

that has been working on the budget has been working diligently 

for some time and we were well aware when we produced our 

progress report last spring that the work that it would take to get 

from there to a final strategic plan would be considerable. And, as 

you know, the strategic plan is a very detailed plan that goes into 

substantial commentary about how we will move forward with implementation. We wish it had been earlier, but we were happy with 

the plan—or I am happy with the plan that we have. 

I think also the principles that are in the strategic plan are quite 

aligned with the President’s Proposed Reorganization. 
35 

Chairman SMITH. Well, that is really no surprise since it came 

out after the President’s budget, right? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Well, the principles that were in place even 

last year in the progress report, too, were still in place, right, principles of coordination—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. —and consolidation. 

Chairman SMITH. Did you make any changes as a result of the 

budget? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. The development of the strategic plan was 

an ongoing process and we—of course, we were working through 

that around the time of the budget release and beyond. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Melvin, how did you like the Dallas Cowboys? 

Mr. MELVIN. Well, they cut me so they are not my favorite—— 

Chairman SMITH. I think you know this next question is coming. 

You are a former astronaut. You have seen NASA from the inside 

out, from the outside in, from 200 miles up. NASA’s STEM programs were cut by 1/3 from 150 million to 100 million, $50 million. 

Do you support those cuts? 

Mr. MELVIN. Well, as a member of the CoSTEM, we have been 

working very hard with the other mission agencies. We have been 

very focused on bringing our unique assets forward to be part of 

this President’s budget. No one likes to be cut, but this is something that we are going to do to help bring our best assets forward 

to support the Administration’s budget. So it is a fairly big cut but 

we have to make—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, it wasn’t your idea, was it? 

Mr. MELVIN. NASA was part of the CoSTEM process, so whatever pieces of the CoSTEM process that filtered into this budget 

process that was there. But I didn’t come up with the idea, no. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your answers 

and that—yield back the balance of my time and recognize the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Let me first make a little 

comment that could be considered a little catty. You know, I just 

appreciate the fact that you can sit there and smile and bring us 

this report that you put together, and I know how hard it is to try 

to work within budgets now. I have received so many calls and letters from organizations expressing concerns because they feel that 

the nonfederal stakeholders—school districts, universities, science 

museums, and many other nonprofit organizations—had no opportunity to have any input. So I am hoping that you will continue to 

work with that. And in view of that, I notice that you have Smithsonian as a lead agency, and I would just like to have some rationale for that and how they feel about it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I am happy to take that on. First of all, the 

rationale for it is the Smithsonian has enormous experience and 

expertise and success in programs of engagement, of reaching out 

to very broad communities with educational materials, with inspiring materials, and we feel that by giving the Smithsonian a coordinating role in those engagement activities, we will bring more coherence and coordination to them and we will have in the Smithso-
36 

nian a—sort of a central clearinghouse for the development of new 

materials in which all the mission agencies will contribute. 

The idea is not to eliminate access to the assets of the mission 

agencies that have been engaged in this multiplicity of outreach 

programs. We are reducing the multiplicity in the agencies, but a 

lot of what is being reduced in specific named programs in the 

agencies will be picked up and coordinated by the Smithsonian. 

The Smithsonian has an Office of Education and Access. They have 

an Assistant Secretary for Education and Access. They have an infrastructure. They are getting $25 million to do this. Our expectation is that this will actually improve the engagement activities in 

the STEM Ed field across the Federal Government. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Now, I would take that $25 million, 

too, and with a smile on my face, but I can’t understand. They have 

no federal research facilities; they have no external grant-making 

power. And not having the kind of national stakeholder networks 

that have been built over the decades with these other agencies 

gives me somewhat of a concern. Have you set up some type of 

communication network that would perhaps bring a bit more expertise or knowledge, or do you plan to staff it with someone who has 

had experience in some of the labs and other scientific endeavors? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, we already have the Smithsonian 

engaged with the rest of CoSTEM in the process of working out in 

detail how this reorganization would be implemented if in fact it 

is approved by the Congress. And the Smithsonian folks who are 

participating in that process have pledged to interact very closely 

with all the mission agencies that they would be helping with their 

public engagement efforts. 

We intend for CoSTEM, the Committee on STEM education of 

the National Science and Technology Council, to be the continuing 

forum where all of the stakeholders come together, where they can 

express their concerns if they have concerns. If things are not 

working out as planned, if important activities are being neglected, 

CoSTEM will be the forum where that comes out and is addressed. 

And I can give you my personal commitment as Co-Chair of the 

CoSTEM—in addition to chairing the NSTC—that we intend to 

carry out that function. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. So you will have active participants helping 

to develop this effective network to carry this out. Will this be an 

additional staff, I guess, with the 25 million and you would put together expertise? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, there will be additional staff at the Smithsonian, and again, they will be interacting with staff across all the 

mission agencies and of course in the Executive Office of the President. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Hall, is 

recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will have a question of Dr. Holdren. I have a real problem. I 

remember things. And I remember back—sometime back, Mr. 

Chairman, when we came in one vote of losing NASA, and then the 

next year, if you remember—I am not sure you were here then— 
37 

Dr. DeBakey came and walked this whole building out and we carried the vote by over 100 votes. 

That was a frightening thing, but I also remember when we had 

Gina McCarthy here before us and we were talking about jobs and 

her refusal to use science in making her decisions that affected people and jobs, and her answer was this, ‘‘I don’t want to give the 

impression that EPA is in the business to create jobs.’’ I think one 

of the meanest things I have ever heard anybody say with the situation like it is today, people going home telling their daughter they 

can’t keep her in school or whatever, whatever. 

But Dr. Holdren, you made some statements and I imagine you 

might like to change some time, but in 2010 you were quoted as 

saying ‘‘we can’t expect to be number one in everything indefinitely’’ at the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. And is this still your view? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Hall, first of all, I would say 

that we are in difficult budgetary times. We are making tough 

choices. 

Mr. HALL. I know that. Is this still your view? No matter how 

you reach that attitude, is this still your view, yes or no? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think it is already true, Congressman Hall, that 

the United States is not number one in every aspect of every scientific field, and we have to make choices. We have to decide which 

are—the most important areas are and which we need to lead, and 

we need to invest in those, just as within STEM education we need 

to invest in the highest-priority propositions, the one that—the 

ones that have the potential to really lift our game in STEM education and make us overall continuingly the world’s leading science 

and technology nation, which we remain today and we want to remain so in the future. 

Mr. HALL. Well, you are certainly not attaining that. You are not 

going in that direction, sir. I guess my question when I ask you is 

this still your view, I will ask a second question: does a Proposed 

Reorganization help to target areas where the United States can 

and should strive to be number one or does it do this? 

Dr. HOLDREN. An area in which we are striving to be number 

one, sir, is STEM education, and that is what this proposal is all 

about. 

Mr. HALL. And where are we? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, right now, if you look at the rankings of 

math scores, science scores around the world, the United States is 

unfortunately only in the middle of the pack. We are indeed no 

longer at the top of the pack in terms of the proportion of our 

young people who get a college degree of any kind. 

The President has made very clear that he wants to change that. 

He wants to bring us back to the top of the pack both in the comparative scores in math and science across countries and back to 

the top of the pack in terms of the proportion of our young people 

who graduate from college. 

Mr. HALL. And how do you do that? You know, I will follow up 

with you on this. The participation of NASA’s scientists and engineers in these education programs provides a human dimension to 

the inspiring work done by NASA. These scientists and engineers 

also provide role models for students—role models, you hear that— 
38 

for students to enter into STEM careers without the participation 

of NASA scientists and engineers. How are you going to connect 

teachers, students, and the public to NASA’s inspiring work and 

workforce and expect to get to be number one by the actions that 

you are taking place now over at the Administration? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are not going to lose the participation of NASA 

scientists and engineers in classrooms with teachers, with kids, inspiring kids. We are taking a part what NASA has been doing in 

that domain and consolidating some of it so that we can better 

evaluate it and decide which are the most effective programs. And 

some of it will be worked in partnership, as I noted, with the 

Smithsonian Institution, which is expert in these outreach and engagement activities. But we are by no means even coming close to 

eliminating the engagement of NASA scientists and engineers in 

these highly valued activities. 

Mr. HALL. You really aren’t, sir, and I agree with you on that. 

I just don’t understand why you refuse to encourage EPA, your 

partner in—I am not going to say your partner in crime because 

that is—that wouldn’t be correct, but your partner in really hurting 

small companies and hurting the continuation of people obtaining 

jobs, because if you keep on going the direction you are going, we 

not only are not going to have any jobs, we are not going to have 

any employers. So I guess without the participation of NASA scientists, I don’t know how you are going to connect teachers and 

students and the public inspiring the workforce with the direction 

you are going in. 

And I thank you for your answers. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. And the gentlewoman 

from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized. 

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

Thank you so much to all the witnesses for your testimony about 

what we can do—what the Federal Government can do to do better 

with STEM. This is a Proposed Reorganization and it is change. 

Change is difficult. There is a lot of change here. 

An important part of this conversation is how to make STEM instruction and programming engaging and more effective. And I join 

the growing group of stakeholders who submit that integrating the 

arts and design into STEM—that makes STEAM—can help make 

the difference. This is especially compelling when we are talking 

about how to engage underserved populations, including females 

and minorities, traditionally not involved in STEM. I am pleased 

that the NSF has funded the SEAD network, which stands for 

Sciences, Engineering, Arts, and Design. The group is in the midst 

of some fascinating work on the integration of the disciplines. 

Also, recent research at Michigan State University, Dr. FerriniMundy, it is maybe your former colleagues—professors found that 

there are 14 measurable skills linked to success in sciences that 

are directly linked to arts education. This is about using both 

halves of the brain and innovation. Those skills include observing, 

imaging and visualization, abstracting, pattern recognition and 

pattern invention, analogizing, dimensional thinking, transforming 

data into visual or graphic forms, converting theories into mechanical procedures, and more. 
39 

When developing this reorganization proposal, did the Administration consider innovative approaches that include multidisciplinary collaboration in order to encourage traditionally unrepresented groups to become more involved in STEM education programs? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I guess I am supposed to take the first crack at 

that. Certainly, we looked at a variety of issues around traditionally underrepresented groups, and one of the decisions we made is, 

for now, there are no changes being proposed in the range of programs that explicitly address minorities and other underserved 

groups in the STEM domain. We think to the extent that those programs need a closer look it should be done in close collaboration 

with the institutions that provide those programs. So that is something that is a task going forward. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes, thank you. I think both within—certainly in the CoSTEM plan and in the Proposed Reorganization, 

the focus on engagement is the place where there will be enough 

space and opportunity, I think, to really explore these exciting connections with the arts. We at the National Science Foundation are 

engaged in some discussions with NEH and NEA at this time to 

think about what it might look like to fund some explorations in 

the role of the arts in promoting engagement in STEM education. 

And so I think we have the infrastructure in place to be able to 

really take up these questions within the engagement component. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay. Thank you very much. And I also want to 

ask about a program that is being used by the Oregon Health and 

Science University; that is the Science Education Partnership 

Award. I think it is called SEPA. This program that is administered by NIH, it funds innovative K–12 and informational science 

education, health education projects. 

In Oregon, there is a program called Let’s Get Healthy. It has 

been a success since it began in 2007. It provides valuable education about diet and nutrition at health fairs and underserved 

communities. So OHSU, the university, has used grant money 

through SEPA to fund these programs, and with this consolidation, 

there is some concerns raised in the health community about shifting authority to NSF, Department of Education, and the Smithsonian that don’t have a public health focus. So can you talk a little 

bit about SEPA under the reorganization? And additionally, if a 

program like Let’s Get Healthy is shifted to the Smithsonian, how 

would States apply for grants considering that the Smithsonian 

lacks authority to issue grants? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I guess in terms of the details of exactly how these 

collaborative activities would work under the new structure, you 

know, I have to say that that is something that is being worked 

out. We are working on it in the CoSTEM Committee and we are 

determined to figure it out in a manner that will not lose the effectiveness of the engagement programs that already exist. And again, 

we have the commitments of all concerned. 

We had as recently as last Thursday a meeting of the full 

CoSTEM in which all of the relevant departments and agencies 

were represented, and we talked about this in detail. And the folks 

around the table were in agreement that we will be able to work 
40 

together to ensure that the implementation details are developed 

in a way that preserve these important functions. That is our commitment. That is our determination. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I see my time is expired. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate the work that 

you are doing and these important discussions that we are having 

today. 

Dr. Holdren, I wondered if I could start with you. I have heard 

from many members from the Illinois science community concerned 

about multiple aspects of the President’s proposal. I am normally 

one who is very supportive of consolidating duplicative or overlapping Federal programs, but I share a number of concerns with our 

community because the President’s proposal seems like it is taking 

a number of successful initiatives being done by high-quality institutions at the local level and running a majority of the future initiatives through a central bureaucracy at the Department of Education in Washington. I have got concerns about this approach as 

well as other aspects of the proposal that seem rushed or poorly 

planned out. 

Dr. Holdren, why eliminate these grant programs or, in the case 

of Smithsonian, consolidate them into a single pot for a single institution with limited or no grant-making experience when there are 

others outside the Beltway, like the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, that are providing these exact meaningful STEM 

experiences and opportunities for our Nation’s youth? And exactly 

how will the funds be expended and who will provide oversight? I 

am wondering specifically with Smithsonian, how will those 

projects the Smithsonian proposes to fund be subject to peer review 

prior to funding? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am afraid I am going to find myself offering the 

same answers over and over again. That is, when you ask about 

oversight, the Committee on STEM education—which I co-chair 

with the NSF Director—will be providing oversight and of course 

reporting back to the EOP but will have the participation of all of 

the affected individuals. 

When you ask why should we take successful programs and stop 

funding them or why should we take successful programs and move 

them, we went through a long process of trying to decide where we 

could effectively consolidate, where we could cut in order to provide 

more resources for the highest priorities, all of the reviews of 

STEM education programs and the Federal Government that have 

been done. 

And again, I say those have been done on the congressional side, 

by the GAO. They have been done on the White House side, by 

PCAST. They have been done by CoSTEM coming out with the 

progress report in February 2012. Every one of these reviews said 

our programs are too dispersed. They are not coordinated enough. 

Many of them are not evaluatable enough. We have no good way 

with this degree of dispersion of doing the sort of coordination, creating the efficiencies, doing the evaluations that we need, nor do 
41 

we have any way to free up resources for the high priorities such 

as creating 100,000 new high-quality STEM ed teachers over the 

next decade or graduating an extra million—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Let me get to my point real quick here because, 

again, I don’t want you to repeat answers over and over again. I 

do understand what you are saying. I just am concerned when you 

add layers of bureaucracy, it doesn’t reduce costs; it increases costs 

and certainly makes things, I think, more expensive and the potential taking away programs that are being very effective. 

Specifically, you know, what can I say back to the Museum of 

Science and Industry doing great STEM education programs to alleviate their concerns? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, what I would say to the Museum of Science 

and Industry is under the new system—again, assuming it is approved by the Congress—the Museum of Science and Industry, 

which already has an excellent relationship with the Smithsonian, 

will be able to use that relationship to find resources and means 

of continuing the high-quality activities in which they are engaged. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, how will NSF and Department of Education address bio-STEM programs since training and 

preparing for a bio workforce isn’t really part of their core missions? How specifically will you support health-focused K–12 education programs? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you for the question. At this point, 

we do not support biomedical areas at the National Science Foundation but, of course, at the K–12 level there is great interest in 

general preparation in all of the sciences, particularly the biological 

sciences. And we have a number of programs at NSF that would 

be available for groups that are interested in improving the instruction in biology at the K–12 level. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Let me move on. I just have a little bit of time 

left. But Mr. Melvin, I wondered if you could quickly address—you 

know, what, I shouldn’t have run out. This time I have a long question. Would it be all right if I follow up with a question maybe that 

you could respond in writing to if that is all right? I don’t want 

to—— 

Mr. MELVIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HULTGREN. —take up too much time from the Committee. So 

I have got a long question that I will forward on to you if that is 

all right. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding what I believe is 

an extremely important hearing. And I want to thank our witnesses for the research and the tremendous amount of legwork that 

you have put in in preparation today and for being here to testify. 

I have got two basic questions for all the panelists if I may. First, 

higher education is an essential part of our STEM efforts but I 

worry that, in my review of the report, we miss a critical area of 

the middle-skilled job training, jobs that require a high school di-
42 

ploma and maybe some additional coursework and certification but 

not necessarily an undergraduate degree. 

I represent a district in Massachusetts that has several former 

industrial cities that have suffered from the economic downturn in 

traditional manufacturing, cities like Attleboro and Fall River. I 

see STEM education as a critical component in ensuring that our 

citizens are ready to seize jobs in industries like advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and IT, but I couldn’t find one mention of 

vocational schools in your report and only limited mention of community colleges and associate’s degree programs at all. I was hoping that you might be able to shed some light as to: one, how the 

Administration believes these programs fit into the broader STEM 

goals; and two, how the strategic plan factors them in, if it all. 

And then, related to that, I applaud the work that you have done 

focusing on minority communities and certainly female participation in STEM fields, and I know that you have put a great deal 

of focus on that. I would like to hear a little bit more about that 

and how we plan to achieve that. 

Beyond that, I was wondering how the plan will assist the economically disadvantaged. So there are far too many economically 

distressed communities around the country, certainly in Massachusetts and in some of the communities that I just mentioned. I believe that STEM fields are a crucial and critical way to increase 

economic development and provide opportunities to all students. 

How can we ensure that the expansion of STEM efforts includes 

those communities as well? So just briefly, I guess, the economic 

disadvantaged portion of it and vocational schools and community 

colleges. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I will take an initial crack and then see 

what my colleagues have to add. 

With respect to middle-skilled job training, this is actually something the Administration has been looking at and working with the 

private sector and the community college sector to engage on a regional basis, the companies that operate in a given area and the 

community colleges, so that the curricula at the community colleges 

will reflect the kind of training that people need to get jobs in their 

region. And this is something that has been proceeding under the 

broad rubric of the Educate to Innovate initiative where we have 

had a huge amount of private and philanthropic collaboration with 

the Federal Government. 

It has certainly been a theme for the President which he has 

commented on and visited—made a number of visits emphasizing 

this particular theme and its importance. So we are certainly in 

agreement with you on the importance of that issue and the value 

of getting corporations to work in concert with our committee colleges to get kids better educated for the kinds of jobs that are going 

to be there. 

The other thing I would say is that the efforts we are making 

on K–12 education are going to prepare people better for the posthigh school education, whether it is in a community college or research university or a liberal arts college. It will prepare people 

better to engage in and succeed in STEM fields in ways that will 

help those that do not go on for a four-year degree nonetheless get 

high-skills jobs. 
43 

Mr. KENNEDY. Doctor? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you for your questions. 

Just briefly on the focus on higher ed, of course, the main focus 

on undergraduate education in the CoSTEM report does include all 

institutions of undergraduate education. And the major focus on retaining students at the undergraduate level, whether they are in 

two-year technical colleges or four year schools is crucial, and that 

hinges on excellent instruction, evidence-based processes for keeping students interested and engaged. So I think the plan again has 

the space for us to focus heavily on the preparation of the technical 

workforce, and there are a number of programs at the—certainly 

at the National Science Foundation. 

I would cite the Advanced Technological Education program, 

which is all about preparing technicians who are ready to work in 

emerging areas of science and manufacturing and so forth. 

As for focus on economically disadvantaged students, again, I 

think that the K–12 focus in the strategic plan, as well as the focus 

on underrepresented minorities, will both serve to help us ensure 

that high-needs schools are well served, and again, it will occur 

through partnerships among multiple agencies in part making sure 

that students in high-needs areas get good access to the STEM assets of the Federal agencies. Ideally, this plan will make more of 

that possible. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would really like to follow up. We can follow up 

and writing but it just—how you plan to do that would be great. 

And, Mr. Melvin, I will ask—I am out of time but I am sorry you 

might have some busy writing to do. My apologies. 

Chairman SMITH. That is—Mr. Melvin, if you want to respond to 

the question, that is fine. 

Mr. MELVIN. Well, just in the community college area, we have 

a program at NASA called the Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award program, and that focuses on helping strengthening 

community colleges using NASA content curriculum. It also supports skills in faculty members to do research in ensuring that 

underrepresented, underserved teachers and students in community colleges have that access. So that is something that we plan 

to continue moving forward with our program in the future. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, is recognized for 

questions. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the 

witnesses and for your time and preparation for this hearing. I am 

all for consolidation and streamlining the process at the Federal 

level and thanks for your work on that. My questions are more 

technical about how you decided on which programs, and some of 

those questions have been answered already, but the focus on accountability and success of programs and if there were specific 

metrics that you used to assess that, and how many programs that 

you actually eliminated and actually had data available for your 

use in assessing whether or not they were successful or not? I will 

start with Dr. Holdren first. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. First of all, we had sort of a number of layers of criteria that we used in this sorting process, and one was to 
44 

look at the priority areas that were identified in the CoSTEM process, including in the progress report that came out in 2012. And 

those priority areas were improving K–12 instruction, reforming 

undergraduate education around evidence-based practices, streamlining the graduate fellowship process, and amplifying engagement 

activities. 

So we looked, first of all, to give priority to programs that addressed one of those four goals. Within that framework, we also 

tried to look, as your question suggests, at evaluation and ask, for 

which of these programs do we have evaluations? For the ones that 

we don’t have evaluations for, how evaluatable are they? Do we 

have a reasonable prospect of developing evaluations? And of 

course we had to take into account the inefficiency of trying to run 

rigorous evaluations on very small programs. This is one of the reasons for consolidating, to improve one’s capacity to evaluate. 

So all of those considerations were taken into account in this 

process, which I have described as an iterative process in which 

OMB, OSTP, Domestic Policy Council all participated. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you. I am not sure that I have a lot 

to add other than that the report itself, the strategic plan, is very 

clear about the importance of evaluation and of metrics with a lot 

of focus on developing common metrics across programs in these 

four—in these five areas of focus. And I am very optimistic that 

this is going to lead to even stronger evaluation efforts when we 

combine our resources and expertise. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes, I mean I would say going forward that with 

this experience—from what you are describing, a lot of the programs don’t really have metrics and don’t have a way to assess 

them. And going forward, programs probably should have those in 

place if we don’t already have those because I am also on the Education Workforce Committee. I am very interested in these particular subjects. And as you probably know, across the Federal 

Government, not only in this area but other areas, we have all 

kinds of programs that haven’t been evaluated for their success in 

decades, literally decades, and I would encourage you to make sure 

that you have metrics and evaluation process in place. 

The other thing I see that—it actually goes from 13 to 14 Federal 

agencies involved in the STEM education process, and, you know, 

when you consolidate programs or eliminate programs, are we actually going to downsize so to speak or make more effective and efficient the Federal Government or are we just going to have less 

programs on the books but really the bureaucracy hasn’t significantly changed? In fact, it has been shifted to make it even maybe 

more difficult? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We don’t think it is—would be shifted under this 

proposal to be more difficult or to have additional layers. We think 

the fragmentation rather has been a source of inefficiency. And 

again, I would point out that that was the conclusion of the GAO 

that said very forcefully that we need to reduce fragmentation, we 

need to increase coordination, and we need to increase focus on the 

highest priorities. PCAST found the same thing. CoSTEM found 

the same thing. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And just so you know I agree with that. I just find 

that a lot of times when we, so to speak, consolidate and stream-
45 

line programs, we actually don’t change a lot except the paper—on 

paper and whether or not behind the scenes we actually are making a dent in the bureaucracy. Are we making it more effective and 

efficient or are we just putting less programs continuing to be in 

an ineffective and inefficient system? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I understand the concern. Our aim is to avoid that 

problem. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I would agree. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And I thank the witnesses for being here. 

You know, I would echo some of the concerns or thoughts of my 

colleagues from Indiana. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily good nor a bad thing, so without drawing a conclusion as 

to whether this change is a good change or a bad change, what is 

important though is that we evaluate metrics that say, okay, we 

are going to consolidate. We are going to try to become more efficient. We are going to try to eliminate redundancy. And I would 

just emphasize as we undergo this transition that we make sure 

we have those metrics in place so we are measuring whether we 

are actually becoming more efficient, whether we are actually advocating for our goals. 

That is not my question, however. You know, listening to Mr. 

Kennedy, I also have a concern. You know, we have been hard hit 

in the recession and, you know, particularly in that workforce that 

is in their 30s to 40s, you know, individuals that are well-educated, 

individuals that received an education and training that prepared 

them for the 20th century workforce. Unfortunately, we are now in 

the 21st century and things are rapidly changing. 

I want to make sure when we are thinking about training a 

STEM workforce, there is this large group of individuals that are 

highly educated, very motivated to get skill sets to fill the workforce needs that we have. And in this consolidation, you know, I 

see where we are directing funds to K–12, I see where we are directing funds to undergraduate and graduate education, but these 

are individuals that don’t need to go back and get an undergraduate degree or even a graduate degree. They may need to get 

one year of on-the-job training so they could rapidly fill some of 

these jobs. And, you know, I would wonder where those of programs fit in a more consolidated program. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me first resoundingly agree with the concern 

you expressed about metrics, and if you look at the strategic plan, 

there is really a tremendous amount of analysis that has gone into 

the specific question of metrics and what metrics we expect to use 

for all of the programs that are ongoing. So we completely agree 

with that. 

On the retraining issue, I would admit that that was not a primary focus of the CoSTEM. And the primary focus was, as you 

point out, K–12 now changed to P–12, that is pre-K–12, undergraduate education, graduate education. That is already a very big 

agenda, but the retraining question is an important one and one 

in which I think, you know, a lot of effort is going on out of the 
46 

Department of Labor and elsewhere. But maybe my colleagues 

have more to add on that. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I would just add quickly that whether the 

retraining occurs in formal undergraduate degree programs or 

bachelor’s or associate’s degree programs or in certificates or 

badges or other approaches, there still is the central problem of designing instruction and curriculum in ways that will enable students to learn the kinds of skills that industry demands, and we 

learned a lot about that through the undergraduate focus. 

Mr. MELVIN. I think Joan and I were at a conference last week 

and we saw this whole fusion of the social world with the academic 

world with the workplace world. How do we get kids to start thinking about themselves and bridging these different gaps? The arts 

are in there, too. So I think one of the things that we took back 

and we—this is a five-year strategic plan. The first year is the implementation phase. We will iterate and figure out what are the 

things that we need to ensure that the students see themselves 

after they graduate and how they can look at new careers, maybe 

new interests? The visual badging was one of the pieces that they 

talked about where students can do online badging and get certificates for it. They actually get college credit for it. So how can we 

use those types of things also in this new paradigm? 

Mr. BERA. Well I would add as you go back and consider the 

changes that will be taking place that we don’t just think about, 

you know, the folks at the beginning phase of their life as well as 

those in undergraduate and graduate education, that there really 

is an incredible talent pool here of individuals that we can rapidly 

train and we probably do this most efficiently through public-private partnership where in my own community we have a large 

Intel presence and they are very much engaged in, you know, both 

going into the K–12 classrooms with Project Lead the Way and 

some of their programs that they are fending, but many of these 

technology companies are also taking a chance on this workforce 

and training them on the job and I would ask us to be open to directing resources in an efficient way to the private sector. So I will 

yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, witnesses, for your appearance and your testimony and your answers 

to questions. 

Can any of you advise me if the Common Core Initiative is at 

all tied in with the new STEM programs you propose? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you for the question. Our proposals 

and the CoSTEM strategic plan are very general and they aim for 

quality instruction at K–12 and aim for improved undergraduate 

education, graduate fellowships, and groups that have traditionally 

been underrepresented with STEM along with engagement. So they 

don’t speak directly to the Common Core Initiatives. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Doctor? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree with my colleague’s testimony. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. 

Mr. MELVIN. Likewise. 
47 

Mr. POSEY. All right. So there is no connection whatsoever to the 

proposed STEM programs and the Common Core Initiatives? We 

agree unequivocally? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I am going to say a little bit more then on 

this point. The Common Core Initiative is an activity underway in 

parts of the country, and so as these investments move forward, 

that will be something, at least for the National Science Foundation, that we are interested in understanding: What is the impact 

of an effort initiated by States to make for Common Core standards? But it is not a direct part of this reorg. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me add one further point. At the Department 

of Education under the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal of the 

President, there would be $265 million focused on STEM instruction. And obviously, in the framework of that focus clearly the 

questions of the effectiveness of the core curriculum will come into 

play. 

The other thing I would mention that is germane as to what 

would go on in the Department of Education under the Proposed 

Reorganization is a set of STEM innovation networks which would 

connect schools, businesses, national laboratories, universities to 

work on the most effective ways to lift our game collaboratively and 

collectively in STEM education. And again, in that context clearly 

the core curriculum issues would arise. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. So we have gone from three noes to two yeses? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think, Congressman, with respect, the 

point was that the strategic plan does not address that issue in detail but the budget provides for substantial resources and programs 

that clearly would incorporate certainly looking at and understanding the benefits as well as any liabilities of the various approaches that are out there. 

Mr. POSEY. I think you have said for the STEM programs pretty 

forthright and it seems like the Common Core Initiative has already begun to morph and there is a lot of uncertainty about where 

it is going to end up. I noticed $5 million for a new STEM office 

at the Department of Education, and I wondered if you could give 

me four or five examples of successful departments in the Department of Education that we would like this new one to emulate. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think you probably need a witness from the Department of Education up here to provide that sort of list, but I 

think—you know, I mean I would certainly say that the Invest in 

Innovation grant program at the Department of Education has 

been very successful. It has funded a variety of programs that are 

increasing participation, increasing success rates. The Pell grant 

program has been very successful. There is good research that 

shows that the Pell grant program has very substantially affected 

the number of people going to college. Folks who otherwise would 

not have been able to go to college have been able to do so under 

the Pell grant program. 

I think—you know, the Department of Education occasionally 

comes in for something of a beating in some of these contexts, but 

in fact I think there are some great successes in the Department. 

But its own representative might be a better and more effective 

spokesperson for that. 
48 

Mr. POSEY. Does anyone have any idea how many employees we 

have at the Department of Education now? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I assume that you do. 

Mr. POSEY. No, I mean I would guess probably 35, 40,000 people 

over there, you know, looking for a job description every day but 

I don’t know. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We can obviously get you that number. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You all know that I have a background in K–12 education as a 

23-year teacher, not in the sciences but in humanities, and 22 

years as a community college trustee. My question, first of all, is 

directed to Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. The 2007 America COMPETES Act 

authorized NSF to award grants to Hispanic-serving institutions to 

enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM education at such institutions. Despite guidance from Congress, the NSF has not requested separate funding for HSIs. La Sierra University, Riverside 

Community College, UC Riverside are three schools in my district 

that could benefit from this dedicated funding. 

As the Administration moves forward with the strategic plan, 

how will NSF ensure that minority-serving institutions, particularly HSIs, are receiving the support they need to promote STEM 

education among minority students? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you for the question, sir. As you 

know, the National Science Foundation has a very strong commitment to broadening participation and has a number of programs, 

an entire division in my directorate that is focused on human resource development and broadening participation, so several programs within that unit that are very—particularly aimed at minority-serving institutions. We track very carefully the success rates, 

and the application rates. We do substantial outreach with Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-serving institutions. 

That is an area of great concern and interest for us. 

I think going forward the CoSTEM proposed plan is actually 

wonderful in terms of its focus on improving the participation in 

STEM of students from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in STEM, including Hispanic students. And the plan, 

I believe, is to work in the next several months very closely with 

stakeholder communities to look across government at the full portfolio of investment for groups that have been underrepresented in 

STEM to think about the most efficient and effective ways to make 

a difference. So it is a strong commitment in the strategic plan and 

for the National Science Foundation. 

Mr. TAKANO. Wait. Can you tell me—and one of the areas I am 

concerned about that I have observed as a weakness in STEM education is elementary school. We are lucky if we get that teacher 

who has the snakes and the ant farms and all that to engage those 

students early on, but it is so important to get them early. 

And you all—I am glad to hear that you are also interested in 

pre-K. So can you tell me about this reorganization and what opportunities there are for improving pre-K curriculum and teaching 
49 

and also what we are going to do to train and provide the portfolio 

of activities for those elementary school teachers? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So I can give the beginnings of an answer 

really as we are just embarking on this plan and the first stages 

will be transitioning and implementing the ideas. But I do know 

that both the National Science Foundation and the Department of 

Education have invested in pre-K STEM-oriented programs and 

work to try to improve student learning in those fields and those 

areas. 

And because there is a teacher education component in the strategic plan goal on K–12 instruction, that is a P–12 teacher focus, 

a lot of the focus there would be on the pre-service preparation of 

teachers. So the idea about what does the undergraduate curriculum look like for those preschool and primary grades and elementary school teachers, that is certainly very much on the table 

in this discussion. The planning will take shape as we go but I 

think there is a strong commitment to it. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, I am really glad to hear it because, you know, 

often the teachers who prepare for—people who prepare for elementary and pre-K service, they don’t often come with that preparation. So obviously we have to get to them in the undergraduate, 

the general education—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Absolutely. 

Mr. TAKANO.——before they actually do specialize. Can you tell 

me more about what we are going to do about computer science as 

a part of STEM? About half of the country’s 9.2 million jobs in the 

STEM fields will be in computing. I don’t know if you can—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I can start and my colleagues may have 

more to say, but we at the National Science Foundation certainly 

recognize the need to have a number of initiatives and partnerships 

between the Directorate for Computer and Information Sciences 

and Engineering and the Directorate for Education. In particular, 

we have had a focus on improving high school participation in computer science, so we have had a program to actually stimulate activity to get more high schools across the country to a point where 

they have the capacity to offer computer science courses, not just 

advanced placement computer science but prerequisite courses that 

recognize the centrality of computing, of big data, since so many careers in STEM that are going to depend upon those kinds of capacities and capabilities. So we are actively engaged in investing in 

those areas, and that can as well fall into the strategic plan. 

Mr. TAKANO. Great. I can have the rest of that question answered later, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you Mr. Chairman. To the panelists, thank 

you for being with us. Thanks for hanging in there. I know it has 

become a rather lengthy hearing. I am impressed with your ability 

to pack the house as I look around at this hearing. I have never 

been to one that had quite so many people, which means you are 

either the most brilliant set of witnesses ever assembled or maybe 

the sexiest or whatever it is. Thanks for doing that. 

You know, as—all of you have either said this directly or indirectly, alluded to it, and that is your concern—Mr. Holdren, you 
50 

mentioned that we are in the middle of the pack when it comes to 

comparative scores of other nations in math and sciences. True? 

And I mean that is not really an opinion. That is pretty much— 

I mean it is a provable fact where we are in these comparative test 

scores. And the rest of the panel would agree with that determination. That is about where we are, right? 

And, I actually wanted to say here, because this is a question 

that doesn’t relate directly to most of the conversation today, but 

I would really appreciate your opinion on this. That is you have 

this apparent dichotomy where there is no other nation on earth— 

on one hand, we are in the middle of the pack and probably have 

been for a long time. This isn’t something that developed in the 

last 10 or 15 years in, you know, STEM education, yet there is no 

other nation on Earth that leads as we do in innovation, in business development and patents and job creation in what I would describe as the creative process of taking this information and actually doing something with it, actually creating something with it. 

You know, when it comes to applying that innovation and doing 

something that benefits humanity, there is really—no one does it 

better than we do. 

Now, look, there is lots of examples. You know, eBay, Google, 

NASA, IBM, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, I mean there is lots and 

lots of areas that are driven by science and technology that we are 

still the leader and have always been the leader in the world. And 

I wonder if you could help me explain that a little bit or help me 

understand that. How is it on one hand we are average and yet 

when you are—the outcome of this is you are trying to create innovation, you are trying to create jobs, you are trying to better people’s lives and we are still the very, very best at that. 

And do you have any ideas? Have you considered that, of why 

it is that, you know, we could have one on the one hand and yet 

have this real positive outcome on the other still? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. We have thought about that. I will 

make a couple of quick points. One is that we still have by far the 

best university system in the world. Our research universities are 

the envy of all of the rest of the world, and to some extent some 

of the shortfalls in our K–12 STEM education system are compensated for by the enormous capabilities of our university system. 

A second point that—— 

Mr. STEWART. Well—and so just very quickly, so the universities 

are able to overcome what we would agree is a deficiency up to that 

point—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. In part. 

Mr. STEWART. —up to the university point? 

Dr. HOLDREN. In part, but as the PCAST study of the first two 

years of college education in the STEM fields also showed, we are 

still losing a lot of talent that we don’t need to lose. Only 40 percent of American students who enter our universities intending to 

get a STEM degree do get a STEM degree. The 60 percent that we 

lose are a loss to our innovation capacity going forward. 

The second point I would make is a crucial aspect of our success 

is having an economic and policy environment that encourages and 

supports risk-taking and entrepreneurship. And again, we lead the 

world in that respect and we need to preserve the policy and eco-
51 

nomic environment which involves tax policy, intellectual property 

rights policy, and many other dimensions of policy including even 

immigration policy to ensure that we retained an environment that 

nurtures this creativity, this entrepreneurship, this risk-taking, 

which has produced so much for our society. 

Mr. STEWART. And could I just interrupt to agree with you on 

that? And that is maybe one of the points of my question is to recognize that these are important subjects that we are talking about 

with this—with the funding and the organization around STEM 

and the sciences and math. But there is another very important 

element to that and that is, you know, who we are as a nation, and 

as you said, the creativity, the innovation, the risk-taking, the entrepreneurship is something that is also an important consideration. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The one other thing I would add though is when 

you are in the lead, you still need to look over your shoulder from 

time to time to see if anybody is gaining on you, and it is becoming 

a more competitive world in these respects. And that is one of the 

reasons why we have to be concerned about lifting our game in 

STEM education because we want to continue to be the leader in 

innovation and creativity, and development of new products and 

businesses. And with other folks around the world investing larger 

and larger sums in trying to be able to compete with us in these 

dimensions, we cannot rest on our laurels. 

Mr. STEWART. And I agree with that. And my time is up. I wish 

it wasn’t because I would be interested in the other members of the 

panel and your thoughts on that because I think it is worth considering. And I agree as well. We should look over our shoulder. We 

should be aware of who is behind us, but I do think that—you 

know, I don’t prophesize our future demise because of this. I think 

there are some things that are just inherently a part of our nation 

that give us some advantages there as well. So again, thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. I thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 

witnesses today. And I think you can see both by the fact that the 

packed room has stayed but also Members are engaged that we 

really consider this an important area of focus. And I have to tell 

you, you have to register me as one of the skeptics about the consolidation proposal. I want to ask Mr. Melvin. Recently in a hearing—and you are like the go-to guy on education in NASA, right? 

You can just say yes. 

Mr. MELVIN. Yes, I am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. So at a recent hearing Administrator Bolden highlighted some of this progress that NASA has made to improve its STEM programs and to establish the first-ever metrics 

that measure effectiveness. How much of that—and that was under 

a lot of your guidance and leadership and it is not the first reorganization but it is one that—you know, that you have overseen. How 

much of those measures have been put into place up until this proposal came forward? 
52 

Mr. MELVIN. So before the proposal came forward, we were looking at redesigning one of our flagship programs Summer of Innovation, a program that would do hands-on experiential activities with 

students in the summertime to try to combat that summer slide, 

and that program over the course of its inception in 2010 had been 

redone many, many times, but the final redoing of the program we 

worked with Gil Noam and the PEAR Institute at Harvard University to see what the dimensions of success would be for the evaluation process of getting this program done. So right now, we are in 

the process of getting back some of that data from last year to see 

how effective the program is because one of the toughest things to 

do is to measure how effective a STEM engagement program is. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask this. So the data that you are 

in the process of getting back, was that actually used to develop 

the consolidation plan? 

Mr. MELVIN. That data was not. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. And so—and then just in terms of—how 

many programs were actually cut from NASA in this consolidation? 

Mr. MELVIN. There were 78 programs with a science mission directorate that were cut. We were given a pot of money to look at 

the best programs—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Less 40 not—you looked at those best programs? 

Mr. MELVIN. We are in the process of doing that right now. My 

team, the Education Coordinating Council, all the center and directors at the agent centers, as well as my mission directorate leads, 

we are all going through a process right now to distill down what 

those programs will be coming forward for the ’14. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So how much input did you or the Administrator 

have in the programs that—I mean in the reduction of the $49 million from NASA? How much input did you provide for that? 

Mr. MELVIN. So our input was through the CoSTEM process and 

just what programs we had. We did not say this should be the program; this should be cut. It was not—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. So you guys actually have the expertise but you 

didn’t make the recommendation about which programs should be 

cut or not? 

Mr. MELVIN. Correct. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And, Dr. Holdren, was that true for the other 

agencies that are impacted as well? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The agencies all provided their information about 

programs, about budgets, about the evaluations that they had or 

didn’t have, and that information was then taken into account in 

the process I described—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. But the people who are the experts didn’t contribute to making the decision about what should be cut or not? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Ordinarily, if you ask people if they would like any 

of their programs to be cut, they will say no. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right, but I mean they do have some level of expertise—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, and—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. —about the things that are working and the 

things that are not? 
53 

Dr. HOLDREN. And we drew on that in the inputs we got from 

all of the agencies about their programs and about their evaluations and so on. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So—Mr. Melvin, so if you were to look at the programs that you would identify as the most successful programs at 

NASA run through STEM, do you still have responsibility for 

those? 

Mr. MELVIN. I still have responsibility and I have resources to 

bring forward what are the best programs in NASA. So our budget 

did get cut. We have got tough times. We have got to make sure 

we bring forward the best things that we have, that we can for the 

President’s plan. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. So—and, Dr. Holdren, the Department of 

Education now is going to get an additional $285 million, and I 

think many of us would agree that it is important to build the capacity for the Department of Education around STEM. But 

wouldn’t it be more effective to build that capacity and then enable 

them to make a decision about how it is that they could most effectively run rather than throwing in a pile of $285 million in addition 

and now saying now build your capacity and figure out what you 

do best? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Congresswoman Edwards, I 

would say that there are already many strong programs and a lot 

of real capacity in Education. It is not as if the Department of Education is starting from scratch here. They have a lot of activity, a 

lot of capability, and we are proposing to add to it in areas of priority that the President has endorsed. And those include the Math 

and Science Partnership program, the STEM innovation networks 

that I mentioned, and ARPA–ED to look—which would be under 

the Investing in Innovation program that would look at out-of-thebox, paradigm-breaking ways to improve our game in STEM education. 

We think it is time to place some bets on the highest priorities, 

on the most transformative potential activities that we can undertake. And we think that the transfer of actually a modest fraction 

of the total resources being spent in STEM education to those priorities is a good idea. Obviously, people initially can disagree. 

There is a sense in which transitions are always stressful because 

people are clear about what is going away and less clear about 

what they are going to get. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, so—but currently, the Department of Education only really has one staffer on STEM education. Wouldn’t you 

agree that to get this additional resource and capacity that they 

have to develop more capacity? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, there is $5 million inthe proposal to build up 

a STEM education office within the Department of Education to coordinate a lot of this but it is not as if there isn’t an enormous 

amount of relevant capacity spread across the different domains of 

the Department of Education that we would be drawing on to expand some of these programs. But we do agree that we need more 

focused STEM education expertise right attached to the Office of 

the Director, and that will happen under the proposed plan. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I—and my time is greatly run out. I hope 

we will have, Mr. Chairman, some additional opportunity to dis-
54 

cuss this because I think that there—as you can see, the interest 

and the programs that are there and people who—as a parent as 

I was or in community have deep experience with agencies like 

NASA who actually already know what they are doing in STEM, 

and it feels like why—I mean, you know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix 

that. I yield. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I think the evidence is clear from all of the witnesses that right 

now in the United States we are facing a shortage of high-skilled 

workers in technology, advanced manufacturing that our employers 

are just not able to fill. And I represent northern Silicon Valley and 

I spent the last week going across the valley talking to these employers, and it is clear that there are positions today that they 

would like to fill. They can’t fill them because of not having enough 

workers. That means we don’t have enough students coming up 

through the pipeline. 

So I think the short-term solution for that of course is comprehensive immigration reform. That includes increasing the H–1B 

visas. 

But the long-term solution is what I believe we are here today 

to talk about, which is making sure that children in our own country are able to fill those jobs one day because of their STEM education. And their STEM skills will be their ticket to the innovation 

economy. And so there is certainly a role for the Federal Government to play in helping our children obtain those skills. 

I believe education should always be a national obsession but a 

local possession, and relying on local stakeholders, I think, can 

really guide us. And so I wanted to first talk about—as we talk 

about and consider the Proposed Reorganization of STEM, we need 

to make sure that this reorganization does not come at the expense 

of valuable programs like in my district at Lawrence Livermore 

laboratory we have the Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program known as CSGF. It has played a vital role in our 

lab’s effort to have that pipeline of qualified graduate students who 

can go into our workforce. 

A number of students have written to me about their concerns 

about this program being consolidated into NSF. I have heard from 

students Jeffrey Oxbury, Teresa Bailey, Brian Gunny, Sam 

Schofield, and Dr. Jeff Hittinger, who runs the Center for Applied 

Scientific Computation, and I was hoping, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, you 

could address the concerns from these students that moving this 

away from DOE could affect their ability to obtain meaningful 

training and then move into the workforce. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thanks for your comments and for your 

question. The NSF is absolutely committed in this reorganization 

to making sure that we have individual conversations—and those 

are well underway—with every single agency and every single program that is involved in this Graduate Fellowship consolidation. 

And our plan for this is fairly straightforward and we hope is one 

that will serve the needs of the mission agencies and the students 

that they support really quite well, and that is to enlarge our Graduate Research Fellowship program, which is a very strong selective 
55 

program. It spans 11 different disciplines of STEM and has 180 different fields of study that are allowable, so it is quite likely to span 

the areas of computer science and engineering and mathematics 

that would be the likely fields that the students in this Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program are in. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. And I will move to Dr. Holdren. Dr. 

Holdren, you told my colleague Joe Kennedy that vocational schools 

were a priority for STEM under the Educate to Innovate program. 

And I went back and looked at the memo that was prepared for us 

from your office regarding this program, and that Educate to Innovate program was only mentioned once and is not listed as having 

a funding source. And also I didn’t see any use of the word vocational training. 

And I share the same concerns from—that Congressman Kennedy has, which is that of course we want to make sure that all 

of our students can learn STEM skills and perhaps an undergraduate and graduate or doctoral degree and maybe start the next 

Google, but not every student is going to be able to do that. And 

it is just as important that they are able to participate in the innovation economy in other roles, which will help them grow into our 

middle class. And so what will be the role of vocational training in 

this program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, as I have already said, vocational training 

was not a major focus of the CoSTEM review, which had a narrower focus, but the role of the community colleges in particular is 

something that has been of interest to the President, of interest to 

the OSTP and the OMB and the DPC, and we have been generating in part with substantial private resources partnerships, as I 

mentioned before, that address that problem by improving the curricula of community colleges to better match the jobs that are 

available in those regions. 

When you ask where the resource is coming from, this is one of 

the domains in which the private sector has really stepped up precisely for the reason you mention, that high-tech companies are not 

able to hire the workers that they need. And so they know they 

have to feed the pipeline and they are stepping up with their own 

resources to do that. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And I will conclude with a concern. I don’t think 

I have time for another question. But I am concerned that right 

now it appears that as far as underrepresented groups, there is not 

an assigned lead agency. I understand all three agencies could deal 

with them right now, but if we are going to move to this lead agency process, which I have concerns just like Congresswoman Edwards does, I do hope that we are not in the scenario where underrepresented groups have no representing agency. So I would like to 

see underrepresented groups have a lead agency that focuses on 

them. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return 

again to one of the issues that was raised early on, which is our 

communities who have very active organizations in Connecticut. 

We have a science museum that has long-standing programs, just 

as we mentioned the Museum of Science and Industry, which I re-
56 

member as a child. What sort of outreach is being done right now 

to these nongovernmental organizations who have long records of 

activity, particularly with the K–12, to give them a heads up about 

how the process is going to work going forward because we are all 

getting a lot of questions in our district, a great deal of concern. 

State budgets are being cut and suddenly they are hearing through 

the grapevine that this is going away. So how are you reaching out 

to them? How can we ensure proper information is being shared? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me start by mentioning again that the Department of Education will have a major role here through its STEM 

innovation networks, which is a program that, under the President’s proposal, would provide $150 million to school districts to 

build partnerships with the Federal science agencies, with universities, with businesses, with museums. I think because this is relatively new, the extent of the outreach to these various constituencies is, up until now, not all that extensive, but it will become 

more so particularly if this budget is approved. 

I mean there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. We are 

still in Fiscal Year 2013 and we don’t have the reorganization plan 

in place except in the President’s proposed budget. But obviously, 

that sort of outreach is already starting and would have to be expanded. 

Ms. ESTY. All right. And if we could turn back to the question 

about with the Department of Education taking lead for K–12, we 

know from the work being done on science and certainly from the 

excitement over decades that NASA has generated in schoolchildren and the importance of having practitioners, of having researchers, of having people who do science being engaged with the 

youngest of our students, not just with graduate students but the 

youngest of our students. 

How is this—how do we contemplate this is going to work? How 

is NSF and our other major research institutions, NASA going to 

share their expertise because there is a content there that is important and an excitement level about what real-world science 

means—with the Department of Education, which does not—obviously they are the practitioners under the pedagogical side. And 

how is it contemplated we are going to build out this capacity within the Department of Education as well as sharing that expertise, 

which admittedly doesn’t have. That hasn’t been its mission. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So one thing that the Department of Education does have is reach and extensive opportunity to connect to 

States, districts, regions around the country. And so we at NSF are 

very excited about the partnerships that will evolve and in fact 

that have some precursors in previous work actually. Our Math 

and Science Partnership program has had good partnering activity 

with the Department over the years where the kinds of things that 

NSF invests in, the content that gets developed, the evidence-based 

practices and tools and learning materials that get developed can 

then be scaled out in good partnership with the Department, and 

we are excited about figuring out how that will work well. But I 

will admit we are at the very beginning stages of this work. 

Mr. MELVIN. There is a program called the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which is an afterschool program that we are 

currently partnering with the Department of Education and we 
57 

have this Summer of Innovation content that has hands-on experiential activities that can be done inside of 21st century. So we are 

currently actively working on a Memorandum of Agreement with 

the Department of Education right now to utilize our content in 50 

States and 2 territories. So that is one example of how we could 

start this process of partnering with mission agencies and then the 

three lead agencies to ensure that we get that content out. 

Ms. ESTY. And if I may also add my voice to those of Congressman Kennedy and Swalwell on the importance of vocational education being incorporated. I know it wasn’t specifically your focus 

but it is essential that we have those mid-level skills. It is vital 

that those get included for those of us—as I come from an aging 

industrial manufacturing base of the United States, which now is 

in that transition phase that it is going to be absolutely vital that 

we incorporate that and that we incorporate computing as an integral part of this. 

We have had multiple hearings in this Committee on the importance of big data. If we do not incorporate computing as a core part 

of this, we are really missing an incredibly important opportunity 

and strategic necessity for this country. 

Dr. HOLDREN. May I just say we agree? Thank you. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Brownley, is recognized. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the 

panel for being here this afternoon and answering all of our questions. I might be towards the end so—of the line here in terms of 

questioning. And a lot of my questions have been asked and answered but—so I will just sort of focus on my agreement really 

with you that restructuring and consolidating is very important 

and I think we all probably agree that creating a razor-sharp focus 

on STEM education in our country is very, very important to do. 

And I guess, you know, my question I think is focused more 

around the pre-K–12 education understanding and believing that 

we need to engage our children at a very early age and there needs 

to be coherence and relevance and rigor. We have talked about all 

of those things here today in this hearing. I am wondering if there 

has been any assessment or look at comparing what we are doing 

compared to other countries in the world. 

Certainly countries around the world don’t necessarily have all 

of the same agencies and expertise that we do, but I think in terms 

of earlier education, we may lag behind. I think the President has 

already proposed that in terms of more pre-K education. But have 

we looked at best practices around the country? 

And clearly, I think Dr. Holdren mentioned at the beginning of 

the hearing that the data—achievement data shows that we are 

certainly falling behind. And have we looked at—also, have we 

looked to compare really our investment specifically into STEM 

education with other countries around the world and how are we 

doing? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thanks for the question and the comments. 

And I agree; the importance of the early years in terms of both engagement and also a solid foundation in learning to set in place 

some open pathways for later choice is important. 
58 

What I think I would like to do with this question though is ask 

if we could get back to you with some details about at least what 

NSF has funded if anything by way of particular looks at comparisons with other countries’ early childhood practices or preparation 

of teachers of early childhood years. I would just have to check the 

portfolio. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Any other responses? 

Mr. MELVIN. I would have to check also to get back to you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. One of the things we do know about some of the 

other countries that we see when we look over our shoulder and 

ask who is gaining on us is an underscoring of a proposition we 

haven’t really mentioned here, but it relates to the importance of 

the local in education and particularly the importance not just of 

teachers and principals and school districts but of parents. 

What we find in a lot of these countries—and I know President 

Obama talked about this when he came back from a visit to South 

Korea some time ago—when he was talking with the South Korean 

president about education and the South Korean president said you 

are really lucky you don’t have parents hounding you all the time 

to improve your STEM education system. The engagement of parents in helping to inspire and excite their kids about education in 

general and about STEM fields in particular is immensely important and is something that some other countries seem to have an 

advantage on the United States at this particular point. This is anecdotal, not systematic research, but it is an impression I have also 

gotten in my travels across some of these countries. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. And I would appreciate certainly the 

feedback. And I think, just to conclude, I really firmly believe that 

intelligence is something that can be learned. It is not a God-given 

gift that some children have it and others don’t, and I think the 

investment piece of it I think is an important area to look at. And 

I also, as some of my colleagues have mentioned around vocational 

education I think is very important but I tend to focus more around 

career technical education because I do believe that in the earlier 

years with our children that we have to provide them with, you 

know, the rigor that they need to be able to choose what they want 

to do as time goes on. 

And certainly I think, you know, one of the benchmarks if you 

will, for example, in mathematics is 8th grade algebra and, you 

know, can all of our children in our country really get to a place 

where they are ready and prepared to be successful in 8th grade 

algebra? And that is, you know, a gatekeeper in terms of where 

kids tend to go. So that is not really in the form of a question but 

I was wondering the thinking around—you know, for the committee on these—I think these early and important investments in 

the earlier educational years. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So I think the fact that we—that the first 

priority is about improving K–12 instruction really does reflect the 

Committee’s sense that, unless we are doing a really wonderful job 

there, that all of this later career focus and career opportunity really can’t come to fruition. And so I think I can assure you that we 

have a strong interest in and focus on that level. Now, we will 

work through implementation and we will figure out how to, within 

there, make the right focus. But it is quite important. 
59 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I will yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Brownley. 

The gentleman from California, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am sorry that I have been running between 

different events here and have not been able to participate in the 

discussion. 

And let me just state for the record that when we do talk about 

education, there is a distinct difference—philosophical difference— 

between the people who come to Washington, D.C., to want to 

structure their government. Those people who believe that government is a solution and that giving the Federal Government more 

power and authority to make changes are definitely going to be focused on if we are going to—this problem with STEM education 

and the solution is going to be found in Washington, D.C., by restructuring the way various government employees operate and the 

flow of funds from—that are collected by Federal tax collectors and 

are shifted to various power sources throughout the country in 

terms of educational power. 

I—that is one group. I think that I represent and a number of 

people on the Republican side at least believe that that is contrary 

to what will bring progress to our country. The more centralized 

our decision-making process, the more restructuring that we do 

and changing the seats here in Washington and the little flow of 

money comes to this department rather than that department is 

not going to change the dynamics that are at play in our country 

which are leaving us behind when it comes to STEM challenges. 

What will help—I will note I meet every student that comes from 

my district and I always ask them—and they are always interested 

in education. I always ask them if they have ever driven by the Department of Education while they have been in town and most of 

them have not. I suggest to their people to do that because there 

is a huge amount of money being spent on the salaries of the people in those buildings, yet they never see a student. 

And perhaps it is a better idea to have more money kept at the 

local level and provide our local communities with the money they 

need to handle their own education rather than to focus on how we 

can restructure things here in Washington, D.C. For example, in 

Orange County we have—believe it or not, we have some areas 

that are very depressed financially and mainly through people who 

live there are mainly illegal immigrants living there in fairly bad 

conditions for their schools, et cetera, although we are trying to increase the level of education in those community schools as well. 

We are experimenting in Santa Ana with a new system of education for these kids for learning mathematics and it is all done at 

a computer and you don’t need the teacher there to teach and it 

is some—they have—private—or private foundation has developed 

a system in which these kids can learn basic math and algebra, et 

cetera, by interacting with a computer system. 

And I might add I went down there to check this out and the 

kids that I saw five years ago were—had—are at the bottom of the 

run on the testing scores in Orange County in terms of mathe-
60 

matics. And guess what? After introducing the system, they are 

now at the top level and these are kids who barely speak English. 

And I think that type of experimentation that you can do locally, 

we wouldn’t want to have mandates like this or necessarily having 

Federal dollars being that far out of control of Washington, but we 

feel very comfortable in having these things done by local schools. 

And quite frankly, I believe and I am happy to hear the Administration is going to try to do what is best based on their view of 

what government—the role of government, and I would suggest 

that there probably are many other things that could be done experimentally, et cetera, that would give us an edge and give us a 

new creative approach to this challenge, this STEM challenge if we 

would actually look back to the local areas rather than rearranging 

the chairs here in Washington, D.C. 

But I would be happy to have my friend, the President’s Advisor 

on Science refute what I just said, go right ahead. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Rohrabacher, it is always a pleasure 

to interact with you on these topics. And I agree with much of what 

you said about the importance of local experimentation and learning from those experiments. That is one of the things we want to 

do more of. We want to understand what experiments are successful and where we identify them to assist in their propagation so 

that successful models can become more widespread and success 

therefore also more widespread. 

This is really at its core about partnerships. The amount of 

money being spent by the Federal Government on STEM education 

is a very small fraction of the amount of money being spent on education as a whole around the country. That is as it should be. We 

are looking for ways to leverage that relatively small percentage in 

ways that beneficially affect the much larger expenditures that go 

on across our school districts and systems in universities and colleges around the country. 

But we are talking about strengthening federal, state, and local 

partnerships. We are talking about public-private philanthropic 

partnerships to leverage this actually relatively modest Federal investment in ways that will empower more local experiments, more 

local successes. So we don’t have as huge a disagreement as you 

might think. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

That concludes our hearing. I think we have had a very healthy 

discussion today. Clearly, there has been a mixed response to the 

Administration’s consolidation proposals, but I think today’s discussion has made Members better informed and we certainly appreciate the expert testimony we heard today as well. I want to—I 

don’t need to—I started to say the Members here have two weeks 

to submit questions but I assume they know that and will submit 

questions to you all over the next couple of weeks. 

Thank you again for being here and I appreciate the interest by 

the audience today as well in such an important subject. We stand 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(61) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
62 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable John Holdren 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Responses by Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Responses by Mr. Leland D. Melvin 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
(95) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
96 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE FREDERICA WILSON
97 

SUBMITTED LETTER FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH P. KENNEDY
98 
99 

SUBMITTED LIST OF STEM PROGRAMS FOR THE RECORD

BY THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

SUBMITTED LETTER TO CORRECT STATEMENTS IN THE RECORD

BY THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN

Æ