[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE UNITED STATES, CHINA,
AND THE FIGHT FOR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP:
BUILDING A U.S. NATIONAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-282PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
DARRELL ISSA, California VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas KEVIN MULLIN, California
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
DALE STRONG, Alabama MAXWELL FROST, Florida
MAX MILLER, Ohio YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
TOM KEAN, New Jersey VACANCY
VACANCY VACANCY
VACANCY
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
February 28, 2023
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Written statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of Meteorology and
Weathernews, Chair Emeritus Roger and Sherry Teigen
Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma and Former
Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on
Competitiveness
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Dr. Kim Budil, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Mr. Klon Kitchen, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Discussion....................................................... 75
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of Meteorology and
Weathernews, Chair Emeritus Roger and Sherry Teigen
Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma and Former
Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.. 116
Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on
Competitiveness................................................ 121
Dr. Kim Budil, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.. 124
Mr. Klon Kitchen, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute... 128
THE UNITED STATES, CHINA,
AND THE FIGHT FOR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP:
BUILDING A U.S. NATIONAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Lucas [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Good morning, and welcome to the first
Science Committee hearing of the 118th Congress. We're leading
off with a discussion of how we can strategically improve U.S.
scientific competitiveness and address the threats we face from
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This is one of the most
important challenges facing us at the moment, and I expect that
global scientific leadership and competition with China will be
a thread that runs through much of our upcoming work.
There are two reasons for that. First, America's economic
strength, national security, and our quality of life are all
fundamentally dependent on our ongoing scientific progress. In
fact, more than 60 percent of America's economic growth in the
last century is due to advances in science and technology
(S&T). U.S. public investment in R&D (research and development)
adds nearly $200 billion in economic value. In basic research,
in particular, increases long-term productivity across multiple
industries.
The second reason for our focus on this topic, beyond our
own economic benefits, is the threat that we face from the
Chinese Communist Party. The CCP is determined to overtake us
as the global leader in science and technology. They're
outspending us, out-publishing us, out-educating us when it
comes to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) Ph.D. graduates. What's even more concerning is
that they're working to steal the results of our research and
innovations whether that's through cyberattacks, forced
intellectual property (IP) acquisition, or malicious
recruitment initiatives like the Thousand Talents Program.
I want to be very clear about the consequences of allowing
the Chinese Communist Party to become the world leader in
science and technology. It means fewer opportunities for
American companies to compete in the global economy. It means
increased risks to sensitive national security tools. And it
means that critical technologies like artificial intelligence
(AI), quantum information sciences, and cybersecurity tools
will be shaped by and embedded with the CCP's values. If the
CCC--if the CCP becomes the global leader in scientific
discoveries and technology development, we should expect less
privacy, less transparency, less access, and less fairness in
how these systems operate, so we cannot afford to lose this
competition.
When I first became Ranking Member of the Committee in
2019, finding a way to address this challenge became one of my
first tasks. That led to the introduction of the Securing
American Leadership in Science and Technology Act in 2020,
comprehensive legislation to double down on our investment in
basic research and develop a national strategy for scientific
development. With SALSTA as a blueprint, our Committee began to
develop bipartisan legislation to advance America's scientific
and technological capacities.
There were a number of bumps along the road, but 2 years
later, many of those ideas we first laid out in 2020 were
passed in the Science as a part of the CHIPS and Science Act.
When I talk about that bill, I want to point out that while
funding for chips production is going to build factories today,
it's the science portion of the legislation that will be the
engine of America's economic development for decades to come.
Central to all of the investments and modernizations in the
CHIPS and Science Act was the creation of a National Science
and Technology Strategy. We directed the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, OSTP, to develop a comprehensive strategy
for America's science and technological development every 4
years. That strategy ensures a comprehensive whole-of-
government approach to research and development, improving
coordination between Federal agencies and a more strategic
approach to prioritizing our resources. The national strategy
will ensure that our time, energy, and funding for Federal
research and development will be focused on the most important
challenges facing our country. And given the increased funding
we're giving to Federal R&D, this strategy is necessary to
maximize the return on our investments and make good use of
taxpayer dollars.
Today's hearing should serve a few purposes. First, to give
us an overview of the current R&D enterprise; second, to
examine the scope of the threat the CCP poses to our scientific
leadership; and finally, to consider how best to develop a
National Science and Technology Strategy. I expect the topics
we discuss today to inform much of the work we'll do over the
next year, from reauthorizing NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration) to expanding our domestic drone industry,
to strengthening American clean energy technology. While there
are significant challenges ahead of us, I'm very optimistic
about our ability to face them and ensure that America
continues to have a thriving scientific enterprise.
In the past 4 years, we have worked together in a
deliberate, transparent, and bipartisan manner to pass
meaningful legislation supporting American science and
technology. Our goal is to continue that tradition in this
Congress, and I'm looking forward to getting to work starting
now.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to the first Science Committee
hearing of the 118th Congress.
We're leading off with a discussion about how we can
strategically improve U.S. scientific competitiveness and
address the threat we face from the Chinese Communist Party.
This is one of the most important challenges facing us at
the moment, and I expect that global scientific leadership and
competition with China will be a thread that runs through much
of our upcoming work.
There are two reasons for that:
First--America's economic strength, national security, and
our quality of life all fundamentally depend on our ongoing
scientific progress.
In fact, more than 60% of America's economic growth in the
last century is due to advances in science and technology. U.S.
public investment in R&D adds nearly $200 billion in economic
value. And basic research in particular increases long-term
productivity across multiple industries.
The second reason for our focus on this topic, beyond our
own economic benefits, is the threat we face from the Chinese
Communist Party.
The CCP is determined to overtake us as the global leader
in science and technology. They're outspending us, out-
publishing us, and out-educating us when it comes to STEM PhD
graduates.
What's even more concerning is that they're working to
steal the results of our research and innovations--whether
that's through cyberattacks, forced intellectual property
acquisition, or malicious recruitment initiatives like the
Thousand Talents Program.
I want to be very clear about the consequences of allowing
the Chinese Communist Party to become the world leader in
science and technology.
It means fewer opportunities for American companies to
compete in the global economy. It means increased risks to
sensitive national security tools. And it means that critical
technologies like Artificial Intelligence, quantum information
sciences, and cybersecurity tools will be shaped by and
embedded with the CCP's values.
If the CCP becomes the global leader in scientific
discoveries and technology development, we should expect less
privacy, less transparency, less access, and less fairness in
how these systems operate.
So we cannot afford to lose this competition.
Chairman Lucas. And with that, I turn to my colleague for
any opening comments that she would make.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairman Lucas, for
holding today's hearing. Thank you to our distinguished panel
of witnesses. Ranking Member Lofgren regrets that she is unable
to be here today. She was very much looking forward to this
hearing, and in particular, to discussing the critical
importance of investing in fusion technology. And I ask
unanimous consent to add her statement to the record.
Chairman Lucas. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding today's hearing. And
I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
joining us.
In 1942, facing an existential threat, the United States
mobilized its scientific enterprise to split the atom. In a
mere three years, the Manhattan Project created the world's
first nuclear weapons in a race to end the second World War.
The climate crisis facing the world today is no less profound.
The threats of climate change--sea level rise and forced human
migration, extreme weather, mass extinction--are existential.
We must face these threats strategically--the same way we faced
the threat of Naziism in World War II. The greatest challenge
we face today is maintaining our energy security while
confronting the threat of climate change. One of the key
technologies in this effort is fusion energy.
So, I am particularly excited to hear from Dr. Kim Budil
today. Last fall, Dr. Budil and her colleagues at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) announced a true
breakthrough in fusion--the achievement of ignition at the
National Ignition Facility (NIF). I think this is one of the
most important scientific achievements of our time. However,
there are still many technical challenges ahead to achieve
commercial scale fusion energy. It is essential we maintain the
funding commitment to see this vital technology's promise be
fully realized. I think a Manhattan Project level of commitment
is needed now to ensure that the incredible promise of fusion
energy is achieved.
But it takes more than funding to realize the success of
game-changing technologies like fusion energy. We also need a
strategic vision. The United States had this vision during
World War II when we split the atom. We had this vision when we
won the Space Race and put a man on the moon. And we need this
strategic vision now as we face the climate crisis and threats
to our economic competitiveness and national security.
A critical piece of the Chips and Science Act we passed
last year is the requirement for the White House to develop and
regularly update a national science and technology strategy,
and conduct a quadrennial science and technology review. This
strategy, informed by the quadrennial review, will help provide
us with a unifying vision of how to maintain American
leadership in science and technology. While our science
agencies excel at carrying out their individual missions, a
unifying vision will help ensure the U.S. science and
technology enterprise is greater than the sum of its parts.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today and
to discussing how this science and technology strategy can best
serve our nation. I also want to consider how this strategy
will incorporate and address critical technologies like fusion
energy. You know, it's not enough to just have the incredible
scientific achievements like we had with ignition. We need to
accompany those scientific achievements with technology
development so we can fully realize the potential of these
scientific breakthroughs.
We also need to be thinking down the road to associated
deployment issues like licensing and supply chain. We need
whole-of-government and in fact whole-of-nation strategic
planning, in partnership with the private sector, for these
profoundly important technologies so that we don't repeat the
mistakes we've made in the past in areas like semiconductors
and that we are at risk of making in emerging technologies. Our
commitment must be for the long term, so that we can lead in
the responsible development and manufacturing of the world's
advanced technologies here in the United States.
As we race forward to develop solutions to the climate
crisis and other challenges that face our nation, we need to
ensure that the United States can reap the full rewards of our
scientific achievements.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. For more than 70 years, the United
States has been the unquestioned global leader in science,
technology, and innovation, reaping the benefits of--to our
economic and national security and overall quality of life.
This leadership was built on the vision and political will of
our leaders in the aftermath of World War II. They enacted the
National Defense Education Act, created the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and NASA, and made other unprecedented
investments in our Nation's talent and technology.
Over time, however, we became complacent, and our
commitment to nondefense R&D waned. At the same time, much of
our manufacturing capacity went offshore, making our supply
chains vulnerable and risking our economic and national
security. Our insufficient commitment to research and domestic
manufacturing left an opening for other countries, and they
seized it. China and Europe increased their investments in
critical technologies and emulated our innovation systems in
building theirs.
Last year, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
took a significant step to reinvigorate the U.S. Science and
Technology enterprise with the bipartisan CHIPS and Science
Act. And thank you, Mr. Lucas, for emphasizing the ``and
science'' part of that bill. This law is already starting to
bring good-paying manufacturing jobs back to the United States,
and it's accelerating the development of future industries
across our country. In fact, today, the Commerce Department is
announcing the first application for CHIPS funding,
specifically for manufacturing facilities, so we can start to
invest in domestic companies and their workers and incentivize
innovation and production in America.
Because of the CHIPS Act, Intel, which has its research
facilities in the district I'm honored to represent an Oregon,
has committed to investing $20 billion in two new leading-edge
semiconductor fabrication facilities. A key provision of the
CHIPS and Science Act requires the White House to conduct a
quadrennial science and technology review and develop a
National Science and Technology Strategy. This provides us with
a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity to have a coherent
all-of-government approach to our investments in science and
technology that will grow U.S. leadership, bolster our
competitiveness, and safeguard national security.
As several of the witnesses noted in their testimony, to
achieve these goals, we will--we must think broadly about who
is at the table to inform the strategy. We must solicit and
welcome the input of the private sector, communities that have
historically been left out of setting research agendas, and
everyone in between. Inclusion in setting the agenda is
essential to the responsible development of technology that
benefits all Americans and leaves no issue and no American
behind.
As the witness testimony makes clear, innovation is key. We
need creative critical thinkers around the table, people who
can come up with new ways to view challenges and inventive ways
to solve problems. As a Member of the Education and Workforce
Committee and co-Chair of the STEAM (science, technology,
engineering, arts, and mathematics) Caucus, I advocate for the
integration of arts and design into traditional STEM fields,
which inspires creativity and increases the competitiveness and
diversity of the workforce.
The National Strategy is also an opportunity for us to
reimagine how we can integrate the goal of a circular economy,
a new model of manufacturing and consumption that focuses on
long-term sustainable growth across our research agenda and
lead in the responsible development of technology. Through our
S&T strategy, we can leverage scientific investments to tackle
our greatest challenges. With the climate crisis threatening
the Nation and the globe, we can invest in sustainable
solutions to mitigate and adapt. The circular economy does not
just apply to the energy sector and transportation. It applies
to chemicals, materials, food production, manufacturing, and
more. I urge OSTP to keep up all of the issues discussed in
this--to keep all of the issues discussed in this hearing is--
in mind as they begin to develop a National Science and
Technology Strategy. I look forward to hearing more from our
witnesses today and to discussing how this important strategy
can best serve our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding today's hearing, and
thank you to our distinguished panel of witnesses. Ranking
Member Lofgren regrets that she is unable to be here today. She
was very much looking forward to this hearing and, in
particular, to discussing the critical importance of investing
in fusion technology. I ask unanimous consent to add her
statement to the record.
For more than 70 years, the United States has been the
unquestioned global leader in science, technology, and
innovation, reaping the benefits to our economic and national
security and overall quality of life. This leadership was built
on the vision and political will of our leaders in the
aftermath of World War II. They enacted the National Defense
Education Act, created the National Science Foundation and
NASA, and made other unprecedented investments in our nation's
talent and technology. Over time, however, we became
complacent, and our commitment to nondefense R&D waned. At the
same time, much of our manufacturing capacity went offshore,
making our supply chains vulnerable and risking our economic
and national security.
Our insufficient commitment to research and domestic
manufacturing left an opening for other countries, and they
seized it. China and Europe increased their investments in
critical technologies and emulated our innovation systems in
building theirs. Last year, the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology took a significant step to reinvigorate the U.S.
science and technology enterprise with the bipartisan CHIPS and
Science Act. This law is already starting to bring good-paying
manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and it's
accelerating the development of future industries across our
country. In fact, today the Commerce Department is announcing
the first application for CHIPS funding, specifically for
manufacturing facilities, so we can start to invest in domestic
companies and their workers and incentivize innovation and
production in America. Because of the CHIPS Act, Intel, which
has its research facilities in Oregon, has committed to
investing $20 billion in two new leading edge semiconductor
fabrication facilities.
A key provision of the CHIPS and Science Act requires the
White House to conduct a quadrennial science and technology
review and develop a national science and technology strategy.
This provides us with a tremendous opportunity to have a
coherent, all-of-government approach to our investments in
science and technology that will grow U.S. leadership, bolster
our competitiveness, and safeguard national security.
As several of the witnesses noted, to achieve these goals
we must think broadly about who is at the table to inform the
strategy. We must solicit and welcome the input of the private
sector, communities that have historically been left out of
setting research agendas, and everyone in between. Inclusion in
setting the agenda is essential to the responsible development
of technology that benefits all Americans and leaves no issue,
and no American, behind.
And as the witness testimony makes clear, innovation is
key. We need creative, critical thinkers around the table;
people who can come up with new ways to view challenges and
inventive ways to solve problems. As a member of the Education
and Workforce Committee and Co-Chair of the STEAM Caucus, I
advocate for the integration of arts and design into the
traditional STEM fields, which inspires creativity and
increases the competitiveness and diversity of the workforce.
The national strategy is also an opportunity for us to
reimagine how we can integrate the goal of a circular economy--
a new model of manufacturing and consumption that focuses on
long-term, sustainable growth--across our research agenda and
lead in the responsible development of technology. Through our
S&T strategy, we can leverage scientific investments to tackle
our greatest challenges. With the climate crisis threatening
the nation and the globe, we can invest in sustainable
solutions to mitigate and adapt. The circular economy does not
just apply to the energy sector and transportation. It applies
to chemicals, materials, food production, manufacturing, and
more.
I urge OSTP to keep all of the issues discussed in this
hearing in mind as they begin to develop a national science and
technology strategy.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today and
to discussing how this important strategy can best serve our
nation.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back her time.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us this
morning for this important discussion. Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier
is the former Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and currently the Regents' Professor of
Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus, and the Roger and
Sherry Teigen Presidential Professor at the University of
Oklahoma (OU). He co-founded and directed one of the National
Science Foundation's first Science and Technology Centers and
served as Vice Chairman of the National Science Board. Thank
you for being here.
Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith is the President and CEO of the
Council on Competitiveness, a coalition of leaders from
industry, academia, and our national laboratory directors
committed to driving U.S. competitiveness. She has more than 20
years of experience as a government official, which includes
serving as the first Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary for
the Technology Policy at the Department of Commerce.
And Dr. Kim Budil is the Director of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, which is responsible for ensuring the
safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. The
doctor has three decades of experience at LLNL, where she has
used her background in applied science and engineering to
advance science and improve our national security. Thank you,
too, for joining us.
And lastly, we have Dr. Klon--Mr. Klon Kitchen from the
American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Kitchen analyzes the
interaction of national security and defense technologies and
innovation. He focuses on technologies of the future like
cybersecurity, national intelligence, robotics, and quantum
sciences.
Thank you all as witnesses for being here today and sharing
your expertise.
And with that, Dr. Droegemeier, we'll turn to you first for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KELVIN DROEGEMEIER,
REGENTS' PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY
AND WEATHERNEWS, CHAIR EMERITUS
ROGER AND SHERRY TEIGEN
PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
AND FORMER DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, and thank you so much for the privilege of testifying.
We send our best wishes to Ranking Member Lofgren and
Congresswoman Bonamici. It's great to see you. Thank you for
your long service here on this important Committee.
Thank you all for the support of science and technology
that you render to our Nation. I just want to say the comments
that I'm going to make this morning really reflect my own
comments and not those of my home institution.
As the Chairman said, our extraordinary leadership, our
global leadership in science and technology is being challenged
as never before. And numerous studies bear this out, and he
cited many statistics. You know, we became a global leader for
many reasons, but two of them stand out, and I really want to
highlight them for you.
First and foremost, we became a global leader because of
our values and our freedoms, the freedom to discover and
create, the freedom to debate, to challenge one another, the
freedom to speak freely, freedom to share a free market system
where we can take our ideas and develop new private companies
and developed capabilities for the benefit of humanity, and
most importantly, the freedom to pursue our own pathways and
our own dreams. Now, interestingly, these very freedoms and
values are congruent with the very values by which we actually
conduct research, namely honesty, integrity, reciprocity,
accountability, impartiality, objectivity, the ability to
really rigorously debate and then do so with great civility and
also merit-based competition.
In a world where clearly values and freedoms like I just
mentioned are not universally treasured and reinforced, and
where authoritarian regimes seek to undermine longstanding
norms and international order, we, as the United States, must
maintain our global leadership position in science and
technology, not only by virtue of our contributions, but also
by leading with our values.
We also became a global leader in U.S. science and
technology, which includes government, academia, and for-profit
and private companies, because of this wonderful ecosystem.
It's very important that the National S&T Strategy be
structured as what I call a whole-of-nation plan, involving, as
Congresswoman Bonamici said, all sectors of our S&T enterprise
in a very integrated manner so that everyone that looks at that
plan, whatever sector they're in, they see themselves in that
plan, all the way from the beginning, all the way through
execution.
Our National S&T Strategy should be like no other. It
should be absolutely bold and transformative and disruptively
creative in our work and guiding us into the future. It should
unite us and inspire us by the bold ideas it puts forward. It
should streamline administrative procedures and structures that
tend to hamper our work and tie our own hands, empowering all
of our scholars and researchers to unleash their full creative
capabilities.
Most importantly, in this strategy, we need to leave
politics behind, and I think this Committee is a great example
of that. We have to begin with a set of guiding principles in
which all S&T sectors and political parties can agree. And I
believe OSTP's current leadership is exceptionally qualified to
lead in this effort.
Now, a 4-year S&T strategy is fantastic, and I absolutely
support that idea, but I think it needs to be constructed
within a longer-term framework, what I call kind of a 25-year
horizon or arc that does not identify specific technologies or
research areas of investment, but rather it describes in very
broad strokes a U.S. vision for its future in terms of research
and education and technology, domestic and international
partnerships, and also national and international norms of
behavior. By taking such a long-haul view, which is exactly
what the Chinese Government does, they don't think the next
election cycle, the next 4 years. They think the next 20 years.
By doing that, I think we will for the first time perhaps since
World War II, as Congresswoman Bonamici said, we will have the
chance to have a multidecadal national context within which
will reside this important 4-year strategic plan.
Now, obviously, we cannot underestimate the importance of
human capital to the future of our S&T enterprise. I personally
believe that we need a STEM--a national STEM workforce and
talent initiative similar in many respects to the GI Bill,
which would leverage and, in many cases, supplant a lot of the
individual workforce initiatives that are out there. What I'm
saying is we have a lot of flowers growing, we have thousands
of flowers growing, but we need to plant some beautiful, lush
gardens that we tend and that we really think of in a national
context.
This S&T strategy is also beautifully positioned--and I
thank Congress for that--to provide a very bold vision for
moving forward to a skills-based education and workforce
environment where an assemblage of demonstrated skills and
capabilities not just degrees is the coin of the realm.
We also need to safeguard our science and technology, and I
know we'll talk about today. We face new and ever-growing
challenges and threats of foreign interference in our S&T
enterprise. Now, numerous activities are underway to address
these threats, including many things at academic institutions.
Safeguarding our research is actually another wonderful
opportunity for us in the U.S. to lead with our values, to
welcome foreign collaborators who may not be familiar with the
kinds of ethical conduct and research based on where they
actually developed their skills and were educated. But we have
that here in the United States, and we can help ensure that
their behavior and the behavior of everyone in our enterprise,
whether it's from Norman, Oklahoma, where I'm from, or Beijing,
China, everyone plays by the rules, everyone adheres to the
rules, and we uphold the highest professional standards of
ethical conduct.
And finally, and perhaps very importantly, being a global
leader in science and technology means we don't play to not
lose. We cannot depend upon a growing international S&T
enterprise, which is a good thing and is lifting all boats. We
can't rely on that to lift our boat, as well as everyone
else's. With this National S&T Strategy that you, Congress,
have challenged us to develop and I think we are ready to do
this, it could have a very, very strong and powerfully unique
game plan for the future--that is, we in America can--leading
with our values, working with the international community, and
investing wisely and boldly to ensure that we remain, our ship
remains the highest ship on the seas.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
And Ms. Wince-Smith, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
Ms. Wince-Smith. Chairman Lucas, Congresswoman Bonamici,
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify at this critical hearing on the U.S. science and
technology enterprise, competition with China, and the need for
a coordinated National Science and Technology Strategy.
The Council on Competitiveness's National Commission on
Innovation and Competitiveness Frontiers comprises some 70
leaders across academia, industry, labor, and our national labs
to really address these generational challenges facing our
nature--Nation in order to drive our productivity, our standard
of living, and our leadership in the world. To define the
myriad competitiveness challenging our Nation and abroad, we've
developed very actionable policy recommendations for the
government and the private sector. And I want to share some of
those with you today, as they clearly have informed the very
seminal legislation that has been passed for our Nation and the
future.
We know that we have entered a new age of innovation. It's
defined by the convergence of these exponential disruptive
technologies that are not only reshaping industries but really
will determine the geopolitical and national security strength
of nations, everything from the emergence of quantum platforms
and autonomy, biofabrication, clearly precision agriculture.
The list goes on, and the critical underlying importance of
next-generation semiconductors and beyond lithium batteries.
While the U.S. is capitalizing on these unprecedented
opportunities, we face so many major challenges in our
enterprise from the decline in basic research investment, fewer
Americans engaged in STEM and starting new businesses,
longstanding barriers in the commercialization of the
technologies that we invented here in America. China has stated
its ambition to supplant the U.S. as the world's technological
leader and become the dominant economic military geopolitical
power to shape the foundation, the standards, and the rules of
the new age of innovation.
If the U.S. fails to make the sustained large-scale
investments in all our people, infrastructure writ large, we
will not only stall economic growth, continue low productivity,
fail to create the high-value jobs of the future, solve
societal and environmental problems, and, very importantly, we
will erode our geopolitical leadership, seriously damage our
national security capabilities and power.
As noted, China's leaders openly state their long-term goal
to supplant the U.S., including as the global leader of
democracy and freedom. China's State-driven strategy is
fundamentally different from that of the cold war era or the
economic and industrial rise of Japan. And China is walking the
talk, making massive investments in every strategic technology,
as well as using, as we've heard from Chairman Lucas, the tools
of intellectual property theft and aggressive cybersecurity
attacks against our companies and our government.
China has targeted the entire semiconductor supply chain,
as well as the batteries. Let's not forget that in the current
generation of lithium batteries, 90 percent of the graphite is
controlled and comes from China. They are aggressively
acquiring U.S. tech startups and companies outside the
jurisdiction of CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States).
So I have five recommendations I want to share quickly. One
is that we do need new mechanisms for Federal coordination at
the Cabinet level. And we have called for a White House
National Competitiveness and Innovation Council, on the same
par as the NSC (National Security Council) and the Economic
Policy Council.
We are calling for expanding and investing in place-based
innovation to develop a fully utilized, untapped potential of
talent in our country, and upscaling a workforce, and forging
of public-private investments and partnerships throughout our
country, not just in the metropolitan cities and coastlines. We
must integrate economic development and workforce development
in the innovation hubs that are really possible for our Nation.
Three, we must embrace technology statecraft. That means
working closely with our allies and partners in these critical
technologies and doing so in a way that advances our shared
interests, as well as expands trade, the global rules of trade,
transparency, and ensuring more people in the world can
participate in the benefits.
And then of course, we must scale and deploy our
technology. We still have the proverbial valley of death. We
need new financing models. Traditional venture capital will not
get us where we need to be in dealing with next-generation
semiconductors, batteries, and I know we're going to hear about
laser energy fusion.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we
strongly support the full funding for the science components of
the CHIPS Plus Act legislation. And I look forward to coming
back soon as we have recommendations from the second phase of
this national commission, which is being launched at the
University of California (UC) in Davis. And I must say I'm very
proud that Director Kim Budil is the Commissioner working with
the council on developing the strategy for our Nation's future.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wince-Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you.
And Dr. Budil, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KIM BUDIL,
DIRECTOR, LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Budil. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Congresswoman
Bonamici. I'd like to extend my regards and thanks also to
Congresswoman Lofgren for her long-term partnership and
support, and Committee Members. I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today and for the Committee's commitment
to ensuring U.S. scientific and technical leadership.
I'm the Director of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, a Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) lab, dedicated to applying
leading-edge science and technology to address the most
important security challenges facing the Nation and the world.
I also chair the National Laboratory Directors Council, where I
represent colleagues from across the DOE, which is home to 17
national laboratories, again, three of which are overseen by
the NNSA, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National
Laboratories.
These labs are home to many unique scientific tools, and we
work across the full spectrum from fundamental discovery
science, often in partnership with academia, to applied science
and technology for ultimate transfer to industry for
deployment. Together, these world-class national labs are
strong contributors to and enablers of U.S. leadership in
science and technology.
On December 5, researchers at the National Ignition
Facility at LLNL achieved fusion ignition in the laboratory for
the first time in history. This achievement was six decades in
the making. As we consider U.S. innovation ecosystem today,
it's reasonable to ask what made this work. Ignition is a
remarkable scientific advance, but it's also a triumph of
sustained and patient support for research from Congress. This
enduring support has made the DOE national laboratory system
the envy of the world due to its world-class workforce and
formidable scientific capabilities. Fusion ignition also
demonstrates to the world our Nation's capabilities and,
importantly, ensures that the U.S. has the best people and
ideas to bring to bear on the important challenges that we face
as a Nation.
The ignition story also highlights the important role that
the national labs play in the U.S. S&T ecosystem. Chartered as
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), the
national labs have enduring missions and are well-positioned to
foster collaborations with academia, industry, and
international partners to tackle the biggest, most important
challenges. The national labs are skilled at bringing together
multidisciplinary teams and expert in designing and building
state-of-the-art large-scale scientific facilities, often
unique in the world.
The National Ignition Facility was built as a centerpiece
facility for the Stockpile Stewardship Program for which it has
made highly impactful contributions in ensuring the safety,
security, and reliability of our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
NIF has enabled fundamental discoveries as well, ranging from
novel material properties to astrophysical phenomena, and
decades of research on lasers and optics have led to remarkable
advances. For example, national lab R&D led to extreme
ultraviolet lithography that has enabled production of
microchips that power the newest iPhones, and adaptive optics
technologies that dramatically enhance the capabilities of
ground-based telescopes. The national lab environment creates
opportunities for innovations not always foreseen that serve
the U.S. extremely well.
So what does the future hold? I have high confidence that
the Lawrence Livermore team and collaborators can continue to
increase fusion yields, which are needed for our national
security mission, as well as potential energy applications. To
advance inertial confinement fusion for energy, we need to
create new kinds of partnerships, and several of my fellow
witnesses have commented on the importance of creating a
vibrant partnership ecosystem. Without significant public
support for fusion energy research, the labs will not be able
to build partnerships to support a rapidly growing private
sector fusion energy enterprise with vitally needed unique
facilities, capabilities, and expertise. And, as of last tally,
there was about $5 billion in private capital being put into
fusion energy companies across the many approaches. Without
robust public sector investment, that capital will not realize
the potential that it represents.
I'm often asked what the timeline is for fusion energy on
the grid, but perhaps a better question is what will it take to
make that timeline short enough to meet the urgent need for
this technology?
With that, I look forward to your questions, and thank you
again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Budil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Absolutely, Doctor.
And we now turn to Mr. Kitchen for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KLON KITCHEN,
SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Mr. Kitchen. Chairman Lucas, Congresswoman Bonamici, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee.
The United States Science and Technology enterprise is
strong and continues to be the envy of the world. American
companies are pioneering and deploying innovations and
technology that can expand human thriving, broaden economic
prosperity, and ensure the national security for generations to
come. But to do these things, we must deliberately address
three key challenges to the American Science and Technology
Enterprise.
First, we must confront Chinese technological theft and
aggression. Beijing, like Washington, understands that emerging
technologies like artificial intelligence, advanced robotics,
and quantum science will decisively shape tomorrow's societies,
economies, and battlefields, and that these innovations are
overwhelmingly being developed in the private sector. But
unlike the United States, the People's Republic of China is not
committed to free and fair competition in global innovation.
Instead, the Chinese Communist Party is co-opting its
innovation industry and using it as an extension of the State
for traditional and economic espionage that FBI (Federal Bureau
of Investigation) Director Christopher Wray has said surpasses
every other nation combined and represents one of the largest
transfers of wealth in human history. Whether through social
media companies like TikTok, drone companies like DJI and
Autel, or smart device companies like Tuya, the U.S. science
and innovation enterprise, which spans the public and private
sectors, is hemorrhaging data and intellectual property and
will be left emaciated if these losses are not stopped.
Second, we must help our allies understand that a strategy
of regulate first and ask questions later will hurt, not help,
all of us and risk ceding the advantage to Beijing. Other
governments, particularly those in the European Union, are
enacting laws that deliberately target American innovation
companies that preference their domestic champions. And that's
threatened to splinter the internet itself into a series of
mini-nets, each running on incompatible infrastructure and
governed by contradictory rules. Even more, the economic
scarcity that would inevitably flow from such a splintering
would leave these partners more susceptible to the siren song
of cheap cloud services and other offerings from China, which
are heavily subsidized by the CCP, as previously discussed, for
the express purpose of stealing a country's data and wealth. If
this happens, many of our friends will have lost their
sovereignty and security in their bids to keep them.
Finally, domestic debates about technology and innovation
must be constrained by facts and geopolitical realities. Every
institution and industry must be held accountable to U.S. law,
and national security concerns cannot be wantonly employed as a
get-out-of-jail-free card. Neither, however, should perceived
but unsubstantiated political grievances be used to justify
counterproductive or even unconstitutional actions against the
very science and technology enterprise at the heart of our
individual and national prosperity.
Pushing the frontiers of science and pioneering game-
changing technologies is expensive. The resources and talent to
do these things are highly valuable and desperately scarce. It
is no coincidence that the companies that have found ways to
attract billions of customers and the profits that come with
them are the same companies at the center of our science and
technology enterprise. They innovate at scale because they
operate at scale. Instead of rallying against these companies
because of their size, we instead should be thankful that our
free market economy has produced an alignment of interests,
where private sector actors can generate wealth and jobs, while
also developing the capabilities that will provide for the
common defense. This uniquely American advantage may well be
decisive in an era of escalating geopolitical competition. It
would be reckless to give it away.
There is much more that I could say on these matters, but
I'll end my remarks there. Thank you again for this
opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kitchen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. And thank you to the entire
panel for some very insightful thoughts and observations.
We'll now turn to the question session of the hearing. And
I'll begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Droegemeier, in your testimony, you speak to how our
democratic values and freedoms, freedom to discover and create,
freedom to debate, challenge, speak freely, are the bedrock of
the American research enterprise. Can you please elaborate on
what makes the U.S. S&T network of government, academia, and
industry unique and how these values contribute to our
competitive advantage?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think
Mr. Kitchen just beautifully laid out the important part of
that argument. I think the thing about the interlocking nature
of the four-sector enterprise--academia, industry, nonprofits,
and the Federal Government--is the fact that there's a
symbiosis. In fact, if you look at FFRDCs, which Dr. Budil
leads one, these Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers, the Federal Government does not run Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory. A contractor runs it. The Federal Government does
not run any FFRDC that I'm aware of. Basically, it--it has
contractors operate it, so it keeps it arm's length.
That is just the opposite of what China does. As we just
heard Mr. Kitchen talk about, China is deeply enmeshed in the
business of innovation and development, and they basically make
the choices of what is going to be done. They direct the work
to be done. That's not the case here.
I think it's also certainly true that we have government
labs and centers that do their own intramural research as well.
But one of the most important things I think, ultimately--and I
think everyone can speak to this--is the fact that there's a
lot of open and freedom--openness and freedom to create new
ideas and things like that. In fact, what happens in China,
China tells the industries what they're going to do. Here,
Congress listens, holds hearings, and we hear the Federal
agencies responding to what the community says we need to do.
The National Ignition Facility was not something that Congress
said, hey, we need an NIF. We need to do it. It was the
researchers, the scientists in the community. So the fact that
we have this four-sector enterprise, it's not perfect. It's
kind of clunky at times, but it works exceptionally well
because the government does its role but they leave to the
scientific and the research community the rest of the, you
know, decisionmaking and what the priorities ought to be and
where the innovation actually happens. That freedom is
something that is super attractive, and it's one of the most
important attributes that we have as a nation to wield against
China in what it seeks to do in terms of global dominance.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. Ms. Wince-Smith, what are the
benefits of having a National Science and Technology Strategy?
And while you're thinking about that what are the key
characteristics of such a strategy that will ensure that it's
adopted and utilized by the entire U.S. S&T enterprise?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of
all, I think it gives us the opportunity to have a unified
vision. We're hearing, you know, very important parts of that
in this hearing and articulated by the Members. But right now,
we have a splintered system. We have a lot of the economic
issues that profoundly impact our science and technology
enterprise being addressed in the Economic Policy Council, huge
issues such as product liability, regulation, antitrust policy
being addressed in another forum, issues around national
security, and technologies that are totally dual use do not
often get addressed in other parts. So we really need new
mechanisms at a very coordinated level, first, for the
government to get a policy in place that addresses things from
the perspective of how does this impact our economic growth,
our productivity, and our national security? Those are the
three outcomes really.
And then what's very important about the United States and
having a national strategy is we do have the mechanisms to
bring our private sector in to help shape that through advisory
committees, whether they're FACAs (Federal Advisory Committee
Act) or, you know, temporary. I mean, the National Science
Board is a wonderful example, at NSF and the Defense Science
Board, but they're working on those sets of issues, not the
overall strategy.
So I strongly believe, as did the people working in our
National Innovation Commission, that we need an entity that
works on this policy that has the same stature and power, quite
frankly, as the National Security Agency in the White House, I
mean, the national security policy and the other vehicles that
address these domestic issues. But we need to integrate and cut
across the sectors, and we're not doing that now, quite
frankly.
Chairman Lucas. Mr. Kitchen, in the time I have remaining,
ideally, the quadrangle review process and development of the
National S&T Strategy would be an opportunity to reevaluate
partnerships between government, academia, and industry. Expand
on why this is so critically needed and what outcomes we should
seek for--from these partnerships--for these partnerships.
Mr. Kitchen. Thank you, sir, for the question. I begin with
the idea that there is no scenario under which the United
States is able to secure its interests or its people absent a
deep partnership with the private sector. The United States
Government is now a national security stakeholder, not the
national security stakeholder. Beyond dependency, private-
public partnerships are our unique advantage. Government can
focus and invest in core science that holds promise but that is
not mature enough for the marketplace, while industry, using
the dynamics of the free market system, can rapidly and
efficiently create the innovations that people want and that
will drive our economy forward.
The academy supports both of these efforts by advancing
core knowledge and by producing essential talent. It is my view
that this cooperation needs to be encouraged and to be made as
frictionless and mutually reinforcing as possible.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. My time has expired.
The Chair now turns to the gentlelady from Oregon for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Lucas, and thank you to the
witnesses.
One place where there's a tremendous opportunity to show
leadership is in confronting climate change, one of the most
important challenges of our time. And as we transition to a
carbon-free economy, we need groundbreaking research and
advanced technologies to effectively reduce emissions.
So Ms. Wince-Smith, in your testimony you noted that China
has recently overtaken the U.S. in patents filed for nuclear
fusion technologies. Do you have any sense of the relative
strength and quality of China's fusion research enterprise
overall in comparison to the United States?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you, Congresswoman. I do not have
expertise on the Chinese capabilities in laser energy fusion. I
believe, Director Budil does. But what I do know is they're
following the playbook of actually what Japan did some years
ago, which is called patent flooding. They're filing a lot of
patents around these areas hoping that they will then be able
to fill them in with an innovation, and some of that will come
from intellectual property theft and cyber attacks. So
increasingly, China is using the patent system in order to
steal and use technology from other countries and inventors. So
that's one issue.
Ms. Bonamici. Interesting. Thank you so much. And I'm going
to follow up with Dr. Budil. In--of course to follow up on
fusion first, we've heard a lot of talk from the Administration
lately, and congratulations of course on the fusion integration
just a couple of months ago. What a remarkable accomplishment.
And I wonder, have we seen the willingness to aggressively
pursue and support the development and commercialization? And
what should future investments look like to continue U.S.
leadership and advance research and technology at the pace
needed to achieve our goals, including climate goals?
Dr. Budil. Thank you very much for the question. I think
there are some very encouraging signs that there is very strong
support for building on the momentum that's been achieved
through science and technology advances across the fusion
community in the last year, so that's both in inertial
confinement fusion, which is the approach we take, and magnetic
fusion energy, which is using tokamaks, for example. And there
has been a lot of engagement between the Department of Energy,
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the private
sector to try to understand what the key questions are that
remain.
Of course, investment lags. This, our fusion ignition
breakthrough, was in December. So we're beginning now to
formulate plans for what an investment strategy would look like
to solve these critical problems. But across both approaches,
materials challenges, understanding how to operate in radiation
environments, understanding how to manage the fuel for fusion
reactors, tritium, supply and then recycling and management,
understanding balance of plant issues, how to get the energy
out of the system and into the grid, and for inertial fusion
energy (IFE), significant challenges going from a facility that
was built to do national security research, one shot--high-
yield shot per week to a 10-times-per-second energy salient
ignition facility will be a very significant amount of research
for which we don't currently have a substantial program in
place.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Do you have sufficient workforce
to do that?
Dr. Budil. We do have workforce, and I will say that
recruiting is up in the wake of our announcement. Many people
joined our lab to pursue this science because it's--they're
very passionate about it. It's incredibly difficult and
challenging science, but it's also--the potential benefits are
incredibly galvanizing to students.
Ms. Bonamici. To follow up on the workforce, you know, the
strategy include--the law includes provisions to promote
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workforce. Why
are these provisions important in developing a national
strategy broader than fusion, and how will including people of
all backgrounds and experiences help us be competitive and
support our efforts to maintain U.S. leadership?
Dr. Budil. Fundamentally, excellence depends on diversity,
diversity of perspectives, diversity of ideas, diversity of
backgrounds, disciplines, in every dimension. So if we want to
be the best in any given field, it's important that we tap into
the potential of all the people who have the inclination and
the aptitude to pursue these fields. I really believe that
fundamentally is critically important.
For science and technology fields like fusion energy, it's
even more important because the number of disciplines we need
to draw on is vast. The workforce that we need to generate to
support this R&D agenda is very large. And so leaving people
behind, making assumptions about which institutions or which
people should participate is a fundamental barrier to progress
in these fields.
At the national laboratories, we work very hard to ensure
that we have broad and deep outreach programs to a wide variety
of academic institutions, spanning 2-year institutions where
we're generating technologists and technicians that support
this research through to Ph.D.-granting institutions, including
partnerships with HBCUs (historically Black colleges and
universities) and minority-serving institutions, again, to
bring along communities that have historically not been
represented in the numbers that they should be in these
disciplines.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I see my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Weber [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Wince-Smith, in your written testimony you stated by
increasing China's profile on international standards bodies,
it aims to implement the Nation's China standards 2035
blueprint and Belt and Road Initiative for the next-generation
technology. What can Congress do, particularly the House
Science Committee, to ensure the U.S. maintains our leadership
in the international standards bodies?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you, Congressman. Well, standards
have for many years been a nontariff barrier. Even our
colleagues in the EU have used standards as a way to protect a
different technology or innovation path from the U.S. in
adopting standards. We have, as you know, a private-sector
standards-driven process with various committees. NIST, our
National Institute for Standards and Technology, plays a role.
But at the end of the day, it's the private sector committees
that develop our standards. They do not have, quite frankly,
the reach, the resources to participate in many of these
critical standards bodies. So it's very important for us, in my
opinion, to beef up the capacity of NIST and our private sector
bodies to participate fully at scale because sometimes we only
send one or two people to a standards body. And you look at the
international organizations. I mean, China now is--is poised--
and they may be the head of the IPO, the Intellectual Property
Organization. So we need to invest and populate these
international groups because the U.S. alone cannot do that.
And then also it goes back to what I said about technology
statecraft. We need to work with our allies and partners, UK,
Australia, Japan, India increasingly, and the EU on these
standards that are so critical in the technologies that
determine national security because all of these are dual-use
technologies, quite frankly.
Mr. Posey. Yeah, they like to play everybody's game, by
their rules.
Now, Mr. Droegemeier, in your written testimony you had
recommendations regarding National S&T Strategy and quadrennial
S&T review. One recommendation is the need for skilled
technical workforce. You know, I represent the Kennedy Space
Center, and I've heard from companies that the need for these
highly skilled technicians is is really great. What policy
changes do you believe are needed to help us maintain a
pipeline of this kind of personnel?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you so much for asking that
question because it oftentimes goes unnoticed that the skilled
technical workforce is really the underpinning of a lot of the
science and technology development that we do. You look at
large facilities like the Large Hadron Collider, you look at
the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory)
facility that had the--you know, the first gravitational wave.
There are people--technicians who developed, you know,
capabilities to have very incredible vacuums and things like
that to keep these facilities going. They're skilled machinists
that use 3D printing and other kinds of things. So they're
very, very important. I think what we need to do--and we heard
an example from Dr. Budil--that Lawrence Livermore on their own
initiative, they reach out to 2-year and technical schools to
incentivize the folks to do this. And I think we need to make
sure not only are we resourcing them, but we're making clear
the value that they have, that this is not just sort of a
second-class citizen job. If you don't have a Ph.D., well, it
doesn't really matter. No, these folks in many respects are the
underpinnings of our S&T enterprise, so we need to have
programs--the National Science Foundation has one in particular
for the skilled technical workforce. It's--I forget exactly the
name. It's something like something career tech education or
whatever. But but those investments are very, very important
across all disciplines to incentivize these folks coming in and
showing the value that that they actually have.
Mr. Posey. Ms. Wince-Smith, would you repeat your statistic
that you mentioned earlier about graphite?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Ninety percent of the world's sourcing of
graphite comes from China.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
And at this time the Chair recognizes Representative Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The passage of bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act with the
largest investment in American industrial policy in the past 50
years and includes vast new resources to support
entrepreneurship and technology and manufacturing, with an
ambition of leaving no American behind. But this is because
many Americans have been left behind in science and technology.
Per U.S. Census Bureau, 90 percent of manufacturing firms are
White-owned, 4.6 percent are Hispanic-owned, 4.5 percent are
Asian-owned, and less than 1 percent are Black-owned. Within
that small fraction, those Black-owned manufacturing firms are
more likely to be less than 3 years old. CHIPS and Science Act
looks to supersize scientific investment, and also promises new
resources and policies to allow historically Black colleges and
universities and other minority-serving institutions to
participate equitably and genuinely in this research funding
and in the entrepreneurship of wealth creation.
Understanding that innovation can often come from small
companies that large companies then later buy, how can we
ensure that equitable access to entrepreneurship in science and
technology includes those small Black businesses and other
small businesses from marginalized communities, Ms. Wince-
Smith?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you for that question,
Congresswoman. I think you've raised, you know, an incredibly
important issue for our country because, actually, one of our
members at the council Michael Crow, President of Arizona
State, said this, so I always give him credit. If you think of
our Nation as a baseball team, we're only fielding less than 10
percent of the players whenever we participate in the game. And
so we have to, as a nation, do everything we can to bring our
entire population into the innovation economy of the future.
In terms of underrepresented ethnic groups, populations,
one of the things I think that's very critical and it's
underway is to integrate, for instance, our historically Black
colleges and universities into large-scale research activities.
We have a number of the presidents of these institutions in the
council. They have capability to come in and participate in
advanced project and quantum at another institution. That
expands and builds up the capability.
In terms of the small businesses, we obviously have, you
know, the Small Business Administration financing, but I think
that one of the gaps, again, is on this place-based innovation.
I am very excited about what's going on in some of our
universities. For instance, I'll mention one, South Dakota
State University. I just recently learned from the president
that by the time you graduate, you will have, from South Dakota
State University, all the capabilities for the top clearances
to work in cybersecurity. So we need to look at all these
universities and ensure that we have a path for all our
citizens.
And I want to just mention on the issue of the labor
unions, and I was whispering this to Dr. Budil. The pipe
fitters and plumbers union is still at NIF. They built NIF.
They operate NIF. These are highly skilled workers. And having
this collaboration between our unions and our companies is
very, very critical to this strategy of building out a very
diverse, inclusive economy.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. In my home district, Pittsburgh, we've
been turning the corner from more manufacturing industries,
steel, to a tech hub and innovation hub. One such business that
we have in Pittsburgh is a company called Astrobotic. It's an
employee-owned company, with a goal of making unmanned space
missions feasible and more affordable for science. Dr. Budil,
Astrobotic is--it's actively competing with Lockheed, Elon
Musk, and Jeff Bezos. Space exploration and advancement of
technology and science should not be limited to billionaires.
So what steps do you believe we can take to ensure that
organizations like Astrobotics are not outliers in science and
technology?
Dr. Budil. Thank you very much for the question. It's a
very important one. When we think about partnering with
industry, we think about it in different tiers. So we
commercialize technologies, meaning we spin out technologies,
so we work with startup companies. We work with small- and
medium-sized companies. We bring them to the laboratory so that
they can have access, in partnership with our researchers, to
our facilities and capabilities to help increase their capacity
to compete. And then we work with large business as that may be
appropriate to the technology that we're talking about. So we
have active programs in ensuring that our capabilities are
well-understood in the broader community and that we have
mechanisms in place where we can bring small- and medium-sized
companies to bear.
I'll cite two examples. One, we have a program for the
application of high-performance computing in manufacturing and
other areas where companies can apply to work with our
researchers to have access to our machines and our simulation
tools. And a second, we have an advanced manufacturing
laboratory where we have laboratory space specifically designed
to bring academic and business partners into the facility to
work with our researchers again to advance their technologies
and enhance their competitive prospects.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Babin from behind the Iron
Curtain.
Mr. Babin. That's east Texas. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bonamici, for
organizing this incredibly important conversation that we're
having today. I want to thank all of you witnesses for being
here and taking part with your expertise.
When we talk about investment in our research and
technology, it's equally important to talk about how we protect
it as well. It's no secret that, for years, the Chinese
Communist Party has stolen American intelligence, technology,
and intellectual property in their relentless pursuit to
supersede us as the No. 1 superpower in the world. So how do we
make sure that our S&T is better protected, and what should our
approach be? And that is what I want to focus on today.
And, Mr. Kitchen, in your written testimony, you describe
the U.S. approach to the geopolitical race for technological
advancement as engage and invest, whereas you refer to the
CCP's tactics as fuse and use. And the U.S. approach of engage
and invest the best option for our long-term--excuse me, is the
U.S. approach of engage and invest the best option for our
long-term completeness? And are there any lessons that we
should take away from the CCP's fuse-and-use tactics?
Mr. Kitchen. Thank you, sir, for the question. I think the
only lesson that I would recommend from the Chinese model is
that it spreads the national security burden across its public
and private sector. But the CCP does this through coercion and
for economic reasons as well, and we do not want to do that.
What the U.S. should do, however, is forge voluntary, public-
private partnerships that are based on a love of country,
common interests, and our shared fate. American technology
companies have worked very hard to gain their geopolitical
influence, and it's now time that we help them wield that
influence responsibly.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And one more. While China's
R&D expenditures have grown exponentially, I understand that 84
percent of that nearly $500 billion R&D expenditure is on
development, and only 5 percent is on basic research. How does
the United States' emphasis on basic research give us an
advantage in the long term to compete, to collaborate, and to
thrive?
Mr. Kitchen. Sir, I think the key point here is that China
essentially crowdsources their R&D by stealing the IP and data
of other nations and then spends the bulk of their time and
resources on turning the stolen treasure into capabilities.
Basic research is exactly that. It is the foundation on which
everything else rests, and if we do not continue to replenish
that basic research, our innovation will grind to a halt, a
little bit like expecting your car to run forever because you
filled the gas tank last week.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr.--Dr. Droegemeier, I was pleased to have worked with
this Committee on getting one of my bills, H.R. 3747, included
in the CHIPS Plus bill that passed last year. My bill will
establish a pilot program to ensure the security of federally
supported research data and to assist regional institutions of
higher education and their researchers in safeguarding our
sensitive information. You mentioned in your testimony how the
CHIPS Plus bill provides the opportunity to compete against
China. Can you please elaborate on that and how we can
simultaneously protect our S&T research?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you so much for the question.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to show that an Okie is
having a good conversation with a Texan here. OK?
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. We appreciate that, too.
Dr. Droegemeier. It's very, very important----
Mr. Weber. It's noted in the record.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, sir. It's a very, very
important question. It's the balance between protect and
promote. And I think the key thing in terms of the protect side
is to make sure that we have the capability for our
institutions, whether large or small, to have the resources
they need to vet the individuals and companies and others that
they're working with. You want to make sure--if you're a bank
and you're giving a loan to somebody, you want to know what
their background is. You want to know their capability to
repay. We don't do, I think, a good enough job to do that. We
need to make sure we know who we're working with. The fact that
they arrive on our campuses doesn't mean that they don't have,
you know, undue influence on our system. So we need to educate,
we need to provide resources. In the CHIPS Act, the National
Science Foundation was charged with standing up a research,
security, information-sharing and analysis organization. NSF is
in the process of doing that now because universities and
colleges aren't equipped to, you know, answer the kinds of
questions that that type of facility will be able to answer.
So I think we need to educate, we need to train, we need to
create vigilance, but we also need to promote our values. And
folks that come here from other countries, we need to model
those values and talk about the consequences for not adhering
to those values. And when we all play by the rules and they see
the importance of that, because I think most people long to
play by the rules, there are some bad actors out there, you
know, but I think those are the kinds of things we need to do
to balance the protection of our research assets with promoting
them.
And the last thing we want to do is have China say boo, and
we jump and tie our own hands.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Droegemeier. That's exactly the wrong approach.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. I have one more question,
but I'm out of time, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. I appreciate it.
We now recognize Representative Ross for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing and to the Ranking Member. And thank you to all
the panelists for joining us.
I'm delighted to be holding this important hearing today
because last Congress, I worked with my colleague, Congressman
Waltz, who previously sat on this Committee, to pass the
National Science and Technology Strategy Act, and it was signed
into law, as you know, as part of the CHIPS and Science Act.
This legislation created the whole-of-government planning
process for research and development, ensuring better
coordination between Federal agencies and a more strategic
approach to U.S. research and development goals. It also
requires the President to submit a report to Congress on
national research priorities and activities, as well as global
trends in science and technology, including potential threats
to the U.S. scientific research and leadership.
I represent part of the Research Triangle in North
Carolina, which is a hub of innovation, and it's home to some
of the world's top research universities and institutions.
Collaboration between public and private entities to advance
American research and innovation is a top priority for me, and
I look forward to hearing from all of you about that.
I do want to pick up on one of the comments that was made
earlier, though, about technical workers and the work that we
need to advance all of the great STEM innovation that we're
having. And I'm pleased to say that the head of the National
Science Foundation came to North Carolina right before
Thanksgiving and spent more time at our technical community
college than he did at our greatest NSF receiving grant
institution. Now, of course, I represent them both, so I was
happy for him to be at both places. But, as we know, these
workers don't need to just have 4-year degrees. And in North
Carolina, particularly in Wake County, we have a pretty
sophisticated community college that has gotten three NSF
grants. But not every community college has the ability to do
that. And we do know that there is more technical assistance to
our community colleges.
But if you could elaborate on how we should really reach
out and embrace our community colleges that will be preparing
these workers, perhaps by targeting locations where we know
we're going to need those workers for strategic purposes,
perhaps partnering with our 4-year institutions. And I'll just
open it up to all of our esteemed panelists for any suggestions
that you might have and how we can help advance that in this
next Congress. Yes, please.
Ms. Wince-Smith. I'll start. The community colleges are
absolutely an essential part of our educational infrastructure
in the country. And what's increasingly happening with some of
these colleges that's very strategic, they're also working with
the skilled labor unions, so they have partnerships now that
are integrating that. But also, I think, on the community
college front, the Department of Labor--you know, this is an
example of not having this overall system of coordination. They
have, you know, millions of dollars that go into workforce
development boards in each State and aligning those with the
needs of business, the future jobs, how the unions participate,
and how the community colleges have to do that additional
advanced training is very, very significant. And the community
colleges have an incredible track record of their graduates
getting jobs right away, so they are essential.
And we have in the council a group of university president
leaders, and Jere Morehead, the President of the University of
Georgia, said we need to work at the college level more with
the workforce in our regions. And I think that's another
example of this recognition of how these all things--these
things all come together in a system.
Ms. Ross. Could anybody else elaborate on getting this NSF
money into the community colleges as well? Because, like I
said, Wake Tech has been very good at that. But we would love,
love to have that spread around more.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yeah, in fact, your point is right that a
lot of 2-year colleges don't really know much about working
with NSF and so on. And this gets to a point that was made
earlier about diversity. We'd like to think about giving money
out to all these different organizations, but a lot of times
they don't have the fundamental capabilities to manage a grant
award. And we sort of set them up for failure. If they're an
audit risk, and all of a sudden, something goes south, they're
caught in a really bad place. So one of the programs NSF has
started recently is a program to basically create a community
of research administrative personnel who can work across all
kinds of different institutions to bring those to the table who
aren't now currently participating. So if you're a 2-year
college, you don't have to develop all that stuff yourself. You
can partner with somebody who can help you do that. That really
empowers and resources you to do it without you having to make
all kinds of investments that you really can't afford.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Babin [presiding]. And I would like to recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses.
Mr. Kitchen, I'd like to start with you. I find your
testimony on Chinese intellectual property theft incredibly
compelling. You characterize it as one of the largest thefts of
wealth in human history, which is a way that I hadn't put it--I
hadn't heard it put before. You also mentioned the importance
of confronting Chinese intellectual property theft. That's
obviously more easily said than done. What exactly do you think
we could do to confront that, and what specifically can
Congress do in that mission?
Mr. Kitchen. Thank you, sir. The statistic about the
largest transfer of wealth in history is a quote from FBI
Director Wray. And he's been very forthcoming about his
assessment of the situation. I would align myself with that
assessment.
In terms of confronting Chinese theft, there's a host of
things that we can do. One, we can begin enforcing our
intellectual property rights and laws internationally, using
that as a point of negotiation, international engagement with
the Chinese Government and international standards-setting--
standard setting, settings--as well. But frankly, there's a lot
lower-hanging fruit that is--can be difficult domestically, and
I briefly alluded to them. And that is we are being willingly
robbed blind daily by the presence of Chinese technology
companies in the U.S. marketplace.
And I want to be clear when I talk about this. I am not
accusing every Chinese-origin technology company as being
malevolent. They don't need to be malevolent. They simply need
to be compliant with Chinese law because Chinese law is
explicit and very clear. The Chinese Government has been very
kind in publishing their law, their national security law,
their cybersecurity laws in English because they expect U.S.
companies to comply with those laws. And those laws are very
clear in the fact that they require that every bit and byte of
data that is collected by, transferred, stored on, or in any
other way touches a Chinese network or the network of a company
that is owned by a Chinese company to be made available to the
Chinese Communist Party. That is not ambiguous. That is not
unclear. That is a fundamental requirement of operating in
the--in China.
And so we need to recognize that and confront it. Now, not
all industries are the same. So I'm not arguing for a reckless
decoupling. But to answer your question directly, sir, if we
want to begin to protect not only our intellectual property and
our individual data, there's some pretty obvious doors that we
need to close. And I'm happy to see that conversation advancing
in the public sphere.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Thank you. Your thinking aligns with
mine in a number of different degrees. This is an area that I
also think needs a lot of attention. I've got a bill to enable
extraterritorial prosecution of Chinese companies and
individuals that engage in theft of intellectual property from
U.S. companies.
I'm also very concerned about Chinese components in the
Internet of Things (IoT). I think that that's something that we
haven't paid enough attention to, you know, the fact that we've
got doorbells and refrigerators and toaster ovens and garage
door openers, all collecting information about us that could be
shared with malign actors who could put that data to malicious
use. Do you share that concern?
Mr. Kitchen. I absolutely do. In fact, there is a Chinese
IoT platform as a service company called Tuya, which dominates
globally and the United States approximately 70 percent of the
marketplace. So what that means is, is that if you are a--you
know, a light bulb company, and you want to begin making smart
light bulbs but you don't know how to do that, you will
approach Tuya and they say we got it, we can turn your light
bulb into a smart light bulb and give you a platform for
managing that capability.
The problem with that is that it, as a Chinese company,
is--needs to be responsive to the laws that I just previously
outlined. So what that means is, is that this Nation might have
done a great work by removing Huawei, for example, from its 5G
networks, only to then allow Chinese-owned IoT devices to
continue collecting the same information we were trying to
protect.
Mr. Obernolte. Right. Thank you.
Dr. Budil, good to see you again. Congratulations, again,
on your success at NIST. It's an amazing leap forward, and I
think that, you know, really, this is going to be--we're on the
cusp of like an inflection point in fusion research as a result
of the work that you're doing. But just briefly, I can see I'm
almost out of time, you've highlighted the need to--for
continued investment to create--to increase the yields on the
fusion ignitions that you're achieving at NIST through the
inertial confinement technology that you're working on.
Commercialization though, I think, is going to center more
around magnetic confinement than inertial confinement. So can
you just take a minute and explain why continued investment in
inertial confinement is a good use of taxpayer dollars?
Dr. Budil. Yes, thank you very much for the question. It's
early days for the inertial confinement fusion energy
application, mostly because we just achieved fusion ignition,
which is the foundational building block for that technology. I
think you'll see a rapid growth in the IFE community, and there
are several companies with significant capacity that have
already entered the marketplace on our technology, so we'll see
how the next few years play out.
Inertial fusion energy has a couple of advantages as an
application. One is that the energy-generating source is
separate from the driver so we can develop both of those in
parallel. But to your point, the magnetic fusion community has
had a much more significant footprint in the private sector and
has some significant runway there. I think the promise of
inertial fusion energy is very significant. The facilities that
we have are built for national security applications, so if we
really want to understand what's possible in the next few
years, it's very important that we--that we begin to invest in
the energy applications and understand what the possibilities
are there.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, we look forward to your continued
success.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
Now, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Bowman.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Budil, thank you so much for being here, and thank you
for the briefing you provided to us a few weeks ago.
Fusion ignition, like, wow, like, the first time in human
history this has been done. Like, can we all just take a moment
and recognize this? Everyone's up here talking fast and trying
to get through questions. I just want to acknowledge how
extraordinary this is and just recognize you for your
incredible leadership throughout your entire life focusing on
this issue. Thank you so much. And when I read about this, I
thought I was reading something from a science fiction novel or
watching a Marvel movie or something. Can you talk about and
summarize for us what this accomplishment can mean specifically
for our clean energy future?
Dr. Budil. Yes, thank you very much. And yes, it never gets
tired, never gets old to hear people say ignition. So basically
what happened in the experiment that we did in December is we
used 2 megajoules, 2 million joules of laser energy, to create
over 3 million joules of fusion energy out of the target. And
that's the first time in history that more fusion energy has
been produced than the energy required to drive the experiment
across any approach to fusion, so that's incredibly important.
We built this facility and we have been on this research path
for our national security applications, so that process of
developing and igniting target and increasing the yield is
critically important to the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
In order to begin to think about energy applications, we
need to think about some additional challenges. The targets
that we use to do these experiments are beautiful, exquisite
works of art. In order for this to be viable as an energy
source, we need to be able to make these targets very robust,
higher yield, and much simpler to manufacture and produce. We
need to move from a system that produces one fusion ignition
shot a week to having the capacity to do that repeatedly,
ultimately, 10 times a second. And we have many of the
component technologies that would enable that, but until we had
this fundamental building block, we couldn't really begin to
move on some of the key questions that stand between what we've
done to date and a potential energy application.
If we are successful, it is feasible to develop a fusion
energy--fusion energy power plant based on the inertial fusion
energy approach that could be commercially viable. Again, we're
making extrapolations based on what we know today. There's a
lot of work to be done. And I will say it's not just
engineering at this point. There is still physics to be
explored and to learn from, but that includes, you know,
advanced laser technologies, tritium management and recycling,
balance of plant issues, materials for radiation environments,
et cetera.
If we're successful, fusion holds the promise of providing
baseload-scale energy, clean, without many of the long-term
waste concerns that have been raised around fission
technologies. So it has an abundant fuel source and can work at
scale, independent of location. So most of the renewable energy
is very regional in character. Fusion really is a clean
baseload source of energy.
Mr. Bowman. That's incredible. It feels like this is a
moonshot moment for us. And we need a moonshot-style national
effort to make fusion energy a reality. Do you agree with that?
Let's move heaven and earth, all-of-government approach,
private sector. This is our moonshot moment.
Dr. Budil. I agree with that. We have spent 60 years
creating this fundamental building block. We will continue to
pursue this R&D for our important national security
applications. But the prospects for energy are real, and they
will require a whole-of-nation, private-sector, public-sector,
community-based approach to advancing the science and
technology here. And we have demonstrated in the past with
efforts like this what we're capable of as a nation when we
bring together the best minds, the best technology, the best
elements of the private sector and the public sector. And this
is an incredibly exciting challenge. So, as I mentioned
earlier, students are really energized about the prospects for
fusion, maybe pun intended. And so there's--there is a willing
body of intellectual capital that's ready to move on this
problem if the resources are available to make it move forward.
Mr. Bowman. Dr. Droegemeier, can you add anything to what
was just stated?
Dr. Droegemeier. I'd just like to clap. I just think this
is----
Mr. Bowman. Are we allowed to clap in the hearing room? I
think we should clap. Yes, we can do that.
[Applause.]
Dr. Droegemeier. I have to underscore the point that that
she just made, though, 60 years. That's taking the long-haul
view, right? That's being patient, investing, investing in
something, and now all of a sudden, we have this extraordinary
thing, not only for our national defense capabilities, but also
for the future of our energy. And that's just I think a
beautiful, beautiful thing. Thank you.
Mr. Bowman. I yield back.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And absolutely,
congratulations. That information certainly needs to be
protected as well as we go forward into that research.
I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mrs.
Bice.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here this afternoon. And a special shout-
out to Dr. Droegemeier, who is my fellow Oklahoman.
I want to direct this first question to Ms. Wince-Smith,
and that is in your opening statement you talked a little bit
about the valley of death. And I had a opportunity to sit at a
roundtable yesterday with Chairman Lucas, with technology
innovation owners that are trying to really, you know, ensure
that we have superior capabilities over our adversaries,
including China. But that was also brought up. What do you
think we as Congress can be doing to try to bridge that gap,
whether it's existing programs that need to be modified or
other ways that we can continue to promote that type of needed
innovation?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you for that very important
question. And I have to say, I've been working on this issue
for most of my career, so I hope someday I'll never hear valley
of death.
One of the issues is that we do not have a financing system
in the United States that moves beyond the initial kind of
startup phase into manufacturing. And I'll just share an
example. Back in the nineties and even earlier, this country
invented every single flat panel display technology, the first
being liquid crystals out of Kent State, plasma, field
emitters, the list went on. And there was lots of venture
capital coming into that. But then it was time to make the
manufacturing plant and scale it up. Not a penny. All of that
went to Asia. We have the example of A123 battery. More,
hundreds of millions went into that, including from the
Department of Energy, the State of Michigan. Again, it was the
manufacturing scaleup that takes lots of money.
So we have to figure out in our country a way to bridge
that. It's not going to be from traditional venture capital.
Our banks are not engaged in this. There are no incentives for
that. We have called at the council for many, many years for a
national infrastructure bank. Many countries have that where
they could make these large-scale investments on the
manufacturing side. And this is very relevant to
commercializing the fusion. It is an all-nation hymn. We're not
going to get to where we could if we don't have massive
investment from the government and private sector.
But on the valley of death we really need to have some
expanded programs, including SBIRs (Small Business Innovation
Researches). There are companies that just spend their time
getting SBIR grants. It's kind of an industry. And I can tell
you when I was Assistant Secretary of Commerce, there were
groups outside the United States who would look at those SBI
awardees. They knew they couldn't go after stage B, and they'd
come in and acquire them. And that's happening now in Silicon
Valley and elsewhere. So having SBIR stage C that takes it
farther on is one mechanism. And the States could actually
contribute that as well. It doesn't need to be just Federal.
So it really requires new models and really moving out of
our traditional mode of thinking, oh, we have the great--we do
have a great venture capital industry, but they don't invest in
the kinds of things we're talking about here.
Mrs. Bice. Happy to open the question up for any of the
other witnesses if you'd like to comment. If not, I'll follow
up on another question.
OK. The second question is that, you know, America's
economic future is dependent on successfully driving innovation
and productivity growth in all parts of the country. What role
will regional innovation initiatives have in securing U.S.
leadership in research and technology? And this is open to any
of the panelists.
Dr. Droegemeier. I think regional innovation is key. And
again, back to the diversity question, we need to bring the
technological capabilities and development opportunities to
those regions because we want to transform the regions. We
don't want to take the people out of the regions. Maybe their
families have been there for 50, 60 years. We want to lift
those regions up. And so I think that the regional and and sort
of, I think, as we heard, the place-based innovation is really
critical.
NSF is doing this now with the EPSCoR (Established Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research) program. I think a lot of
you are familiar with this. Whereas before it was, hey, how can
we help, you know, increase the research competitiveness? Now,
the focus is on what they're calling jurisdictional
transformation, getting the universities, getting the small
business community, getting the Federal--getting the State
governments rather, getting the chambers of commerce together
and saying, how can we transform our entire State using science
and technology? Oklahoma's a very rural State. North Carolina
is a rural State. There are a lot of great opportunities to do
innovation, to get these folks involved. But we have to really
think about, you know how to resource that and do that and
build these partnerships at the State level in particular or in
the regional level as well. And I think that's really a key to
our future is not just doing it at the well-resourced places
but having every zip code of the country become involved.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
Now, I'd like to recognize Ms. Salinas.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel.
Climate change is a uniquely unifying threat across
scientific disciplines and across nations. And I'm proud to
represent the Oregon's Sixth Congressional District, a State
that has long taken climate concerns seriously. And while each
State and nation is dealing with its own climate consequences
based on its infrastructure, geography, and economy, it's not
really a problem that can be dressed--addressed in
jurisdictional isolation. And so when it comes to climate,
remaining competitive on the global stage necessarily involves
fostering international collaboration with disadvantaged
nations on the frontlines of sea levels rising, as well as with
scientifically sophisticated competitors who may have a more
mature climate strategy.
And so my questions for the panel, first, when it comes to
competing with China and the need to address climate change,
what does that global leadership in science and technology
development look like? And then I'll give you my second
question. And then how can the U.S. best build upon the
progress of other nations, including competitor nations? And
it's generally to the panel, to whoever would like to answer.
Dr. Droegemeier. I guess I'm the climate guy. So with
regard to science and technology development, I think it's--
there's no question--and we haven't really talked about this
yet. But in terms of the research in our Nation, I think the
importance of Chinese nationals coming to study here is very,
very important to our future, again, an opportunity to lead
with our values, to be constructively vigilant, to model for
these folks, you know, what playing by the rules actually looks
like. And when I was at OSTP I asked the question, suppose we
just shut off all the immigration instantaneously? How long
would it take us to get to where we would be otherwise? And
we're talking generations. So we really have to collaborate.
The climate challenge is a very important one for which I
think they're--certainly, as you say, it's an international
problem. Part of the problem, though, is that China is a huge
global emitter, and it's building coal-fired power plants in
other countries for reasons we've heard about previously, but
that does not get counted against China's contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions. So I think we need to, again, have
China be honest about what it's doing, and say, OK, if we're
going to really solve this challenge, technology and research
are part of it, but also, mitigation is another very important
part of it. And getting China to own up to the fact that, yes,
it might be emitting, you know, twice as much as us with regard
to CO2 or whatever, they're actually emitting a
whole lot more than that because they're putting these plants
in other countries and getting a foothold there in their energy
systems and also their data systems, so it's a very kind of
nefarious thing.
So I don't know if that answers your question, but, as an
S&T enterprise, we really do need--we need a global approach
here, and we need researchers from China working with us on the
climate challenge.
Dr. Budil. So I'd like to add, we have really formidable
capacity in the U.S. to understand how the climate is evolving
and what the impacts will be to nations in the developing world
in particular. And we have an opportunity to build
partnerships, science and technology cooperation partnerships,
with many of those nations to help them understand what the
impacts are that are coming, what the technology solutions are
that are available today that could be deployed, and there are
many, and to help them identify strategies to sustainably
transition their energy supply.
I think this idea of thinking about S&T as a bridge-
builder, you know, that's--S&T cooperation with allies and
partners at scale, that's what the developing world, Europe,
our traditional partners in the UK, in Asia, in Japan, in Korea
and Australia, India, but also working with these smaller
nations to help them build capacity and to really use the
fruits of our research enterprise to help them develop more
sustainable paths forward and to use that as a way to increase
U.S. influence in how these countries think about their future.
In climate modeling, we have the capacity today to really
understand at a very local level what the impacts are likely to
be over time. And so I think this is an underappreciated form
of international diplomacy and U.S. leadership that we should
be exercising.
Ms. Wince-Smith. I would just add--and it's a wonderful
opportunity for our agency, for international development, and
sister agencies around the world to collaborate on this and to
leverage what they're doing in different parts, particularly in
the developing world, as opposed to a lot of those programs
kind of operating in silos.
Dr. Droegemeier. If I can just add quickly, the Weather Act
that this Committee will reauthorize, I believe, has a lot of
provision in there for work at the weather-climate interface.
So we're talking about these developing nations, these other
nations, their economies may be very agrarian. The very local
effects are what are important, so it sort of is not just the
2-week weather timeline but the timeline out to several months.
And, you know, a couple of planting seasons is very, very
important. So this kind of research is really the key point.
And if you think about reauthorizing the Weather Act, you might
want to think about really highlighting that point.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a freshman, newly elected, been here about 2 months, and
spent 30 years in private business as a small business person.
Ms. Wince-Smith, I heard when you were speaking earlier,
you talked about a unified vision and economic issues and
public liability and regulations and antitrust. And I look at
it as a point of we can compete with anybody in the world in
small business. And I took that personally as the same things
that I saw in small business as an overreach from our Federal
Government, regulations and bureaucracies out there that really
regulate most businesses to the point where they can't compete
or they have to look for outside sources.
And I guess my question in a nutshell is do you think that
the government overreach and excess regulations are hindering
our ability to compete with China?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you for that very important
question. And, you know, regulation is always a balance issue.
It's sort of like the golden mean. We do need regulation, but
we don't need too much regulation, and so how we get to the
right point is the challenge. And certainly, we in the United
States have overregulated in many, many areas vis-a-vis our
competitor, certainly China. I mean, they're on the side where
they don't regulate. I've been told if you go to a facility
where they're actually processing rare earth materials, you
think you're in a different age, a different place. I mean,
there's absolutely no regulation whatsoever on safety, health,
environmental, so it is a balance issue.
But I think on some of the regulation in the United States,
we're--it's almost like we're Gulliver, and the Lilliputians
are tying our hands because product liability reform has gotten
to the point--and we've tried over the years to reform this as
a bipartisan issue. But if you produce a chemical, as a small
business, and one of your customer buys it and something
happens through what they did with it, the liability goes all
the way back to you. So we know that many, many corporations in
the United States actually stopped production and moved
overseas because of the punitive nature of our product
liability. And again, it's a balance issue. So I do think that
this is a matter that we can have, you know, the best science
and technology, we can have lots of startups, but it takes
regulation, it takes capital, it takes trade to get these into
the marketplace. And these are issues that we need to work on.
And in many, many ways we have overregulated. We need to bring
that back but still protect safety, environmental health, and
the transparency of a business for its consumers.
Mr. Collins. Hold that thought. Mr. Kitchen, did you want
to--could you add to some of that? I knew you gave several
examples like the doorbells and stuff.
Mr. Kitchen. Thank you, sir. I think the thing that most
concerns--so I would align myself with everything that was just
previously said. I think, obviously, some type of regulatory
regime is essential. It's what sets us apart so that, you know,
our airplanes typically don't crash, right? And that's in large
part because of the regulatory infrastructures that we have. At
the same time, we are playing a balancing game as we try to
allow our innovation industry to run free and to be aggressive
and agile. That's a critical capability. So these are the
balancing acts.
I think when it comes to regulation, one of my most
fundamental concerns, as I mentioned in my testimony, is where
many of our allies and partners are going. To be frank, many of
these allies and partners seem to think that the goal is to
produce as robust and aggressive a regulatory scheme as
possible. Instead, I would argue that the goal should be to
produce as robust and as aggressive innovation capability as
possible. And so when our friends in the European Union and
even to our north in Canada are considering explicit policies
that deliberately seek to decouple U.S. technology companies
and that will have the net benefit of preferencing Chinese
alternatives, all under the guise of digital sovereignty, I
want to express a type of empathy with their underlying
motivations but warn them as a friend, you're doing it all
wrong. And that if that's not arrested and brought into a
better sense of things, it will result not only in hurting the
United States, which is bad enough, but it will preference and
allow China to move in and assume a position that it will
almost assuredly abuse.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Ms. Wince-Smith, one quick
question. Ninety percent of the graphite is found in China,
produced in China, or just refined in China?
Ms. Wince-Smith. It's coming out of China both refined--I
don't know if it's all produced. But I just heard this from a
very exciting startup battery company. And----
Mr. Collins. So they don't have 90 percent of the
graphite----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Not in the world, no, but it's coming from
them. And they have the processing----
Mr. Collins. And I would say that's probably----
Ms. Wince-Smith [continuing]. Capability----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Due to permitting regulations and
mining restrictions----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Big, big part of it.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Right here. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses.
Look, I believe that the greatest challenge facing our
country and the world is the climate crisis. My generation
fears that we will lose drinkable water, breathable air in our
lifetimes, and worry that our childhood homes will be flooded
out by the sea level rise and food will become scarce. And this
is especially important in my State of Florida. We're a
frontline community. As you know, last year, we had two storms
that completely decimated and wiped out many of our coastline
cities. It was a great issue in my district.
One thing that the United States can do right now is lead
the world in science and technology advancements to help
prevent the climate collapse. And I believe we have to enact
near-term solutions and develop long-term strategy to make sure
that the U.S. science and tech fields can meet this challenge.
So Dr. Droegemeier, I wanted to ask, how could this
National Science and Technology Strategy address near-term
resilience goals and also long-term prevention goals to address
the climate crisis?
Dr. Droegemeier. Oh, it's an excellent question, and I
think that's exactly the purpose of the strategy. And frankly,
that's why I think the 4-year timeline is great because it's
kind of the same as the National Climate Assessment, but also
putting in the context of a 25-year horizon where it goes
beyond elections and beyond, you know, beyond the normal thing,
and people say, well, we've never done that before. That's the
whole point, you know? A meteorologist telling you to do a 25-
year forecast, that's not what I'm saying. I'm basically saying
let's think long term about the overarching, broad S&T issues
and the kinds of things that we want to do as a Nation, not the
specifics, you know.
So with regard to the S&T, you know, very simple climate
models tell us that you increase greenhouse gases, the planet
will warm. We don't need all the sophistication. We do need the
sophistication, though, to know what the localized impacts are.
We don't do a great job with that to be honest. The error bars
on the actual projections are pretty large, but we are doing a
lot of work, I think, to improve those. So the models are
basically all that we have. And the thoughtful approaches as to
how the population will grow, what the technology mix will be,
and things like that, all these different scenarios that are
played out.
So I think from the the short term we need to think about,
you know, measures that are mitigation-adaptive. You look at a
lot of the--a lot of commercials on TV now, everybody's doing
EVs, right, because we're starting to have infrastructure that
will allow that to happen with our power grid. The longer-term
things, if you look at the models, the greatest uncertainty in
the short term is the actual atmospheric uncertainty in the
model itself, the actual natural variability. You get beyond 20
years or so, the great uncertainty is in the energy mix and the
population and all that sort of thing. So I think we need to
continue to study those things, take even more thoughtful
approaches, and look at improving the physics of the models,
building--you know, I would love to see us in this country
build a--what the Japanese did 20 years ago, an Earth
simulator, a computer designed specifically----
Mr. Frost. Yeah.
Dr. Droegemeier [continuing]. And Livermore could be the
perfect place to house this.
Mr. Frost. Yeah.
Dr. Droegemeier. Really--you know, we write our codes in a
way that has to adapt to transaction processing computers just
because that's what is out there. You know, suppose we as a
nation said we're going to put $2 billion into building a
computer designed just to simulate the Earth system and do what
no other Nation can do in terms of climate projection, that
would be an enormously valuable investment because we have the
capability, but we don't have the computational capability to
run these models at the resolutions needed to capture clouds
and hurricanes and things like that. We're just waiting for
computing to get there.
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Dr. Droegemeier. Let's fast-forward computing technology
and build something as a nation that would get us there.
Mr. Frost. Thank you. No, I really--and that leads to my
next question, you know, the other benefits of this work.
Dr. Budil, I wanted to ask, so Orlando where I'm from,
we're quickly becoming the simulation hub of the country, which
is really exciting. We actually--I was just at the Orlando
Economic Partnership, which is an organization, and we have the
first city digital twin, a complete digital twin of Orlando,
which is going to be great. I wanted to ask what--do you
believe advancements in computer simulation technology to model
the impact of climate change could give us a competitive edge?
Dr. Budil. Yes, thank you for the question. It's an
excellent line of questioning, and I agree completely. And I
agree with my colleague's comments entirely. The Department of
Energy has been on the frontline of advancing the state-of-the-
art in climate modeling for some time and is currently
developing the ESM--3 (Earth System Model) code, which is the
Earth system simulation model, a next generation that's
anticipated to run on our new largest computers.
So Oak Ridge has just sited Frontier, which is a large
exascale computer. Livermore will be home to the first exascale
computer, slated for national security applications. It will
also do open science applications like climate, and it'll
produce at over 2 exaflops. So we're beginning to have the
computing capacity and the modeling and simulation tools to do
this work. It's going to be incredibly enabling.
And with the introduction of tools like artificial
intelligence and machine learning, we're able to advance the
capabilities of our models very quickly relative to what we
were able to do in the past. By taking onboard large amounts of
data, we're getting much more data at higher fidelity about
different aspects of the climate system. Using those tools to
really smartly advance the state-of-the-art I think will help
with the error bar problem, which is a significant challenge
going forward. But we should be able to give communities a real
edge in understanding what's likely to be visiting them not
just today but----
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Dr. Budil [continuing]. Several years down the road.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much. I have more questions, but
I've run out of time. I really appreciate your time today and
excited to work with this Committee on advancing our economy
and national security by investing in the green energy economy.
I really appreciate it.
Mr. Babin. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say
thank you to Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for
holding this important hearing. And thank you to our witnesses
for your insight today.
I don't think there's more of an appropriate topic for this
Committee to address through its first hearing of Congress. The
Chinese Communist Party is the United States' greatest threat
on the world stage. It is critical that we remain a global
leader in cutting-edge science and advanced technologies to
address this threat and to ensure our economic and national
security for generations to come.
One issue I'd like to focus on today is the need for a
skilled workforce as a key component of our strategic
competition with China. Roughly 36 million jobs in the United
States today are part of the STEM workforce. That is nearly 1/4
of all jobs nationally. In these 36 million jobs, 17 million of
them are filled by skilled technical workers who have a wealth
of science, engineering, and technical knowledge but do not
hold 4-year degrees. Clearly, there is a need for career and
technical education programs that equip workers with much-
needed skills without saddling them with unmanageable debt. A
more robust approach to career and technical education will
ensure that we are able to train workers properly and remain
competitive with China, which has made efforts to recruit top
foreign talent, including from American universities, industry,
and government.
Dr. Droegemeier, you put it simply in your testimony. It
boils down to people. As part of this, you propose an
initiative similar to the GI Bill to coordinate workforce
development on a national scale with broad national goals that
involve all sectors of the Science and Technology Enterprise.
Can you elaborate on the need for Federal involvement in a
coordinated approach to STEM workforce development programs
that we have here?
Dr. Droegemeier. Congressman, thank you so much. I loved
your comments there, and you're spot on. We have a lot of great
programs that are going on. I think at last count there were
well over 150 STEM education programs, some large, some small.
There are a lot of nonprofits doing great things. And like I
said earlier, there's like a thousand flowers blooming, but
where are the big gardens?
If you look at the GI Bill, it really had two pieces to it.
One was to thank the servicemen and women who were responsible
for the Allied victory in World War II coming back from World
War II. And the other thing was, they're an important part of
our future, so let's make sure we invest in them. So my thought
about something--a GI Bill-type activity here would be to say
we need to coordinate much more effectively vis-a-vis the
National S&T Strategy, which gives us the chance to do
something we've never done before, really, I think, to look at
this from a holistic national point of view, to create really
what I would call not a U.S. talent program but a U.S.--sort of
a capabilities investment program to bring people to the fore
whether they're in--looking at a skilled technical workforce or
whatever, to create a framework that has basically a system
that has them, you know, being educated and trained, but then
also giving service back to our Nation, which is--in fact, the
GI Bill, the service came on the front end. This would come on
the back end actually. I don't think it ought to be a handout.
It ought to not not be a freebie, but it ought to be structured
like the GI Bill to where part of that was loans to start
companies, part of it was tuition, and so on.
I think getting folks into the game from all over America
is so critically important. And, as I think Deborah said, you
know, we're fielding a baseball team with one player. This gets
a chance for all these folks who--I've seen capabilities all
over this country in the places you would least expect to find
them. We need to get those missing millions. We need to go find
them. We need to bring them in. And we need to incentivize and
provide them resources to be successful, but then say, you know
what, you owe a debt of gratitude to our Nation. Here's the
service component of that. And we build on American
exceptionalism, I think, in doing so.
Mr. Miller. Yes, I could not agree more with your
assessment.
Ms. Wince-Smith, you also raise the issue of regional
diversity within the innovation economy as part of the National
Science and Technology Strategy. In your testimony, you
highlighted the fact that the innovation workforce is
concentrated largely in metropolitan areas such as Boston, San
Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego. You also wrote
one-size-fits-all approaches to supporting regional innovation
ignore these crucial and geographic distinctions and fail to
capitalize on different regions, core competencies, and
advantages.
As someone who represents a middle America district in
northeast Ohio, I sympathize with this view. I want to see jobs
pop up in Cleveland, Parma, Medina, Wooster, Strongsville, and
other communities in our area, not just in big coastal cities.
So do you think that regional centers dedicated to completing--
excuse me--complementing the existing capabilities and
resources of a specific area would result in organic pipeline
for workforce development?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you for that wonderful question. And
I have to say I'm from Akron.
Mr. Miller. Oh, nice.
Ms. Wince-Smith. So I know the region very well.
Mr. Miller. You're right there.
Ms. Wince-Smith. And I know, of course, that Toledo was, as
I said, the inventor of one of the flat panel displays, and,
you know, for solar, et cetera.
I think that this is really a regional leadership issue. I
think that what happens often in States and regions that all
these dots are not connected. The workforce development boards
do not collaborate with the economic development boards. You
have to bring in sort of the leaders of the community. And you
can see the power of a leader in a community. I'll just cite
San Diego. You know, San Diego still is a great center of our
U.S. Navy, but it's become a leader in wireless communications
and biotech because of how they brought all that together and
one startup Linkabit that became Qualcomm. So leadership is
very, very critical for this.
And also the educational establishment from K through 12
all the way up, including, you know, leaders who are doing our
sports activity. We put so much time and effort in developing
talent for people going into sports but we don't do the same
for them going into STEM. I mean, it would be great to have a
cybersecurity corps. But on the regional economic development
I'm seeing across the country, and the U.S. Council on
Competitiveness is so focused on this, just tremendous
capability that's not even known. And so the National Science
Foundation, you know, the other departments are really making
an effort to go out and identify through these hubs and
investments how they can create an anchor and then build for
this.
And then of course the issue is on capital. Venture
capital, you know, for certain types of things is great, but
it's concentrated. But still in all these regions there are
some high-net-worth individuals who are doing things. Nebraska
is a fabulous example of that. So we have all the ingredients--
--
Mr. Issa [presiding]. Would the gentlelady wrap up, please?
Ms. Wince-Smith. We have all the ingredients.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Even though you're from Akron and I'm
from Cleveland, the gentleman is from Cleveland, we're--we have
to call it quits on that.
We now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses for your testimony.
I come from San Mateo County in the San Francisco Bay Area,
home to some innovative partnerships. I really appreciate the
community college references as well, retraining with community
colleges and our local workforce development boards and our
life sciences sector, which is a very robust one.
So my question is a bit of a follow up, Dr. Droegemeier.
You were talking about the national STEM strategy and GI Bill
approach, but you did reference supplanting some existing
programs. And I just want to get a sort of sense, you know, the
existing Workforce Investment Act funding streams and there's
money in CHIPS now, investments in IRA (Inflation Reduction
Act) on clean energy. How do you pull all of these things
together into a coordinated funding approach where there's some
coherence but you're also integrating--I say this as a former
local workforce investment board member who always appreciated
dealing with some of those Federal funding streams coming down
to the local level, how we integrate all of that in a
coordinated way.
Dr. Droegemeier. You said it so beautifully, and it's that
whole-of-nation approach. I think that those local boards play
an extremely important role, and their voice needs to be at the
table. So I think it's a question of scaling up, and in no way
do I suggest that a lot of these programs aren't doing good
things or whatever. But I think the--what you created with the
National S&T Strategy is an opportunity to step way back from
all the wonderful individual things and say what do we do as a
nation and how do we coordinate it? How do we not--it's not
about control, but it's about coordination and scaling and
having a symbiosis among all of these different programs to
where we're looking to achieve national goals, not, hey, my
little program is doing this, and it's doing great things, but
how is it feeding the national goal of workforce development,
of economic development, of diversity enhancement? That's the
thing that I think you have wonderfully handed to OSTP and the
community and said you guys go figure this out. And that's what
I am looking forward to doing. And I really appreciate you
doing that because it's never really happened before.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. Just a quick follow up on
scale, well aware of large companies being able to operate at
scale and innovate and develop STEM partnerships, but a lot of
the innovation is happening in smaller companies. You know,
we're talking, you know, five people in the R&D space doing
incredible work. How do we--as we think going forward, how do
we develop an S&T strategy that really integrates some of those
smaller companies? Just any thoughts in that regard I'd
welcome.
Dr. Budil. So I'll chime in since I brought this up
earlier. I think this is an excellent question. I think part of
it is creating mechanisms to give people access to the tools
and capabilities they need to continue their progress. So, for
example, if you're a small company developing hard technology,
the barriers to entry in the market are enormous. Just the cost
of building capacity to do the R&D you need to advance your
technology. And this national look can say, OK, what could a
regional center do to develop central capabilities that many
companies could have access to for advanced machining
capabilities or different types of laboratory facilities or
access to high-performance computing, and then using existing
institutions, academic institutions or national laboratories or
others, to help bring expertise to these companies to help them
advance their capabilities quickly? I think it's really a new
kind of partnership ecosystem where we really try to think
about all the national assets and how we can bring them
together in new ways.
Dr. Droegemeier. Could I just follow up on that last point?
A lot of small businesses, as you say, can't afford wet labs,
clean rooms, things like that. But universities have these
things. And believe me, they're not busy all the time. And so
now you can--private companies can go in and legally use these
facilities by paying for them. The university is not competing
unfairly with the private sector by undercutting them because
they're nonprofit. These partnerships are so important. And
this is where you can also build wonderful linkages for R&D
with universities. But it might just start with sharing a
facility that you need to have to fabricate the device or
something as a small startup. But they're incredibly agile and
they're wonderful and they're the bedrock of our economy.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Thank the gentleman. And I'll yield myself for a
round of questioning.
One of the nice things about going last is that everyone
else has asked questions, probably asked every question, they
just haven't been asked by me. So I'm going to stick to pretty
much two questions. One is a recap. Ms. Smith and others can
weigh in on this. But, you know, when talking about the centers
of excellence and talking about trying to reach out all over
the country--and by the way, as a Clevelander, I'm very proud
of Case Western as a university of excellence. But I'm a San
Diegan, so I'm even more proud of the University of California,
San Diego, and very aware of what Stanford represented to the
building of Silicon Valley.
At the end of the day, aren't our universities in many,
many cases the reason--not the size of a city because San Jose
was a pretty hick town when they got going. But aren't--isn't
it not about the size but in fact the excellence of the
universities, and that those are naturally places that, within
the technology UC Davis, you know, for agriculture and a lot of
their areas of expertise? Isn't that what we need to look for
and recognize? You can't make every university a center of
excellence, but every great university eventually creates a
field of interest and excellence.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. You
said it very, very well. The universities and our whole network
across the country, our crown jewel, no country in the world
has the scale of universities, the--from community colleges all
the way up to the most advanced research institutes in the
world. And if you look throughout the country, yes,
universities are anchoring, and they have the great potential
to do more.
Mr. Issa. So as we as a Committee--and we don't--we're not
the Committee that funds every university, but as we look at
plans and we look at supporting a national plan--I was in
Bozeman, Montana, for example. Now, they know more about wheat
and barley and, by the way, the beer it makes, and they have
just an amazing amount of technology there that I wouldn't have
known if I hadn't gone there on a congressional trip. But
shouldn't we, as a Congress, look to the Administration to have
a plan that maps the world mostly as it is from the standpoint
of university expertise, not grant writing, as we would hope it
would become, which often works to the detriment of do you
really go to Bozeman, Montana, to do nuclear fusion? Any--is
that consistent with all of your thoughts?
Ms. Wince-Smith. I think we need to do both. And I think we
have the capacity to do both. We want to continue----
Mr. Issa. We're out of money, ma'am, so in fairness----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Let's be a little careful about
that. We have massive debts. We're at a deficit that's
unbelievable, so the idea that there's enough money to do
everything we want to do versus using our money wisely is going
to be an area that I know the Chairman is very concerned about
is how to get the best return for the taxpayer on those dollars
that are already being spent? Because it's unlikely that we're
going to dramatically increase dollars spent in this
environment.
Ms. Wince-Smith. And that wasn't what I was suggesting.
What I was suggesting is, whatever the area we want to work in,
let's link together these universities with partnerships
because there are other places of the country doing the advance
work in agriculture. And just because they don't happen to be
in Montana, they should be working together. So knitting these
things together is absolutely the key to building up this
infrastructure for the country in the future.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. I agree.
Last one is one that's near and dear to my heart, even
though I'm a native Clevelander and a Californian now. China
does not respect intellectual property, and yet China is one of
the greatest recipients of patents both directly and
indirectly, directly in the sense that they have tremendous
amount of applications that basically go back to the CCP,
indirectly because they are making acquisitions and inquiries
and they have investment funds that essentially rake
intellectual property out of the United States and take it back
to China. Well, in fact, as a recipient of a Chinese patent, I
know it's as worthless as the paper it was printed on. Should
this Committee look to the question and other Committees,
including Judiciary, look to the question of reciprocal
activity, meaning should we continue to have China dealt with
like a trusted partner? Should universities be free to share
with mainland China, as they do, massive amounts of the work
that the taxpayer pays for? Or should we have a plan to
recognize that they are not an evenhanded competitor? Your
comments?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well, I'll just jump in on that. I do
think we need reciprocity, and I think we need new models and
mechanisms. For instance, one of the things we could do is if
we identify stolen intellectual property that comes into any
product that's entered into this country, we refuse its entry.
We do this--we have a wonderful system for protecting the
integrity of our food supply and agricultural products coming
in but we don't on intellectual property. And, you know, I
serve on the Commission for the Theft of American Intellectual
Property, and they have some fabulous recommendations. But by
the time we get through the process of identifying the impact
of what's been stolen, often the company's out of business. So
it is an absolutely critical crisis for the country.
And just one metric, back in 2012 there was the data if
China implemented their existing intellectual property laws,
however weak they are, we would have had $1.2 trillion more in
GDP (gross domestic product). And that was in the first report
of the Commission on the Theft of Intellectual Property.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. My time has expired.
The gentleman from--the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms.
Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. It's quite interesting thinking
about competition from the standpoint of American debt. I just
can't imagine that the CCP is doing that. And while some are
debating the integrity, the fiscal integrity of this Nation by
threatening to default America on its debt, I can't imagine a
bigger vote in this chamber being one for our competitor
countries than our own country.
But with that, look, we were very pleased in a bipartisan
way to pass the CHIPS and Science Act, much legislation that
came through this Committee, legislation I was happy to author,
and certainly recognizing that some of our colleagues who were
more reticent to join onto legislation bolstering and investing
in scientific research for the first time ever because they
woke up to the threat and the competition with the CCP.
And so as we think about the CHIPS and Science Act and some
of our great catching up that we have been doing with that
legislation, the first Federal funding opportunity coming out
just yesterday, I'm interested in honing in on other
technologies or R&D areas that we need to be investing in that
we might not be thinking of. Dr. Budil, you had talked about
supercomputing. We remember that race. Ms. Wince-Smith, we
certainly have been collaborating for years on supercomputer
technology and its benefits. But what other research
applications should we be looking at?
Dr. Budil. So I can begin? That's an excellent question. I
think the whole computing ecosystem is incredibly important.
It's another great area where public-private partnerships have
really spurred the development of high-performance computing at
scale, which has enabled new kinds of science we didn't
envision when we started down that path. So again, ensuring
that we stay closely coupled to industry trends. Industry isn't
going to build computers just for science because that's a very
small market relative to what they typically are focused on. So
ensuring that the scientific community and the industry that
builds machines are very closely coupled together and can
advance and can take advantage of the new tools that are coming
along in AI and machine learning and then looking at advanced
technologies like quantum, neuromorphic computing, and other
approaches that will really change the game for how we think
about R&D.
Another area that's critically important is--that we've
talked about a great deal here today is energy technologies.
That includes new technologies, for example, for long-term
storage or batteries, other clean energy technologies in the
future, could be fusion energy technology, but taking U.S.
leadership in some of these areas and really capitalizing on
it. I think advanced materials and manufacturing is another
area where investment is really critical. That industry is
changing very, very fast, and the nexus of high-performance
computing and manufacturing capabilities is going to change the
game again. So in the next 10 years, you'll see something very
different.
And then the final one is biotechnology and biosciences.
Barriers to entry in these fields are very low. They're moving
very fast. And we have an opportunity with our capabilities,
experimental and computational, to really foundationally change
the speed and capacity of how we think about development of
drugs and therapeutics, how we think about disease, and how we
think about the technologies that will enable us to better
understand biological systems.
Ms. Stevens. Ms. Wince-Smith, did you want to chime in? Are
policymakers listening and acting accordingly?
Ms. Wince-Smith. It's hard to add to what Dr. Budil has
said, but I would just mention biofabrication also as part of
the biotechnology revolution.
Ms. Stevens. And certainly to the point about how we
effectively utilize the taxpayer dollar for outcomes, for
proven outcomes, public-private partnerships, which you've
mentioned several times in this hearing, tend to work. Are
there any specific examples you'd like to point to that have
been successful that we could build off of as a nation?
Dr. Budil. I'll point to my favorite recent example. There
was a partnership formed called ATOM, Accelerating Therapeutic
Opportunities in Medicine. It was a partnership that started
between a discussion between the National Cancer Institute and
the Department of Energy. It included GlaxoSmithKline, Lawrence
Livermore National Lab, and University of California, San
Francisco, so very unique public-private partnership, bringing
together biosciences, clinical research, Big Pharma, and the
Federal stakeholders that were key there. And the goal was to
develop tools to use computational methods to very rapidly
screen molecules for drug applications. So if you could take
the drug development timeline from 10 years down to less than 1
year, it would make it much more economically feasible for
companies to develop new molecules.
For GSK it wasn't about, ``what can I do. It was about can
I create a toolkit that allows my whole industry to move
ahead?'' So from that perspective, they wanted to bring other
companies into that partnership. I think that sort of
precompetitive landscape is a really novel feature and was
uniquely enabling of what we were able to do there.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. With that I'm out of time. I yield
back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
We now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
McCormick.
Mr. McCormick. Good morning. Money is power, especially
when it comes to technology, developing technology, is one of
the most expensive things we do in the world. In 2019, I
believe we had about $2.4 trillion of investment in R&D and
technologies. The United States roughly had about $722 billion
of that. But over the course of time, from the sixties up to
2020, we've gone from about 69 percent of the research done in
the world to about 31 percent, so less than half of what we
used to do percentagewise. This goes back to monetary policy.
I'm concerned when it comes to technological advances between
us and China, in a nation that has anywhere from roughly $20
trillion more debt than we do and a smaller GDP, that they're
basically held unaccountable while they buy our debt. And they
don't have the same central banking system accountability. I'm
concerned that we're being outpaced. We have no way to keep up
in a fair market. Nobody's holding them accountable. Meanwhile,
you discussed how important it is to have people in foreign
status come to our schools and work in our universities.
I worked at--I taught at Georgia Tech and Morehouse for
about 4 years. Georgia Tech is a leading school in the Nation
in technologies. And yet, we can have a Chinese student come
over here and actually take their technology back there while
they're spending trillions of dollars more on research and
development. I just don't see how we win that battle because
it's not a fair fight. How do we combat that?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, it's a key question I think
ultimately here in terms of--one extreme is you lock everything
down and you protect everything. That's not the answer. The
other thing is you let it all be open. That's not the answer
either. When you're looking at fundamental research, curiosity-
driven research, a lot of people say, well, it gets published
anyway, so what does it matter? Well, it matters because the
pathway of doing that work and getting to the publication
involves a lot of creativity, a lot of knowhow that is very
valuable. And it doesn't make its way into the publication.
Publication is just the end result. So what we're trying to
protect is the capability, the knowhow, the sort of secret
sauce that we have in our research laboratories like at Georgia
Tech that results in the publications. I think, again, it's
really a question of educating people, having policies in place
at universities in particular, having resources that
universities can turn to to understand and vet individual----
Mr. McCormick. I'm going to interrupt you real quick
because we're almost at two and a half minutes.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, yes, sure.
Mr. McCormick. Specifically what I'm worried about----
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes.
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. Is give me a specific example
of those controls. I know we have that policy, but I don't know
of them--and I'll tell you, when I was at Georgia Tech, we had
people go to jail, because of espionage, because of Chinese
foreigners coming and stealing our secrets. And we spend about
half of the R&D budget that goes to universities comes from our
government, which in 2019 was about $40 billion of investment
and then everybody else investing another $50 billion. So my
question is, what are we specifically doing to safeguard those
technologies?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, again, I think we're educating
people to look for certain behaviors, right? We're asking
people to disclose relationships, which is a self-disclosure.
And then--but here's the key. We can use open-source analytics
to determine if they're being honest because it's all just
based on, OK, if they say what they're--they're telling us who
they really work with or who they're affiliated with, great. If
they don't, well, we have no way of knowing.
Mr. McCormick. OK. So if they're coming here from China,
they're affiliated with China. They're getting an education and
going back to China with what--their education they're getting
here that we put trillions of dollars into.
Dr. Droegemeier. Right. But they're also benefiting our
universities. We're learning from--and 90 percent of those
people are staying here. They're not going back. And so they're
yearning for freedom. They don't have the freedom to discover
and create in China. The talent programs in China, frankly, are
not working. They're failing. Because all this repatriation of
talent, they're not getting the folks coming back. Where--we
still lead in that area, but it's a precarious lead, so you're
right.
Mr. McCormick. I'd make the point, too, that of the 90
percent, the people who stay here in the United States, we
should probably be keeping a pretty close eye on them because
there's significant links back to the place where they come
from, including the family that remains in place.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, exactly. And a lot of pressure is put
on them by the Chinese Government to report behaviors, to
report people who are their colleagues, students, are you
saying bad things about China? Are you supporting Taiwan? There
are considerable pressures being brought to bear on those
individuals. So in some sense, we want to help them deal with
that. But ultimately, it's the Chinese Communist Party that is
the villain here, not the Federal Government trying to protect
our capabilities, as you say, to make sure that we become and
remain a global leader.
Mr. McCormick. Right. And with that, I have about 24
seconds. I'm supposing that nobody has the monetary policy
acumen to answer what we're doing to address the
inconsistencies of the Chinese central banking system and its
advantages over us.
Ms. Wince-Smith. I'll just add another topic for a future
time is how they're doing debt financing of infrastructure all
over the world and what that means, too.
Mr. McCormick. Exactly related. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
My name is Eric Sorensen. I was born and raised in Rockford,
Illinois, and attended Northern Illinois University, where I
studied communications and meteorology. I served my communities
as a meteorologist from 1999 to 2021. My job was to help my
community by sharing the best information about upcoming severe
weather and our changing climate. When people have access to
accurate weather forecasts and climate data, we know that they
make good decisions about their personal safety and about their
own future. So I want to extend a special welcome to my fellow
meteorologist on the panel, Dr. Droegemeier, for being here.
And I do want to very quickly thank my colleagues in Oklahoma
for safely keeping people ahead of the storms in the past 24 to
36 hours. They saved lives, and that's the power of
meteorology.
I'm thrilled to join not only this Committee, but become
the first meteorologist in Congress in nearly half a century.
Today, I would like to focus on the structure of the U.S.
approach to science and technology, how our approach really
differs from that of other countries, including China, and how
we can use these differences to our advantage.
So I'll start with our meteorologist, esteemed Dr.
Droegemeier. Research institutions at our Nation's universities
like in my district, Monmouth College and Augustana College,
provide critical S&T research, much does OU. This type of
research is often built upon the private industry developing
these new advanced technologies and investments. The private
industries building on the advanced technology often develop in
geographical proximity to the university that developed the
basic technology. This relationship benefits the community and
the economy around the university.
So my question, how do we ensure that private companies
that utilize the freeform nature of S&T R&D located around the
producing university, thus giving back to the community that
produced the technology?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you so much for your good
question and for your kind remarks there. We do a lot of this
at OU. In fact, we have companies locating on our campus. And
how do you incentivize them to stay there? And a lot of times
they'll develop--I started a private company and it got
purchased, but it's still, you know, in Norman. I think the key
thing is to make sure you lower the barrier to entry to
interact with the university in terms of if they're on the
campus, you provide space for them at rates that do not
undercut what they could get in the community but in fact are
commensurate. But the value of being there is perhaps sort of
comarketing of being able to go to seminars, getting access to
students, having students work in your company, and so on. As
you're developing the technology, the university kind of
becomes your R&D arm.
So if you're a small business, you don't have an R&D
component, your company will, hey, the university could do
that. And it doesn't necessarily require you to have a funded
research relationship with the university. It might be that
you're serving on a graduate student's committee and you
deconflict yourself, you don't have a conflict of interest, but
you're providing a private-sector perspective on the work that
they're doing. And you might involve them doing an internship
in your company for maybe not a lot of money, but all of a
sudden, then you're able to hire them, because you've vetted
them. You know exactly their capabilities. You've developed
their capabilities. Now, all of a sudden, they're your
employee, and so you've not made a huge investment in them.
You've reaped the benefits of being at the university.
That's, I think, the power of the local economic
development. I think the key thing is to have the university
not see itself in competition with the local economic
development authorities. You want to have a partnership to
where we say the university plays an important role. The
Chamber of Commerce plays an important role. A lot of times
there's economic development organizations that play a role. We
at--in Oklahoma in Norman, we have a triumvirate of those
things, and they all work together. If somebody comes to the
campus, great. If they don't come to campus, great. If they're
in Norman or they're nearby, we call that a win. So it's about,
I think, being a good partner in this and not wanting to have
everything for yourself but growing with the community in mind,
as you say.
Mr. Sorensen. My district consists of rural parts of
western Illinois, smaller suburban areas. We know that smaller
universities tend to attract much less funding. We have to make
sure that more funding gets to smaller schools. What policies
can Congress install to ensure that a diverse set of
universities get their funding, their piece of that funding
pie? I'll give this to anyone.
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, I'll just tell you one thing that
NSF is doing, it's got a new program called GRANTED, it stands
for, if I get this right, Growing Research Access for
Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity. And the idea
basically is to say that small universities, small colleges,
they they have the capability to compete in terms of personnel,
but they don't have the administrative structures to manage
grants, to do proposal submissions, to meet all the compliance
rules and regulations. So the idea is that if we as a Federal
Government could invest in that capability through helping
build partnerships with other institutions, then we empower
them to unleash the capabilities of their faculty without
putting them in jeopardy of getting an audit report on a grant
that they somehow mismanaged without any ill intent. But they
simply didn't have the people who knew what they were doing,
and they weren't used to doing it. They didn't have a history.
So that kind of program, which is not super expensive, it's
leveraging the existing capabilities at R1 and R2 schools to
build an ecosystem of partnerships of administering grant
proposals and grant awards once they're funded. That will
really empower a lot of institutions.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. I'm out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. We now recognize the gentlelady from New York,
Ms. Tenney.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Issa and the Ranking
Member, for holding this important meeting on U.S.-China
competitiveness, and thank you to the witnesses for your time
and insight, looking forward to hearing from you.
New York's new 24th congressional District has a history as
the home to the Erie Canal, which is one of the first regions
in our country to enter and successfully prosper during the
Industrial Revolution. However, unfortunately, in upstate New
York, and it's particular in my region along the canal, we've
suffered tremendously as we've allowed China to flood our
markets with cheap, subsidized products. We've lost jobs, we've
lost companies. So many have been displaced, so many iconic
names that people would recognize such as Oneida, such as IBM
and other big contributors.
But over the last few decades, the rise of the malign
influence of the Chinese Communist Party harmed Americans as it
was--it stated--its State-sponsored espionage efforts have
stolen American intellectual property. I believe it's over $600
billion now on an annual basis. And its unfair trade tactics
have driven American industries out of business. Additionally,
China continues to spread its greater economic position to
spread its techno-authoritarian model abroad, all across the
world actually.
While the Federal Government invests heavily in research
and development, private businesses must roughly invest three
times as much annually into research and development. To stay
at the forefront of new emerging industries, the Federal
Government must ensure its effort complements those in the
private sector and not hurts them. This can be achieved through
rewarding organizations with a good track record of
successfully commercializing technologies, and through proven
policies, including the R&D tax credit.
I want to first direct my first question to Ms. Wince-
Smith. So in your testimony that was was given, you discussed
the troubling concentration of science and technology
investments in coastal hubs like Silicon Valley. This leaves
large swaths of our country and important industries such as
manufacturing without access to the capital they need to
innovate and thrive, particularly where I am from. So my first
question for you is, from your perspective, how can we leverage
the national science and technology plan to geographically
diversify investments in science and technology and bring them
to our rural regions, particularly upstate New York, which gets
often forgotten between Buffalo and New York City.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you, Congresswoman. Well, we've had
some discussion on that. And I know your region very well. And
one thing I would say is the extent to which in our large-scale
partnerships that we have funded by NSF, Department of Energy,
we might think of having some kind of a provision where we're
talking about diversity, equity, and inclusion of people and
talent, but we ought to think of that also geographically so
that every big project would also reach out and include an
institution from a different part of the country that would
have some compatible resources.
I'll give you another example. And Dr. Budil could really
talk to this better than I. But I know when Kodak had its
difficulties----
Ms. Tenney. Um-hum.
Ms. Wince-Smith [continuing]. In Rochester, the whole
optics workforce they had, the best in the world, many of those
people came to Livermore to build NIF. So the mobility we have
of people is one thing, but at the end of the day, it's really
creating the environment for companies that want to come and
invest there and also grow. I mean, I know Micron just has a
new facility in New York that they've come in. And maybe also,
you know, the old idea of incentives, tax breaks and things is
a little outdated, but there are other types of incentives that
states and regions can can give for locating in their
facilities and the trained talent used for that.
Ms. Tenney. But wouldn't you agree that incentives would be
better than having sort of mandates and set-asides and----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Oh, yes. Yes.
Ms. Tenney. Because you got me concerned when you mentioned
DEI and the fact that we have a State that's very hostile to
businesses and incentivizing. That's why we don't have Kodak,
Bausch and Lomb, Xerox, all those--all from the Rochester
region, you know, have left for better tax treatment, better
opportunities, and access to capital actually.
So let me ask you, so you--in your ``Competing in the Next
Economy'' report, you talk about the importance of breathing
life in declining U.S. regional economies by stemming the brain
drain, injecting high skills, and raising innovation potential.
Can you tell me specifically not including a DEI-type scenario
that you would--how do you address those in our rural
communities? We have wonderful people who work--farmers, people
who've been displaced because of the growing difficulty in, you
know, for example, farming in upstate New York, even though my
district is the No. 1 dairy and egg district in the entire
Northeast, but we need help. How would you do that in----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well, I first want to clarify, when I was
talking about diversity, equity, inclusion, I was specifically
meaning geographical and regional, that we have all regions of
the country included, and there are ways, you know, to do that.
In terms of the work of the Council on Competitiveness,
what we're going to be doing is anchoring a lot of this with
universities in the regions, community colleges, 4-year college
and on, and have them be kind of the anchor and helping to
develop this with workforce boards and economic development
agencies and also identify the leadership networks in these
regions. You know, there's a lot of wealth still in that part
of New York. Are they investing? Are they supporting startups
and things? So we're going to look at these--I mean, there's a
lot of knowledge to learn because we--nobody has the recipe for
this yet. If we did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But it's an imperative.
Ms. Tenney. If I may, for 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, we have--
--
Mr. Issa. Very, very quickly.
Ms. Tenney. We do have the highest taxes in the Nation, not
California anymore, so that's a big problem, which is why I do
support the tax incentives, especially in places like New York
where there really is no place to get relief other than the
Federal side. But we appreciate your comments. I acknowledge my
time's run out. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now recognize the gentlelady from
North Carolina, Mrs. Foushee.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here today. This topic is particularly relevant to
North Carolina's 4th Congressional District, which is home to
several federally funded research centers and projects,
including the Triangle University's Nuclear Laboratory, the
North Carolina Biotechnology Center, North Carolina Central
University's Biomanufacturing Research Institute and Technology
Enterprise known as BRITE, and the UNC (University of North
Carolina) Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety, just
to name a few, and additionally, our world-class research
universities and the Research Triangle Park, a premier global
innovation center and the Nation's largest research park, home
to nearly 400 companies and over 60,000 employees. So I am
particularly encouraged by the promise that our region holds
for innovation and in enhancing our Nation's global
competitiveness in science and technology.
Today, I would like to talk with you about how we can
leverage our Nation's regional strengths, given our success so
far throughout North Carolina, as an example of what can be
achieved when we bring together local and State governments
with corporate, nonprofit, and university partners.
So my first question is for Dr. Droegemeier and Ms. Wince-
Smith. In your provided testimonies, you mentioned the
importance of regional innovation and partnerships, a key
component included in the CHIPS and Science Act. And I'm
wondering if you can briefly highlight the opportunities and
some possible challenges facing regional innovation.
Dr. Droegemeier. You've said it so beautifully in terms of
the importance of regional partnerships and with Research
Triangle Park and Research Triangle Institute and the
extraordinary resources you have there, still, North Carolina
is a rural State, right, and there's a lot of folks in North
Carolina that need to be brought brought to the table.
Partnerships take a lot of different forms, and the reason
you do partnerships is really because you need help in doing
something that you can't do on your own, frankly. And there's
probably another reason where you say you want to lift up
others who basically have been disadvantaged for a variety of
reasons or whatever.
When I was at the White House, I realized through a variety
of meetings we had that, although a lot of Federal agencies
have partnership offices, we don't really do partnerships very
well, and people were realizing, oh, we could do much better. I
think that's true for universities, it's true for basically all
the sort of key players in a state, that they have their own
swim lanes, as Deborah said earlier, but the economic
development folks don't talk to the workforce development
folks. And it seems so surprising and so simple. But getting
them together and looking at the broad plan is really the key
thing.
And I think what the National S&T Strategy provides an
opportunity to do is to have that conversation and confront the
difficult challenge that we have of not knowing what all we
have and not knowing who's not talking to who. And it's not
really the government's job to do the work. It's the
government's job to bring the people together. And frankly, I
think the private sector is better positioned than the
government to structure those--I'm not saying in terms of OSTP,
but I'm saying in terms of having software and capabilities to
bring people together, to find these creative differences, to
find the folks that aren't in the game, to how do we get them
to the table. That really is the key in my view of building
these partnerships and creating the broader community that will
uplift the rural communities that have so much to offer but
they're just not in the game now because they don't have the
resources. And that's what this plan, if we do it right, I
think will give us the roadmap for how to do it. And I know
Deborah, I'm sure, has some thoughts.
Ms. Wince-Smith. I would just add, Congresswoman, that
North Carolina is a poster child of success. And many parts of
the country look at North Carolina how--you know, that whole
Research Triangle Park, the great universities, the economy
developed.
And one thing also on the leadership issue, were very
inspired active Governors. I remember some years ago working
with Governor Hunt, and that was kind of his focus. And another
example going on right now is in Tennessee where the Governor
is working very, very closely with Oak Ridge National Lab, with
both--all the universities, including the smaller ones and
community colleges, and the new companies that are beginning to
look at that area as a center place for battery manufacturing
in the EV (electric vehicle) revolution.
Mr. Issa. Yield back?
Mrs. Foushee. I do.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have hopefully very short questions. Dr. Budil in
particular, I look forward to supporting you in your fusion
work, near and dear to my heart. Just one question, though. Is
there any public investment that you believe would yield fusion
on the grid by 2032 in the time--in a 10-year timeframe?
Dr. Budil. Thank you for your support, and thank you for
the question. It really is true that the sort of X axis, how
long till fusion energy on the grid is a function of
investment, that's public investment as well as private
investment, and which technology path you pursue. So there are
significant efforts on magnetic fusion and growing efforts in
inertial confinement fusion energy approaches today. It's a
little bit early days for us to say whether there's a plan that
will get you there in 10 years, but it's certainly true that
the level of investment would need to be significantly larger
to galvanize that kind of effort. There's a lot of intellectual
capital that's interested in pursuing this. Students are really
energized by fusion prospects. There's a lot of private capital
on the table. And unfortunately, the investment in fusion
energy demonstration is still early days.
Mr. Williams. Should we be making policy decisions about
our energy mix, anticipating, expecting, planning, and
depending on fusion on the grid by 2032?
Dr. Budil. I think you always have to plan for the future
energy mix with what we would characterize as an uncertainty
band because there are a whole host of technologies that could
contribute that are varying degrees of maturity. And so I
would--certainly wouldn't put all my eggs in any one basket.
There are technologies that are mature today that can
contribute to a sustainable energy mix in 10 years, and there
are nascent technologies like fusion that have the potential,
although the next few years will be critical to determine what
that timeline really looks like. So I'm a fan of all of the
above, really trying to think about all the tools we have in
our toolkit to ensure the U.S. has a sustainable, economically
viable energy sector.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Ms. Wince-Smith, you mentioned
dual-use technologies. Do you mind clarifying, if you were to
provide a definition of dual use, what comes to your mind?
Ms. Wince-Smith. From the very inception, they have both
commercial and military applications. And increasingly, all the
technologies we've been talking about in this hearing that are
reshaping the world have that. You know, Putin said some years
ago, whoever controls and leads in AI will control the world.
She has given the list of these. And, you know, you see--I
mean, I should mention this example. You know, we've talked
about university research and the Chinese. One of the major
universities in Australia, one of the centers of quantum work
had four Chinese researchers who all turned out to be from the
PLA (People's Liberation Army)----
Mr. Williams. If I may, I just----
Ms. Wince-Smith [continuing]. Who has a serious issue on
dual use.
Mr. Williams. I'll be advancing a letter to other Members
to prioritize DOE spending in research in particular for dual-
use technologies. We have to meet our civilian commitments, but
there's things like uranium enrichment, tritium production upon
which fusion relies that also have military use, and so that--
we should prioritize those. Thank you.
Dr. Kelvin, just because that's easier to pronounce, I
apologize. So my mother went to OU for a year, and my uncle
was--got his Ph.D. there in civil engineering and was a
professor there in Norman, you know, years ago. There's a few
things in your comments--in your opening comments. Do you think
we need a 20-year plan similar to China's for our national
technology policy?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, I think that the 4-year timeline for
the S&T Strategy is good. Four, 5 years seems right. I don't
know that I'd call it a 25-year plan or 20-year plan, but I'd
say we need a 25-year lookahead or a 20-year lookahead within--
to set the context for that 5-year plan.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Should government direct industry
involvement like China--sorry, industry investment like China?
Should our government be having the same kind of heavy hand
that China has in directing investment?
Dr. Droegemeier. No, I don't believe so.
Mr. Williams. Would you say that our American system is
inherently uncompetitive relative to the Chinese model?
Dr. Droegemeier. For me?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Dr. Droegemeier. No, I would say it's highly competitive
because of our freedoms to create and so on. As we heard
earlier, China does most of its work in applied R&D, and
they're basically reaping the benefits of our investments in
fundamental research. They're improving their fundamental
research, but that's really the seed corn of everything that
follows. So I think we're very innovative. I think we're very
competitive, but we have to maintain our competitive position.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now recognize the gentlelady from
Colorado, Ms. Caraveo.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Bonamici, for today's hearing, my first Science Committee
hearing ever, and it looks like I might be closing it out. To
our panel of witnesses, thank you so much for joining us.
You know, our science agencies do a wonderful job of
partnering with academic scientists to generate scientific
discoveries and, importantly, to help train the next generation
of STEM students. In my district, for example, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology has a partnership with
the University of Colorado at Boulder that places
undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers
in Federal labs to gain important hands-on experience alongside
NIST scientists. I know that the CHIPS and Science Act help
broaden opportunities such as these at many of our science
agencies, but I think that there's still more that we can do.
So Dr. Budil, can you talk about your experiences with
university partnerships at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and
the importance of partnerships between national labs and
universities to expand STEM opportunities?
Dr. Budil. Yes, thank you very much for the question. Our
partnerships with academic institutions are essential. They
really are the lifeblood of our laboratory. And they bring new
ideas, new people, new energy, new enthusiasm into our
environment every day. And I would say I think about
partnerships with universities across the full spectrum. So we
work with community college partners, we work with 4-year
universities, we work with large R1 universities, we work
locally, and we work across the U.S. with a wide variety of
institutions, institutions that have specific skills and focus
disciplinary research in areas that are really important to us.
So we try to do several things in those partnerships. We
try to build enduring relationships with faculty members who
have important expertise or research lines. We teach them about
our work. We give them access to our facilities. We work in
close partnership with them, so it's not a one-and-done
transactional, send me your student, and--those research
partnerships really keep that connective tissue alive between
us and these many institutions.
And then we work to bring a wide variety of students across
many disciplines into our environment, both on an enduring
basis--we have many students who do, for example, their Ph.D.
research at the laboratory. But large-scale summer programs are
particularly important where students get to come and spend
several months, as you said, working in a real laboratory or
with real computational specialists and understanding what it
means to be a scientist.
We also do outreach at earlier ages to really introduce
younger students, high school age and younger, to what science
looks like and how much fun science is. And I really do love
seeing my early career staff in particular go out into these
institutions and the joy they bring, the commitment they have
to our important missions and the research that we do, but the
gift it is to be able to work in these disciplines really
advancing the state-of-the-art. So university partnerships are
foundational to everything we do.
Ms. Caraveo. Yes, coming from medicine, I know how
important it is for workforce development to have hands-on
experience, so thank you very much for those programs that you
run.
Dr. Droegemeier, in your testimony, you discuss the need to
coordinate workforce development on a national scale. What
opportunities do you think exist to leverage Federal labs and
university partnerships to get more STEM-capable students into
the workforce? And how can the National Science and Technology
Strategy leverage these partnerships?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you so much for the question.
I think it's absolutely vital because those are existing like
the 17 DOE national labs, which are absolutely our crown jewel,
and all the NOAA laboratories and NIST laboratories that you
have in Boulder, they are exceptionally capable. They have
wonderful people, researchers, so on. We need to leverage what
we already have. And when we do that, we're actually getting a
one-plus-one-equals-five kind of proposition versus building a
lot of new stuff. By linking existing, quote, stuff together,
we can get a--really a multiplicative factor.
And if I can come back to the point that Dr. Budil made--
and you're a health person--in Boulder and also in Oklahoma,
what we did was we took a page out of the playbook of medicine.
We said if you bring together operational people, you bring
together research and education like the teaching hospital
concept, you've got all three together to leverage one another.
You've got Federal operations folks, you've got Federal
researchers, you got academic researchers, you got the
education piece. It works well in the teaching hospital, and
Boulder did that and we did it and it works well. Now, it's--
you know, it's not replicable everywhere because there aren't
necessarily Federal operations, but there is a lot of them out
there. And if you think of that model as being another model
for partnerships, it's something we could really leverage in
the S&T strategy.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you both so much. I yield back my time.
Mr. Williams [presiding]. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Kean for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being here today and helping educate us on the issues
facing this country and this Committee.
I come from the 7th Congressional District in New Jersey. I
would argue it's the most innovative district in the country
between life sciences, information technology, manufacturing,
many other thought leaders. Many other countries, Ms. Wince-
Smith, have introduced more tax and other incentive policies,
including modeling their technology transfer policies after
those in the United States. How important is it that we
continue to foster continued public-private partnerships? And
what are some of the areas where the United States leads the
world and that we cannot afford to lose?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
I think our public-private partnerships are absolutely
essential. And I think it also goes to the character of our
Nation that we have always been a people that sees
opportunities by working outside of our comfort zone, as it
were. We've seen that since we were pioneers in coming to this
country, so it's essential. And, quite frankly, our technology
transfer legislation that goes back to the 1980s and the Bayh-
Dole, and all--those acts, and they're regulatory acts that
were implemented by Congress, have played a huge role in
helping us to commercialize technology with the private sector.
And I will say in my work, countries around the world are
always coming and wanting to study, how do you do these
partnerships? They know about them, but they really don't know
the secret sauce of what goes into it. And I think we've all
been talking about that during the day.
So I think it's very exciting, yes, with limited resources
but huge opportunities, that we leverage them because we're not
going to get ahead and advance semiconductors beyond Moore's
law or the battery futures, the biotech, the frontiers, you
know, in your State without these public-private partnerships
that involve business, academia, our national labs, and our
workforce, including labor. So they are absolutely essential.
Mr. Kean. And I agree with you in that regard in the State,
and then there's Federal policy in both areas to create--so
really the creative ecosystem for that. But what should we be
doing to improve those relationships?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well, I think one of the ways to improve
those relationships is always to understand the transparency
that's involved in them and also that the partners have
sometimes different priorities and different time horizons. You
know, an academic researcher has a much longer timeframe work
than someone working at a national lab that has a development
component and a mission. And then of course, business, they
really are operating under, you know, quarterly earnings,
investors who say if you don't have your product out there,
we're finished with you. So how you meld all those together to
advance is not trivial, and that's a challenge, I think, to
continue to work on.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you to you and to the panel. I
yield back my time.
Mr. Williams. You know, a change in the geopolitical
picture in just the last 30 days has really transformed the
importance and significance of your expertise and testimony.
And the--not only the questioning but the answers that you
provided could in fact have historical importance in the years
and decades to come. So I really want to thank each one of you
for your exceptional expertise and contribution. It's
personally near and dear to me. I've spent much of the last 18
years in innovation working with tech transfer offices in my
career in the nuclear Navy, which was very short. But it's--I
really do value and appreciate all your different perspectives.
So I thank you for your time. I thank also my colleagues
and Members for their questions. The record will remain open
for 10 days for additional written comments and written
questions from Members. And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Kim Budil
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Klon Kitchen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]