Measuring What Matters: Science, Standards, and Strategic Competition

Good morning, everyone. I wanna thank ranking member Baldwin, Chairman Cruz, and ranking member Cantwell for helping to convene this important hearing. For two hundred and fifty years, the American economy has told a single consistent story, one of relentless innovation and bold risk-taking, and an unmatched ability to turn ideas into industries. The secret sauce in that formula for continued growth and expanded American prosperity is innovation. Throughout our history, particularly since the Ur- the the end of World War Two, the US has been the world's foremost laboratory for fundamental science. And we lead the world in turning that research into revolutionary inventions and commercial products. As our expert witnesses will discuss, the Vannevar Bush model of the federal government, uh, funding basic research through universities and research institutions has served our nation incredibly well. However, we have never faced as fierce a competition as we do today. Earlier this year, China approved its fifteenth fifteenth five-year plan for national economic and social development. According to a recent congressional research service report, the PRC's goal is to build self-reliance in areas it currently relies on the United States and Europe for by boosting advanced manufacturing with decisive breakthroughs in advanced materials equipment machine tools and high-end instruments, and industrial applications of artificial intelligence and robotics. It also calls for building PRC leadership in strategic and emerging sectors and making other decisive breakthroughs in core areas such as biotechnology, semiconductors and software. But don't be confused. The PRC's plan is not just about self-reliance. It's an economic and strategic framework for identifying critical supply chains and industries, then systematically stealing intellectual property, heavily subsidizing manufacturing, and eventually dumping products designed to ensure that other countries cannot compete at scale. We've seen this across multiple strategic industries, and the breadth and pace is only increasing. The PRC has joined the US as the only other country to spend more than a trillion dollars annually on research and development. By twenty twenty four, the PRC accounted for thirty percent of global research and development flows, while the US share had declined from thirty nine percent at the start of the twenty first s- first century down to twenty nine percent. We must be clear-eyed about the competition that we face, and this committee can play a significant role by setting the metrics by which we define scientific success and place the federal research enterprise on stronger footing. First, we need to better prioritize outcome-based metrics as a gauge of impact and competitiveness. Influencing international standards, leading high-impact research, and measuring technology adoption and diffusion are paramount. Additionally, evaluating the strength of public-private partnerships, and instances of industry-funding university research could signal which lines of applied research are most valuable in making the greatest impact. Second, this committee should look at ways to streamline, focus, and improve agencies under its jurisdiction, like the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation. Doctor Coppon, during your time at as NIST Director, you authored an important white paper titled "Return on Investment Initiative for Unleashing American Innovation", which recommended improving tech transfer, strengthening R and D partnerships with the private sector, and improving access to federal R and D assets for businesses. Given the PRC's significant focus on standards development, I look forward to discussing ways in which NIST's world-class talent in meteorology can be better targeted to enhance U S competitiveness in emerging technologies. Finally, this committee should look carefully at Chinese scientific and intellectual property theft which significantly undermines American economic dominance and national security I firmly believe that the U S is well positioned to continue to lead the world in the amazing discoveries and breakthroughs that inspire countless young men and women to engage in the science, to engage in science and build the technologies and companies that shape the future. However, we are at a critical inflection point if we wanna maintain and improve that lead. We can help secure that leadership by rethinking the metrics by which we determine success, stringlining our world-class science agencies, and looking for ways to further partner with the private sector on shared applied research priorities. Like to rank recognize ranking member Baldwin to deliver opening remarks. Thank you for joining me.

Hey. Thank you, Chairman Budd, for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses today for being here. Um, Chairman uh, Budd and I share a commitment to ensuring America's global leadership in science and in innovation. The Trump administration says it shares that goal, but actions across the federal government tell a very different story. Rather than strengthening Americans' re- America's research, enterprise to stay competitive and make lifesaving breakthroughs. At every turn, this administration has undermined institutions that make our scientific leadership possible. The broader context matters for today's hearing. President Trump terminated or froze over three billion dollars in grants between the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He has continued to illegally pursue efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. He has targeted some of our nation's leading research institutions through litigation. He revoked over two hundred million dollars in previously approved Tech Hub funding. And most recently, he proposed a rule that would empower the administration to weaponize federal grants for political purposes. He also fired every member of the National Science Board, which is charged with key congressional and oversight roles, including directing key scienti- or key strategic decisions for NSF's future. Scientific leadership is not inevitable. It is built through sustained public investment and long-term national commitment. It takes funding basic research, even when the payoff may be years away. It takes educating and inspiring the next generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators. It takes equipping our national laboratories and research institutions with cutting-edge technology and tools they need to succeed. If we want to ensure that America is a global leader in scientific and technological advancements we cannot continue to let this administration continue down this path. Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to stand up to this administration when it undercuts science in such a dramatic way. We write the federal budget. We should be strengthening, not dismantling, public education, research institutions, and our national laboratories. We should be expanding and not cutting the investments that fuel discovery, drive economic growth, and keep America ahead of our competitors. That is how we win the future. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Alright, thank you. I'd like to introduce our witnesses for today. Our first witness is Walter Copon, Vice President Emeritus for Research and Technology Transfer at the Colorado School of Mines. He's also a senior advisor and co-founder of Renewing American Innovation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Under the first Trump administration, Doctor Copon served under as Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the sixteenth Director of NIST. Our second witness is Doctor Drew Endy, Director of Biostrategy and Leadership at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Doctor Endy has extensive experience in biosecurity and currently serves as the Defense Science Board's Emerging Biotechnology and National Security Task Force. Our third witness is Robert Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Doctor Atkinson previously worked as Vice President of the Progressive Poli Policy Institute and directed technology projects at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Our final witness is Julia Phillips. Doctor Phillips is a science policy advocate. She spent twenty years at Sandia National Laboratories, where she led research strategy as Vice President and Chief Technology Officer. Uh, Doctor Karpon, you are recognized for five minutes, if you would pull that microphone up close and make sure the talk button's on.

Chairman Budd, thank you. Ranking Member Baldwin, members of the committee, and distinguished participants, thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important topics today. I serve as Senior Advisor with CSIS, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as mentioned, and, uh, also as the Under-Secretary and Director of NIST. I was part of two of the Department of Energy national labs, and, uh, my experience spans both government as well as academia, in addition, industry, multiple start-ups, and the non-profit sector as an executive, entrepreneur and investor. China is both a formidable strategic competitor and our major trading partner. We are in a real global contest for technological leadership, and the measurements that matter show clearly that the United States must raise its game. Success requires both immediate action to strengthen our research enterprise and a long-term vision for technological dominance. By design, the Senate is built to focus on the long game. This committee has a unique opportunity and a responsibility to leverage that perspective placing the US on a generational trajectory to retake and maintain global leadership. Consider, for example, the simple change of having key science agency leaders confirmed for six year terms for strategic continuity. Two decades ago, the United States was a clear global leader in science, technology and innovation. Today, by many internationally recognized measures, China has overtaken US leadership in fifty-seven of sixty-four critical technology fields including base and production technologies and has surpassed the United States in total R and D investment. China should no longer be viewed only through the lens of intellectual property theft it has become a major technological force with modern infrastructure and a capable science engineering and manufacturing workforce. China now leads the world in highly cited top-tier research publications and international priority patent families across critical technologies, including biotechnology, quantum information science and technology, robotics, semiconductors and artificial intelligence. It has strengthened its own IP system and the protections to counter areas where the United States leads, while substantially increasing its influence in international standards. Meanwhile, the United States has allowed the strength and enforceability of our intellectual property protections to decline, weakening the global value of American innova- inventions. Measuring strategic advantage requires more than counting publications, patents, workforce, or dollars spent. It requires an ecosystem view. Considering the fundamentals and enablers of strategic competitiveness, research and innovation capacity, manufacturing capability, capital, workforce, standards leadership, trusted supply chains, and enforceable IP rights. The CSIS Tech Edge analysis integrates these factors, showing US leadership advantages continue in stack and precision technologies. Achieving the technological dexterity to build ecosystem strengths across multiple technology domains is a strategic national imperative. Public R and D is indeed our great engine of productivity, start-up formation, and national competitiveness. But recent disruptions and self-inflicted wounds have slowed our research enterprise, and weakened American capacity, while our competition is increasingly strong in running this accelerating race. To translate invention into impact, preserving the integrity of the Bayh-Dole Act is essential. We s- we must modern Stevenson Weidler, learning from the NIST green paper to unleash American innovation, and to finally implement the return on investment legislative proposal for effectiveness speed and productivity in R and D collaborations. Our security depends on the reliability and effectiveness of our R and D intellectual property standards manufacturing and innovation ecosystems. We have much work to do in education, preparing leaders at all levels for building domestic workforce, and also at uh continuing to attract and retain talent globally to strengthen our innovation economy. We must enforce the rights of American innovators both here and around the world, incentivize particip- participation in standards development, and invest strategically to enable new manufacturing innovation and production capabilities. International scientific collaboration with both trusted partners and our competitors is a vital strategic asset. It accelerates discovery, expands our talent pool, secures critical supply chains, and projects American leadership. To defend our interests, engagement in global standards in metrology to support trade must be open, fair, and strategically sustained. Navigating intense competition, we must also recognize the profound strategic threat of allowing the rest of the world to dictate global technical standards. Finally, we must make the US innovation system ever more agile, faster reducing administrative burdens modernizing law and practice and removing barriers to encourage investment we must defend our innovators at home and abroad against mercantile and malign threats thank you for this committee's important work to secure us science technology and innovation leadership for a our economic and national security I look forward to your questions

thank you doctor Cobain doctor Inde you're recognized for five minutes

thank you chairman Budd ranking member Baldwin Baldwin members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to testify. I teach and research bioengineering at Stanford. I also direct the bio-strategy and leadership initiative at the Hoover Institution. Um, I've co-founded companies that build DNA. My wife has left academia to start a company that brews the ingredients going into Narcan and other essential medicines. Um, I want to acknowledge the work of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, chaired by Senator Young. The commission's work is the best work I've seen in this town on biotechnology. Um, I want to emphasize the commission's most recent finding. The recommendations from the commission have been read by Beijing, and are being implemented by Beijing. Um, which brings us to this hearing. Chairman Budd, thank you again for your framing of the topic. Most topics on competition ask questions like who's in the lead? But you're asking a more important question, how would we know? And so that brings us to measuring what matters. Let me tell you a story about being in Paris last fall for the genetic engineering Olympics I started at MIT over twenty years ago five thousand twenty year olds from all over the world, most now from China, and I found a young gentleman, a twenty year old from Shanghai, dressed up like a crawfish, this big red costume. I said, " What are you doing?" He says, " Well, I'm working on engineering enzymes, bioengineering enzymes to degrade the material in crawfish shells so you could repurpose those materials to make new things, like clothing and shielding and stuff like that. I'm like, why? He says, because someday there's gonna be Chinese astronauts on Mars. And when they're on Mars, they're gonna need to have a spicy crawfish soup for lunch. And I wanna make sure there's a closed-loop crawfish bioeconomy and material manufacturing economy on Mars, because it's gonna be really important that they have that spicy crawfish soup for lunch so that they remember that they're Chinese. on the red planet. That's what we're competing with. The vibe. The vibe is good in Beijing. How do we measure that? Biology is not like other technologies. Imagine if you could somehow feed your cell phone sand, and it would get bigger and bigger and bigger and divide, and then you'd have two cell phones. Like that's what biology does on the regular. That means we don't really know how to measure biology like we know how to measure other forms of emerging technology. Let me give you an example, more specific. Who's the best in the world at building DNA? DNA is the molecule that encodes all of life, and it's probably the industrial polymer of the twenty-first century. Who is the best in the world at building DNA? Nobody in the United States government knows. Not NIST, not the National Science Foundation, not the Department of Energy, nobody I know in intelligence. Huh. We could answer these questions um if we did something about it. If you think about the basic sciences in high school, there's physics, and there's chemistry, and there's biology. Those are the big ones. And if we think about NIST, NIST has the physical measurement laboratory for physics. where you get the kilogram and the meter and the second right. And NIST has the material measurement laboratory for chemistry and a little bit of biology. But it doesn't have a bio-measurement laboratory yet. Gosh, we could really use one. There's many things that Congress could do. But getting a bio-measurement laboratory at NIST is, I think, one of the high leverage things that would let us measure what matters and get ourselves in a good position for competing. Don't take my word for it on that one. Your US-China commission last year made getting a biomeasurement laboratory and that's their number four most urgent recommendation. So it's not just me. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Doctor Indy. Uh, Doctor Atkinson, you are recognized, and thank you for wearing some Carolina blue on your necktie.

Even if I'm a, even if I'm a Carolina blue, I'm still a good person. Uh, thank you, Chairman Budd and Ranking Member Baldwin, members of the committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing. Uh, I I'm gonna try to maybe push the envelope a little bit, because the the normal debate on science is more money or less money. That's the debate. And while I'm on the side of more, I also think it's time for a fundamental change in the US research system. We need to abandon the dominant paradigm of investor-led, in- investigator-led basic research that's been in place since world war two that model worked great when the us was dominant in nineteen sixty two the united states government invested more in r and d than the rest of the world combined business and government that's one of the reasons why we're dominant today but that world no longer exists china invests more in r and d than we do government uh overall um and we now have an aggressive and capable competitor who can absorb our knowledge. That's their, one of their core business models is to absorb our knowledge. As Cher- as Chairman Bud said, some of it's by IP theft, some of it's just going to conferences, reading, reading what we do. And they can turn that basic research or fundamental research into discoveries. And that lets them turn it into competitive products. So, yes, we need more money, but we also need a new system. So what is the current system? Uh, there's multiple factors, but basically let me say four. One is there should be no strings attached. Just give the academic researchers money. Um, basic research is more imp- important than applied. Uh, all disciplines are equal. So we're, we shouldn't pick among disciplines, and science should be global. That worked in the past, but it doesn't work now. Uh, there are more important, there are disciplines that are more important. Science cannot be global in the, in the same way, cuz we're now we're facing a core uh, competitor. And I think there do have to be strings in the sense of we should be looking for certain types of outcomes and accomplishments from our science funding, not just saying, well, we hope something happens. Why is that so important? As Chairman Bud, you mentioned a CRS report on uh that China seeks uh technological um independence, and you rightly noted it's more than that. If that's all it was, that's not good, but it's not fundamental. They're seeking technological dominance, in my view, at ITISU. They're seeking to replace our advanced companies with theirs in the most advanced industries. As Xi Jinping stated, technolo quote, " technological innovation has become the main battleground of the global playing field, and competition for tech dominance will grow unprecedentedly fierce." Note the word " battlefield" and " dominance". He's signaling what he wants, right there. i think the evidence now is pretty clear that the chinese are at least on par with us uh they have three million researchers we have one point seven they had fifty eight thousand articles in high quality natural science and health science journals we had thirty six thousand most interestingly according to nature the new study uh on the top twenty five research universities globally i bet if i asked anybody in this room how many does the us have maybe twelve fifteen Um, we have three. Stanford is on the list, but not at the top. The Chinese have twenty-one of the top twenty-five research universities globally. And if you did a inverse scoring, or the top gets more, they are six times ahead of us. So, what do we need to do? I would argue, number one, we need to shift more funding towards applied research. And I don't mean development, I don't mean things companies are doing, but, and what's called the TRL, the technology readiness level. Move it up one or two. from one and two to three and four target funding to national economic power industries this is what the chips and science act did it said there's ten key technologies that are important to our future great let's do that um nsf and other agencies need to take more seriously the national competitiveness component of what they call the broader impacts assessments you show these other impacts look reality is competitiveness is not taken seriously it's it's a check mark it's not taken seriously Um, I think also another key area is you you mentioned metrics. One of the metrics to me is is industry co-funding research. I mentioned in my testimony that North Carolina leads the leads the country in that uh in terms of industry funding of universities at North Carolina you got NC State, you got Duke, Wake Forest, others. That's fantastic. The we the evidence of that is so clear that you get more start-ups, more spin-offs, more commercialization for the country. So I think one of the things that we could do, very simple thing, i know we're not on the finance committee, but just change the rule for the r and d credit, which says if you fund a university and it's basic research, you can get the credit, if it's applied research it's worse, it's not as generous. I don't think that makes any sense anymore, just just make it, if you're funding university research you should get a generous r and d credit. Last point was, we need to limit access to to Chinese uh from Chinese access to uh s US scientific knowledge. Um, one easy thing is just prevent or limit uh Chinese post-docs uh Chinese post-docs don't stay here Chinese PHD students do stay here post-docs don't they come here they suck it up they take it back to China um expand recent guidance on US university uh work NSF has a rule I'll just close there where they say you have to get approval for uh research universities that are related to dual use technologies um sorry that are on the US entities list OK. But why is Tshingwa University, the top university in the world, OK to partner with? But another one that works with the PLA is not OK to partner with. I think we've just for important technology areas we need to have much more careful oversight. Uh, with that, I thank you for your time and I'm sorry for going over.

Thank you, Doctor Atkinson. Doctor Phillips, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Budd, Ranking Member Baldwin, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Julia Phillips. I'm a materials physicist and past leader of research organizations in the private sector and at a DOE national security laboratory. The views I am presenting today are my own. I was a member of the National Science Board for ten years until April twenty twenty six. For six of those years, I chaired the board committee that leads the congressionally mandated biennial publication of science and engineering indicators. most recently published in May. The report is a policy relevant, policy neutral source of high quality US and international data. The data tell a sobering story, as we've already heard. While the US has led in science and engineering for over eighty years, its response to the rapid advance of China has been inadequate. And we've heard some of that, but there's more. S and T is the no new global currency of power. China has pulled ahead of us in important indicators, from R and D expenditures to high-tech manufacturing. The threat to our future economic prosperity and national security is very real. The US is has become accustomed to the perks that go with being number one in S and E, an outsized influence on the global S and E culture, and is setting standards for new technologies. China, as we have heard, does not play by our rules and will have more influence over setting rules as its ascent continues. Absent action, we will not like the outcome. Federal investments in the S and D enterprise have been key to American success. Taxpayer-supported R and D is a balanced public investment portfolio. It supports efforts across a wide range of risk, potential payoff, and time horizon. From near-term mission needs to long-term investments, and fundamental science with prospects for s- significant future benefits. Government-funded basic research is our nation's seed corn, an investment that has yielded impressive rewards in its contributions to our country's prosperity. This is a unique feature of American S and E, and it has paid off handsomely in discoveries that have enabled countless transformative technologies including today's critical and emerging technologies. Part of the unique mission of the National Science Foundation is to promote the progress of science through funding, uh, research and education in all non-medical fields of science and engineering. In addition to providing seed corn, NSF exists to protect our country from scientific and technological surprise. Um, an un- unanticipated discovery that occurs in another country which could have grave consequences for the US. Chronic underinvesting in this part of the R and D portfolio might save money in the short run but it reduces future yields less seed corn for the future, economic growth and competitiveness of our nation. The threats are clear to the US position in S and E. There are internal threats as well as the external ones, both long-standing and newer ones embodied in new and proposed policy changes. We must address them, recognizing preserving and strengthening key aspects of the culture of science our country led in creating. This is essential for continued leadership at the forefront of discovery. The US is rapidly approaching a STEM talent crisis cliff. Our K through twelve enrollment is falling. Students are unprepared to train for STEM jobs at any level, and foreign student enrollment is dropping. World class science requires broad participation in the global scientific community. Some fields require unique facilities built and operated by international partnerships. US scientists need access to them in all fields. Open communication through publication and participation in meetings, collaboration and dialogue is essential to progress. It decreases the risk of scientific and technological surprise and proposed rules could sharply curtail this pillar of the research enterprise, leaving the US vulnerable. A hallmark of best-in-class science is that rigorous peer review is the deciding factor in funding decisions. These decisions, which are made within high-level policy guidelines, must be made by experts in the field who cover a range of well-informed approaches. Funding decisions must thus be honored in full to preserve the integrity of the S and E enterprise. The US must renew its investments in and commitment to historic its historic strengths in science and engineering, an open culture, active participation in the global S and E enterprise, a system where the best ideas can compete for resources, and world-leading S and E capabilities and talent. It is imperative that those very attributes that made our S and E ecosystem, the envy of the world, be strengthened and harnessed. to create a future future that is worthy of our past. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Philip. Thank all the witnesses. Uh, Doctor Indy, uh, you mentioned crawfish, but you also mentioned the five thousand person team in Shenzhen, ready to uh, move on an American research accomplishment in biological engineering. Seemed like that was at speed and scale. You also mentioned your support for the creation of a biological measurement laboratory. at at NIST. So is is China applying that scale, speed and resourcing to metrology work in standard setting?

What I observe is China appears to be building national laboratory scale facilities for the twenty-first century, across all sciences, and in particular in biology and biotechnology. Um, they're advantaged in that in starting such an effort, they're not burdened by a legacy portfolio. it's easier to build a new house sometimes and renovate an old house. Um, the work that they're capable of doing because of the capacity they have is significant in the following way. When I have an idea in biology, I won't know if it works or not until I build it and test it. Let's say I'm interested in in an AI tool. If I have an AI tool that generates a string of English, I can quickly judge if that text is good or bad. But if I have an AI tool trained on DNA sequences, and it emits, generates novel DNA sequences, what do they do? If I start like TA, TA, CG, you know, what does that mean? The only way to really know is to build that DNA and test it, and then see what it does and feed that measurement back into the modeling platform to get a better model. So if you wanna have world-leading large language foundation models for biology, We have to have the large language laboratories to go along with it. And so that's the capacity I see being developed in Shenzhen and throughout China, to scale the measurement and experimentation and prototyping and tinkering and translation of biotechnology solutions. And we just don't have anything like it. Uh, the not not in the United States, not in Europe. Um, and and so that's that's what I see.

You mentioned it might be easier to build a new house than to renovate an old house. understood, uh, what are parts of the old house, if if we have some of the old house that may need renovating, what are those parts that are difficult to renovate?

Uh, thank you for your question, Chairman Budd. Uh, when I look to NIST, I see the great tradition in physics and chemistry and the science of metrology. And and the the culture and spirit of measurement science at NIST is like no other institution I've encountered it's a it's a world treasure and a national treasure. Um, the amazing thing about biology is it's operating at the intersection of physics and chemistry and information science and energy science. And so those aspects of NIST, the tradition in physical measurement, the tradition in chemical measurement, are profoundly important to advance bio-measurement at NIST. But, don't make, don't make the following mistake in my opinion. Um, I saw this at MIT when we started the new biological engineering department at MIT over twenty years ago. Um. nobody in the engineering school who wasn't already in the department that didn't exist yet wanted a new department. You know, cuz that'd be new competition for funding, a new competition for students. Nobody wanted another person at the table competing. Um, and they said they were already doing the biology stuff, they had it taken care of. That wasn't really true. Um, it became really important to create a new thing so that a new space could fill in and breathe and mature over time. That became a new biological engineering department. So, keep and I would say strengthen the expertise in physical science and metrology, chemical science and metrology at NIST, the ability of NIST to do an amazing job coordinating industry coalitions and translating innovations into the economy, but at the same time use that and recognize there needs to be something for biology itself. Biology is a big space. It's five percent of our domestic economy. And it's poised to grow.

Mm-hmm.

by a significant amount. Shame on us if we don't figure out how to get a good investment in place for advancing the bioeconomy and a bigger return.

What would be some of the consequences if the Chinese biology standards were the globally adopted standards?

Yeah, thank you, Chairman, but that's a powerful question. Um, let me offer the following question in return. What would be some of the consequences if UNIX, the computer operating system, had not been invented in New Jersey? what would be some of the consequences if TCPIP, the technical standard for packet switching networks, had not been advanced and promulgated by ARPA and NSF. Um, when we when we look at the future of biotechnology, what we're l- biotechnology is not about only the organisms we know and in medicines and stuff like that. Biotechnology is a bottom-up manufacturing platform that will reshape how we build the majority of inputs to our economy. Right? So so Think of a future in which people can partner with biology to solve problems where they are locally. That content for programming the biology is gonna have to come from somewhere. It's gonna be have to be accessible through a bio-net, a resilient distributed network for manufacturing on demand. Whether it's medical countermeasures or polymers for three D printers, anything, we can genetically encode. The platforms for the doing of this, the soft power, the hard power, the economic power, all of that is at stake right now. One of the reasons Beijing has bet big on bio is not just that they need it, because they need food and everything else, but they also see that the bio race is not yet won. It's pre-ARPAnet, it's pre-UNIX, it's open. Um, so that's what's at stake.

Thank you very much. Thank you, member Baldwin.

Uh, thank you, all all of you, for your uh presence and your testimony. Um, Doctor Phillips, in April, without notice the Trump administration terminated all twenty-two members of the National Science Board you had been a member of that board since twenty sixteen and you chaired the board's science and engineering policy committee can you briefly summarize the critical role that NSB plays in the work of the National Science Foundation and make it your elevator speech, because I have a follow-up question

OK, very briefly Uh, the n- in statute, it is stated that the National Science Board has two roles. One is, paraphrasing, essentially to serve as the board of directors for the National Science Foundation. So, over- overseeing um, strategy, major investments as well as the portfolio, and, and um, and s- uh, at a very high level, appropriate things for operations. The other is to advise the president and Congress on the state of science and engineering in a global context. And that is the context in which science and engineering indicators is um, is published. There is no department of science in the US government, um, that is different from most other countries. And so this is sort of a department of science role, and it's, it expands far beyond NSF.

Thank you. So, I understand the Trump administration removed members of the National Science Board just before you were set to release a congressionally mandated report on American science and engineering. And I'm deeply, uh, concerned about the chilling effect, uh, that removals of the board members will have and how removal of the board will limit oversight efforts. So how will the work on NSF be impacted without a board being in place.

Well, that's a good question. Um, and, you know, a lot of it probably lies in the details. I will say that that's report on science and engineering indicators was published in May because it had there had been a favorable vote by the board to release it so that was that was released um and and so for twenty-six we're OK. Um, but going forward um it's an actually In reality, the way the board had um been forced to function for more or less the last year was in the absence of information. We never saw the budget that was submitted to Congress. We never um and uh we um h were not informed about other things that the board had engaged on in the past um having to do with serious science issues facility operations and things like that. that are arguably the role of the board um to keep an eye on, and it was impossible to get um a good amount of that information. Uh, it was hard to tell where that block was coming from. My personal opinion is it was likely not coming from within NSF itself, but it it existed.

Thank you. Um, uh, when China makes a sector a strategic priority, it can achieve global dominance in that space if left unchecked. And we cannot let China achieve dominance in biotechnology, which is so critical to our public health, our economic strength, and national security. Wisconsin is a national leader in the biohealth uh industry due to our investments in strong research institutions, advanced manufacturing, workforce training, and industry partnerships. And this important work includes our biohealth uh tech hub, uh which consists of a consortium led by BioForward that focuses on personalized medicine and advancing the adoption of the next generation of Theranostics. I will add that it was the commerce committee uh uh with uh Senator Young's leadership that passed uh the legislation that allowed a number of tech hubs to be identified um throughout the country. Doctor Endy, can you, this is sort of a compliment to Senator Bud's last question of you, can you expand on the dangers of losing our global leadership role in biotechnology to China? And what, what a world look like where China leads in biotechnology?

I was privileged to grow up in Pennsylvania near Valley Forge, while this nation went on a technology innovation run, from genetic engineering to internet to email to touch screens to CRISPR, to generative AI, you name it. If I had grown up in Buenos Aires, I would have looked to the United States and concluded that the United States was magic land, the place where magical innovations come from. What is this far away place? I simply would have to get there. The thing that is at risk, in my opinion, to my children and their children is that magic land will not be in united states magic land will be in china that's the big picture if i think about wisconsin i was uh privileged to study at the university of wisconsin madison for a time as a post doc in chemical engineering remember the rathskeller a little bit too well um there's the uh center for forest mycology research

mmm

um in wisconsin it holds a collection of strains of wood fungus. Um, are these organisms important? It turns out they are. Uh, these are the organisms that take wood and convert wood into other material. It's like a GitHub, a code base for transforming one type of matter into more valuable products. Right now we have that in Wisconsin and we're at risk of losing it. And we're at risk of seeing a future where China hoovers the genetic resources of the world, refactors them, repackages them, and makes them available as the content kit for the future of biotechnology. Um, now, the good news is it'll get done and we're gonna need it. The bad news is it won't be uh uh won't be ours in terms of terms and conditions. Right, so those are the sorts of things that are at stake. Um, and it's it's hard to overstate it. And because biotechnology has d- is as diverse as biology itself, the impacts are are profound and interwoven throughout all aspects of our of our economy and our lives and livelihoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Marino, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As somebody who was born in Bogota, Colombia, I can tell you people in Colombia still think America's magic land and one of what will do anything to get here and certainly there's nobody trying to get into China. Uh, Doctor Atkinson, do you think Chinese automakers are normal market competitors?

There's no industry in China that's normal, and they're abnormal. Um, one of the reasons why they're so successful is they forced foreign companies to give them their technology if they wanted to sell their vehicles in China a violation of the WTO agreements uh they massively subsidized their EVs um they're not normal and and I think one of the key factors here is we need to really think seriously about limiting those kinds of imports to the US. i don't mind competing i don't we can compete with the chinese firm that's doesn't get massive subsidies didn't steal their intellectual property fine that's toe-to-toe good there's no way in my view that american automobile companies can compete with this kind of competition

thank you for that and do you do you think it would you agree that the us auto sector is one of america's most important economic engines uh meaning it has a dual use manufacturing capability we saw that in world war two not only of course the factories and what they're capable of producing but in the times of need where we need to increase our industrial base those auto plants uniquely are important

absolutely we we created a a methodology to look at all nine hundred and thirty us industries and we classified them into defense dual use enabling and nothing uh perfume industry we could the chinese could take our perfume industry and who cares you know and chinese actually the major dominant import for china from us in terms of their share is Christmas tinsels. Alright. But when you look at an industry like the auto industry, which is both dual use and enabling, there is so much talent, there is so much going on there related to metal forming and all sorts of other things. And I think you saw that recently when um the Secretary of Defense signed new contracts with them, realizing that our defense contractors can't produce as much as we need in terms of defense material. So if we lost our auto industry, we would be significantly harmed in my view.

Well, thank you for that. And and of of course, is I think you would agree that once China's subsidized firms are embedded in the US market, it becomes almost impossible to reverse that. I think we're seeing that in Europe. I remember uh when I was a Mercedes dealer and had other German brands, the Germans would always talk about uh their country's dominance of the auto industry and Germans as a matter of culture, would never purchase anything other than a German car, which is societally something that they wouldn't do. And yet, because of Chinese vehicles being allowed with impunity into those markets, Volkswagen, who'd never laid off workers in its entire history, just laid off a hundred and fifty thousand auto workers. What would happen if we allowed something like that to happen to US? How hard is it to reverse that once that happens?

Well, the Germans made a very mistake their auto companies had dollar signs or yuan in their eyes and they thought well we can keep selling you're not gonna keep selling in china that though you could see that and they couldn't see it and so they let these chinese firms in if we do that your uh senator your point is exactly right let's say american consumers start getting used to buying chinese cars and you have a dealership network they're gonna keep buying more of them and so uh if we let the chinese in in any way shape or form in my view gonna be extremely detrimental to us companies you could imagine one of the top one of the big three going out of business and i think the other two seeing significantly smaller market share

and do you think it's also important to limit equity participation among uh chinese uh companies in western auto brands in other words uh there is this idea of passive shareholders the idea that i own i don't but i own a share in federal express so somehow i matter to the federal express executives uh is is it problematic to let that equity threshold get to the point where you have basically over influence in those companies

absolutely we've long argued that cepheus needs to have serious reform and cepheus is too narrow on is it a missile or is it something that's related to defense look if if we don't if we allow chinese companies to take equity in autos or certainly auto suppliers they're going to gain influence there they're gonna move a lot of the technology to china i would have a complete ban on chinese equity in nationally important industries

well thank you tomorrow uh and this committee will take up the connected vehicle security act uh we worked on that uh i look at the my colleagues here are all supportive i think it's important to show uh that we are unanimously behind this this is not a democrat or republican issue there's lots of things I look at my Democrat colleagues that we can disagree on. Uh, but ensuring that we don't allow what you just described to happen, I think it's just critically important that we get that bill across the finish line, not just to pass it, but to pass it unanimously. So urge my colleagues uh to support this tomorrow as we do the mark-up. But thank you, Mr. Chairman.