U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–431PDF 2011

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

Serial No. 112–2 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 17, 2011 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Witness: 

Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 36 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 37 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) .............. 70 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

BUDGET 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:38 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

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

Good morning. We welcome today a hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of the Administration’s Federal Research and Development 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.’’ In front of each of you I think are 

packets containing the written testimony, biography and the truth 

in testimony disclosure of today’s witness, Dr. John P. Holdren. I 

recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Dr. Holdren, I would like to welcome you to the Committee 

today. We all understand the influence the OSTP can have on the 

Administration’s direction in science and technology. Today’s hearing obviously covers a great deal of ground, so I will try to be brief. 

At the same time, there are some specific points that I would like 

to address before we hear from you. Our debt today is slightly over $14 trillion, and our Nation’s 

budget deficit has increased 50 percent over the last three years, 

and yet the amount of new debt proposed in this budget is greater 

than the total amount of debt accumulated by the Federal Government from 1789—and my children, I remember that date—to the 

day President Obama took the Oath of Office. This level of spending is simply not sustainable. 

While it is true that prudent investments in science and technology will almost certainly yield future economic gains and will 

allow our knowledge and economy to grow, it is also true that these 

gains can be thwarted by poor decision-making. Americans expect 

and deserve better. With our unemployment hovering at nine percent, they expect us to reduce or eliminate those programs that are 

duplicative and wasteful and examine ways to advance real job creation and economic growth, not just spend their hard-earned money 

on what the government assumes is best for them. 

In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of the 

need to reinvigorate our future through innovation. American ingenuity is going to determine our future. However, blanket increases 

in our federal spending are not the same as prudent investment 

and do not guarantee innovation. 

As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars, we have to curtail runaway 

spending and prioritize programs that lay the foundation for entrepreneurial success. I recognize that the President is making similar 

statements, yet the Administration’s fiscal year 2012 R&D budget, 

at least as it pertains to a majority of the agencies within this 

Committee’s jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted focus on climate change, oftentimes taking money from other worthy investments. This rather singular focus for the Federal Government’s 

limited research dollars slows our ability to make innovative and 

certainly it slows it down, other than revealing slows it to make innovative and perhaps life-altering advances in other equally, if not 

more important, disciplines. 

The National Science Foundation, DOE’s Office of Science, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are all investing in remarkable research that seeks the improvement of the way we live 

our lives. Previous investments brought about the Internet, the 

laser, barcodes, MRIs and even sunscreen. While we should continue to study our changing climate and continue to work towards 
22 

keeping our air and water clean, we must closely examine the billions of dollars spent on climate change programs with an eye toward effectiveness. From 2006 to now, we have spent $36 billion 

on climate change and what do we have to show for it? A lot of programs and pamphlets. We need to change that. 

With regard to NASA, last year’s Congress reauthorized the 

space agency and sent a strong signal to this Administration, 

which disturbingly, they have not followed in the area of human 

space exploration. For our space program to remain competitive 

and ensure our national security, we have to stay the course and 

develop the next-generation launch vehicle that has the capability 

to reach outer space and beyond. Our country cannot afford an illfocused space program. I am concerned that the President’s budget 

defies Congress’ direction with respect to the exploration account 

and will have some questions for you with respect to that decision. 

Dr. Holdren, we remain committed to assisting you as we move 

forward, but hope you will take the message back to the President 

that we continue to have significant concerns with the Administration’s priorities for our Nation’s precious and limited R&D dollars. 

I thank you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

Dr. Holdren, I would like to welcome you to the Committee today. We all understand the influence the OSTP Director can have on the Administration’s direction 

in science and technology. Today’s hearing obviously covers a great deal of ground, 

so I will try to be brief. At the same time, there are some specific points that I 

would like to address before we hear from you. 

Our debt today is slightly over $14 trillion dollars, and our Nation’s budget deficit 

has increased 50 percent over the last three years. And yet the amount of new debt 

proposed in this budget is greater than the total amount of debt accumulated by the 

federal government from 1789 to the day President Obama took the Oath of Office. 

This level of spending is simply not sustainable. 

While it is true that prudent investments in science and technology will almost 

certainly yield future economic gains and will allow our knowledge economy to grow, 

it is also true that these gains can be thwarted by poor decision-making. Americans 

expect and deserve better. With our unemployment hovering at over 9 percent, they 

expect us to reduce or eliminate those programs that are duplicative and wasteful 

and examine ways to advance real job creation and economic growth, not just spend 

their hard-earned money on what the government assumes is best for them. 

In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of the need to reinvigorate our future through innovation. American ingenuity will determine our future. 

However, blanket increases in our Federal spending are not the same as prudent 

investment and do not guarantee innovation. As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars, 

we must curtail runaway spending and prioritize programs that lay the foundation 

for entrepreneurial success. 

I recognize that the President is making similar statements; yet the Administration’s FY12 research and development budget, at least as it pertains to a majority 

of the agencies within this Committee’s jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted 

focus on climate change, often times taking money from other worthy investments. 

Tills rather singular focus for the Federal government’s limited research dollars 

slows our ability to make innovative and perhaps life altering advances in other 

equally, if not more important, disciplines. The National Science Foundation, DOE’s 

Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are all investing in remarkable research that seeks to improve the way we live our lives. Previous investments 

brought about the internet, the laser, barcodes, MRIs, and even sunscreen. While 

we should continue to study our changing climate and continue to work towards 

keeping our air and water clean, we must closely examinethe billions of dollars 

spent on climate change programs with an eye toward effectiveness. From 2006 to 
23 

now, we have spent $36 billion on climate change and what do we have to show 

for it? A lot of programs and pamphlets. We need to change that. 

With regard to NASA, last year Congress reauthorized the space agency and sent 

a strong signal to this Administration, which, disturbingly, they have not followed 

in the area of human space exploration. For our space program to remain competitive and ensure our national security, we must stay the course and develop the 

next-generation launch vehicle that has the capability to reach outer space and beyond. Our country cannot afford an ill-focused space program. I am concerned ′′that 

the President’s budget defies Congress’s direction with respect to the exploration account and will have some questions for you with respect to that decision. 

Dr. Holdren, we remain committed to assisting you as we move forward, but hope 

you will take the message back to the President that we continue to have significant 

concerns with the Administration’s priorities for our Nation’s precious and limited 

research and development dollars. 

Thank you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Ms. 

Johnson for an opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back to the committee, Dr. Holdren. 

We are in a very unusual situation today. We are here today to 

discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request, even as the 

fiscal year 2011 budget remains in play, so I hope we can keep the 

numbers and the years straight. However, even if we jump back 

and forth in terms of what year we are talking about, the key 

issues that we need to address remain the same: how best to keep 

America competitive and create a better future for our children and 

grandchildren. 

With the C.R. the House is debating this week, I am afraid we 

are heading in the wrong direction and I am worried for our country and for our own grandchildren and what kind of opportunities 

they will have in the future. As we focus on the need to create jobs 

both now in the coming years, we need to make sure that we are 

taking steps to ensure that we remain economically strong and 

competitive in a challenging international marketplace. This committee has heard countless witnesses from industry, academia and 

government over the past several years testify that investments in 

science, technology and STEM education must be a cornerstone of 

any serious long-term strategy to keep America competitive. While 

we also need to address tax and other policies that affect innovation, none of those policies will be of any use of we don’t first invest 

in human capital and the research that makes innovation possible. 

Let me be clear: While we debate turning the lights off on 

groundbreaking research projects, shuttering the world-class research facilities, stopping emerging industries in their tracks and 

losing many of our best and brightest scientists and innovators 

from the STEM pipeline for good, our competitors in China, India 

and elsewhere are surging ahead in their investments in R&D and 

in emerging industries. They are going to eat our lunch. They are 

right now, as a matter of fact, and then our dinner and dessert too. 

Now is simply not the time to take a hatchet to federally funded 

R&D and STEM education. 

Having said that, I still find reason to be hopeful that as we kick 

off today’s hearing. Our federal R&D agencies have a long history 

of investing in research and education programs that return huge 

economic payoffs to the American people. 

The fiscal year 2012 R&D budget proposal being presented to us 

today by Dr. Holdren reflects the imperative to invest in our future 
24 

and at the same time acknowledges the fiscal environment in 

which we find ourselves. Truthfully, I would like to see more, including for NASA, for information technology research and for programs that have demonstrated success in broadening the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM. Instead, 

the budget proposes to hold many of those programs flat once 

again. However, I also understand that the President had to make 

some very tough decisions in developing this year’s budget request. 

We can disagree over some of the specific choices but I believe, Dr. 

Holdren, that we share the same goals of maintaining a strong national science and technology enterprise and ensuring our young 

people are prepared for the technical careers of the future. 

I look forward to learning more from you about the President’s 

R&D budget proposal and to working with you and members from 

both sides of the aisle to forge a productive path ahead. 

Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Chairman Hall, and welcome back to the 

Committee, Dr. Holdren. We are in a very unusual situation today. We are here 

today to discuss the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget request even as the fiscal 

year 2011 budget remains in play. So I hope we can keep the numbers and years 

straight. However, even if we jump back and forth in terms of what year we are 

talking about, the key issues that we need to address remain the same, how best 

to keep America competitive and create a better future for our children and grandchildren. 

With the CR the House is debating this week, I am afraid we are heading in the 

wrong direction. And I am worried for our country and for my own grandchildren 

and what kind of opportunities they will have in the future. As we focus on the need 

to create jobs both now and in the coming years, we need to make sure that we 

are taking the steps to ensure that we remain economically strong and competitive 

in a challenging international marketplace. 

This Committee has heard countless witnesses from industry, academia, and government over the past several years testify that investments in science, technology 

and STEM education must be a cornerstone of any serious long-term strategy to 

keep America competitive. 

While we also need to address tax and other policies that affect innovation, none 

of those policies will be of any use if we don’t first invest in the human capital and 

the research that makes innovation possible. 

Let me be clear--while we debate turning the lights off on groundbreaking research projects, shuttering world-class research facilities, stopping emerging industries in their tracks, and losing many of our best and brightest scientists and 

innovators from the STEM pipeline for good, our competitors in China, India and 

elsewhere are surging ahead in their investments in R&D and in emerging industries. They are going to eat our lunch, and then our dinner and dessert too. Now 

is simply not the time to take a hatchet to federally funded R&D and STEM education. 

Having said that, I still find reason to be hopeful as we kick off today’s hearing. 

Our federal R&D agencies have a long history of investing in research and education programs that return huge economic pay-offs to the American people. The fiscal year 2012 R&D budget proposal being presented to us today by Dr. Holdren reflects the imperative to invest in our future at the same it acknowledges the fiscal 

environment in which we find ourselves. 

Truthfully I would like to see more, including for NASA, for information technology research, and for programs that have demonstrated success in broadening 

the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM. Instead the 

budget proposes to hold many of those programs flat once again. However, I also 

understand that the President had to make some very tough decisions in developing 

this year’s budget request. 

We can disagree over some of the specific choices, but I believe, Dr. Holdren, that 

we share the same end goals of maintaining a strong national science and technology enterprise and ensuring our young people are prepared for the technical ca-
25 

reers of the future. I look forward to learning more from you about the president’s 

R&D budget proposal and to working with you and Members from both sides of the 

aisle to forge a productive path forward. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I will introduce—we will have the one witness and 

I will first thank you for our inability to begin as scheduled and 

hope we don’t ruin the rest of your day here. Ms. Johnson says that 

is not what is going to ruin it. No matter what we say or do, we 

appreciate you, and if you really listen to us and obey us, why, we 

are really going to treat you good, and if you don’t, we are going 

to treat you good, so there you go. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness, and I am 

proud to introduce Dr. John Holdren as President Obama’s Science 

Advisor, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology. Prior to joining the Administration, he 

taught at Harvard and was Director of the Woods Hole Research 

Center. As our witness should know and does know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, after which the members of the 

Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions, but we are 

able, particularly on days like this, to provide flexibility to you 

since you are the only witness and you have been so very patient. 

I recognize you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, ASSISTANT TO THE 

PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

(OSTP) 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall, Ranking 

Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. It is a real privilege 

for me to be here today to discuss with you the civilian science and 

technology components of the President’s FY 2012 budget. 

The premise behind this part of the budget is one that I believe 

we all share. It is that creating America’s jobs and industries of the 

future, and indeed creating the quality of life that we all want for 

our children and grandchildren is going to require investing in the 

creativity and the capacity to innovate of the American people. The 

FY 2012 budget does so with responsible, targeted investments in 

the foundations of discovery and innovation, in R&D, in science, 

technology, engineering and math education, and 21st century infrastructure. It does it with increases in the highest-priority focuses offset by reductions in lower-priority ones. It is a budget 

aimed at helping us win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building, the competition. 

Obviously, we need the continued support of the Congress to get 

it done, and I stress continued support because strengthening the 

national effort in science, technology, and innovation has been very 

much a joint effort of the Congress and the Administration over the 

past two years. We hope to extend that partnership in this new 

Congress. 
26 

All told, this budget proposes $66.8 billion for civilian research 

and development, an increase of $4.1 billion, or 61/2 percent, over 

the 2010 appropriated level in this category. But the Administration is committed to reducing the deficit even as we prime the 

pump of discovery and innovation. Accordingly, our proposed investments in R&D, STEM education, and infrastructure fit within 

an overall non-security discretionary budget that would be frozen 

at 2010 levels for the second year in a row. The budget reflects 

strategic decisions to focus resources on those areas where the payoff for the American people is likely to be highest. 

Mr. Chairman, I know the Committee is already familiar with 

the details of the Administration’s FY 2012 proposed budget. Let 

me therefore only very briefly highlight a few key points. 

First of all, consistent with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which was passed in December with leadership from 

this Committee and signed by the President in January, the budget 

calls for continuing along the doubling trajectory for the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, 

and the National Institute of Standards of Technology laboratories. 

In the case of NASA, the President’s budget holds that agency 

to the 2010 appropriated level of $18.7 billion while still funding 

every initiative called for in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The 

President’s budget also helps the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration improve critical weather and climate services, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts and ensure continuity in crucial Earth observation satellite coverage. 

The budget reinforces the Department of Energy’s work to make 

clean energy affordable and abundant with notable increases for 

ARPA–E, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

To help the Nation win the future, the 2012 budget also emphasizes STEM education, in part by providing $100 million as a down 

payment on a ten-year effort to help prepare 100,000 new, highly 

effective STEM teachers. 

Additionally, the budget includes investments for a Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative to help extend the next generation of wireless Internet to 98 percent of the United States population. 

Let me reiterate in closing the guiding principal underlying this 

budget: America’s strength, prosperity, and global leadership depend directly on the investments we are willing to make in R&D, 

in STEM education and in infrastructure. Investments in these domains are the ultimate act of hope, the source of the most important legacy that we can leave. Only by sustaining those investments can we assure future generations of Americans a society and 

a place in the world worthy of the history of this great Nation 

which has been building its prosperity and its global leadership on 

a foundation of science, technology, and innovation since the days 

of Jefferson and Franklin. Staying the course in the current fiscal 

environment will not be easy but I believe the President’s 2012 

budget for science and technology provides a blueprint for doing so 

that is both visionary and responsible. The support of this Committee, which has been the source itself of so much visionary and 
27 

also responsible legislation in this domain, will be essential if we 

are to stay the course. 

I look forward to working with you to that end, and I will be 

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

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HOLDREN

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, It is 

my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss the civilian science and 

technology components of the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 Budget. 

Administration Initiatives in Education, Innovation, and Infrastructure 

President Obama, in his most recent State of the Union address, called on all of 

us to help create the American jobs and industries of the future by doing what this 

Nation does best—investing in the creativity and imagination of the American people. The President identified this time in history as our generation’s Sputnik moment. And just as investments in science and engineering research and development 

(R&D) turned the original Sputnik moment into a Golden Age of American technological and economic dominance, so new investments in science, technology, and innovation (STI) will be the foundation for continued American leadership in the future. Targeted investments in the most promising frontiers of science, made in the 

context of responsible reductions in less productive endeavors, will fuel this trajectory and allow us, in the President’s words, to ‘‘out-innovate, out-educate, and outbuild the rest of the world.’’ 

President Obama understands that our ability to meet the grand challenges before us is intimately dependent on robust research and development; superior 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; and 21st century transportation, telecommunications, and energy infrastructure. His 2012 Budget provides strategic investments in these domains while also streamlining aspects 

of the Federal government and responding responsibly to the deficit. At a difficult 

time in America’s history, the President’s 2012 Budget proposes to invest intelligently in innovation, education, and infrastructure today to generate the industries, jobs, and environmental and national security benefits of tomorrow. Obviously, 

we need the continued support of the Congress to get it done. I say ‘‘continued support’’ because much of the President’s Federal research and education investment 

portfolio enjoyed bipartisan support during the first two years of the Administration. 

And with the start of this new Congress, we hope to extend this partnership with 

both the Senate and the House across the entire science and technology portfolio. 

Such a collaboration to stimulate scientific discovery and new technologies will take 

America into this new century well-equipped for the challenges and opportunities 

that lie ahead. 

In the remainder of this testimony, I elaborate on the reasons the President and 

I are most hopeful you’ll provide that support. 

The Federal R&D Budget 

In his State of the Union address, the President said: ‘‘The first step in winning 

the future is encouraging American innovation,’’ and he promised to deliver a budget that would ensure the Nation’s ability to achieve that goal. This week, the President released that budget. It proposes a record $66.8 billion investment in civilian 

research and development, an increase of $4.1 billion or 6.5 percent over the 2010 

funding level, reflecting the Administration’s firm belief that investment in civilian 

research is a key ingredient for cultivating the innovation that is so important to 

growing the American economy of the future. 

(Because of the uncertainty around the outcome of 2011 appropriations, all the 

comparisons in my testimony are between the 2012 Budget and the enacted 2010 

appropriations. My testimony discusses changes in current dollars, not adjusted for 

inflation. The latest economic projections show inflation of 2.7 percent between 2010 

and 2012 for the economy as a whole, using the GDP deflator.) 

These important R&D investments will bolster the fundamental understandings 

of matter, energy, and life that are at the root of much innovation, and they will 

foster significantly new and potentially transformative technologies in areas such as 

biotechnology, information technology, and clean energy. 

The Obama Administration’s investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure fit within an overall non-security discretionary budget that would be fro-
28 

zen at 2010 levels for the second year in a row and would stay frozen to 2015. The 

Budget reflects strategic decisions to focus resources on those areas where the payoff for the American people is likely to be highest, while imposing hard-nosed fiscal 

discipline on areas lacking that kind of promise. For example, the 2012 Budget proposes $79.4 billion for development within the Federal R&D portfolio—a decline 

compared to the 2010 funding level primarily because of reductions in development 

funding in the Department of Defense. Across government, important programs will 

have to make do with less, as noted in several of the program descriptions below. 

The total (defense and nondefense) R&D budget would be $147.9 billion, $772 million or 0.5 percent above the 2010 enacted level. That modest increase is difficult 

to accept, of course, given the many needs that could potentially be addressed by 

an expanded Federal R&D portfolio. But the Administration is committed to making 

tough choices and it has made many such in this Budget. 

Budgets of Science Agencies 

Three agencies have been identified as especially important to this Nation’s continued economic leadership by the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation, the 

America COMPETES Act, the Administration’s Innovation Strategy, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, passed by the Congress in December through 

the leadership of this Committee and signed by the President in January. Those 

three jewel-in-the-crown agencies are the National Science Foundation, a primary 

source of funding for basic academic research; the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

Office of Science, which leads fundamental research relevant to energy and also 

builds and operates the major research infrastructure—advanced light sources, accelerators, supercomputers, and facilities for making nano-materials—on which our 

scientists depend for energy research breakthroughs; and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology laboratories, which support a wide range of pursuits from 

accelerating standards development for health information technology and ‘‘smart 

grid’’ technologies to conducting measurement science research to enable net-zero 

energy buildings and advanced manufacturing processes. 

In recognition of the immense leverage these three agencies offer and their key 

role in maintaining America’s preeminence in the global marketplace, Congress and 

this Administration have worked together to put these agencies on a doubling trajectory. The FY2012 budget maintains that trajectory, as newly authorized in the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (Public Law 111–358), with a 12.2 percent increase between 2010 and 2012 for their combined budgets, totaling $13.9 billion. I want to emphasize that the proposed increases for these three agencies are 

part of a fiscally responsible budget focused on deficit reduction that holds overall 

non-security discretionary spending flat at 2010 levels for the second year in a row, 

meaning these increases are fully offset by cuts in other programs. 

I now turn to the budgets of individual agencies in a bit more detail. I will focus 

on the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Therefore, I will not provide details of the defense R&D portfolio (the Department of Defense and DOE’s defense programs) or the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for academic research for most non-biomedical disciplines, and it is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and education across all fields of 

science and engineering. NSF has always believed that optimal use of federal funds 

relies on two conditions: ensuring that its research is aimed—and continuously reaimed—at the frontiers of understanding; and certifying that every dollar goes to 

competitive, merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards with clear criteria for success. 

When these two conditions are met, the nation gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its research investments. In recognition of the time-proven 

truth that today’s NSF grants are tomorrow’s billion dollar, job-creating companies, 

the 2012 Budget request for NSF is $7.8 billion, an increase of 13.0 percent above 

the 2010 funding level. This keeps NSF on track to double its budget as promised 

in the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation. 

NSF puts the greatest share of its resources in the nation’s colleges and universities. Universities are the largest performers of basic research in the United States, 

conducting over fifty percent of all basic research. Basic research funding such as 

that provided by NSF is important not only because it leads to new knowledge and 

applications but also because it trains the researchers and the technical workforce 

of the future, ensuring the Nation will benefit from a new generation of makers and 

doers. In order to maximize this dual benefit to society and NSF’s special contribution, the 2012 Budget sustains the doubling of new NSF Graduate Research Fellow-
29 

ships to support 2,000 new awards. The 2012 Budget also includes $64 million for 

the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to promote partnerships between higher-education institutions and employers to educate technicians for the 

high-technology fields that drive our nation’s economy; ATE is the centerpiece of an 

overall $100 million NSF investment in community colleges, an important part of 

the higher education system. 

NSF also proposes to increase research funding to promote discoveries that can 

spark innovations for tomorrow’s clean energy sources with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science. The Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio will increase to $998 million in the 2012 Budget for integrated activities involving energy and environment. NSF is also committed to enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness with Science and Engineering Beyond 

Moore’s Law (SEBML), a multidisciplinary research program that aims to extend 

the technological and conceptual limits on computer processing, with an investment 

of $96 million in the 2012 Budget. NSF is also investing $76 million in a multi-directorate initiative on research at the interface of the Biological, Mathematical, and 

Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) that aims for an accelerated understanding of biological systems and the opening of new frontiers in biotechnology. The Administration 

proposes $15 million in the 2012 Budget for NSF’s contribution to a new interagency 

initiative called Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum, or EARS, to support research into new and innovative ways to use the radio spectrum more efficiently so 

that more applications and services used by individuals and businesses can occupy 

the limited amount of available spectrum. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

This past October, the President signed the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (the 

‘‘Act’’, Public Law 111–267), which stands as a statement of bipartisan agreement 

by Congress and the Administration regarding NASA and its many programs. 

NASA’s programs not only support the grand and inspiring adventures of space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautical advancement, but also provide an indispensable platform for observing the Earth to ensure that we have the information 

we need to cope with weather-related and other environmental threats to human 

well-being. NASA programs also fuel new technology development and innovation 

and help launch new products, services, businesses, and jobs with enormous growth 

potential. The Act will further our joint goal of placing NASA’s programs on a more 

stable footing and enhancing the long-term sustainability of these exciting endeavors as we chart a new path forward in space. 

The FY2012 NASA budget reaffirms the Administration’s commitment to a bold 

and ambitious future for NASA. Every initiative called for in the Act is funded, including: a robust program of space science and Earth science, including a commitment to invest in new satellites and programs of Earth observation; a strong aeronautics research program; the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift launch vehicle 

and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) needed to support human spaceflight and 

exploration missions beyond Earth’s orbit; a vigorous technology development program; extension of International Space Station (ISS) activities through at least 

2020, coupled with a plan to use this orbiting outpost more effectively; and the development of private-sector capabilities to transport cargo and crew into low Earth 

orbit, thus shortening the duration of our reliance solely on Russian launch vehicles 

for access to the ISS. 

Within the context of a difficult budget environment and the President’s decision 

to freeze non-security discretionary spending at 2010 levels for five years, NASA’s 

budget remains at $18.7 billion in the 2012 Budget. This budget level demands difficult choices, and those choices were made while keeping in mind the priorities of 

the Act as well as the collective desire of the Congress and the Administration to 

have a balanced program of science, research, technology development, safe 

spaceflight operations, and exploration. One such difficult choice was limiting the 

budget for the James Webb Space Telescope, keeping the project funded at $375 million in 2012, to assure NASA the opportunity to begin work on new scientific opportunities identified in the National Academies’ most recent decadal survey in astronomy and astrophysics. Similarly, the 2012 Budget reduces the planned increases in 

Earth-science research outlined in the 2011 Budget. The Budget demonstrates the 

President’s continued commitment to our shared priorities even when difficult decisions are required, providing $1.8 billion in FY2012 funding for the Space Launch 

System and $1.02 billion for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, thereby laying the 

critical foundation for these exploration programs. As NASA reported in January of 

this year, it is still in the process of shaping these efforts and will discuss them in 

more detail in a report to Congress this spring. Similarly, the Budget provides a 

solid foundation for the commercial crew and cargo transportation programs that 
30 

are necessary to provide safe and cost-effective access to low Earth orbit, including 

sufficient support for the operations of the ISS. 

Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

The hugely complex web of technology that keeps this Nation’s equipment and 

economy running smoothly depends on largely invisible but critical support in the 

fields of measurement science and standards. The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) laboratories stand at the core of this Nation’s unparalleled 

capacity in these areas, helping ensure that America remains the world leader in 

measurement innovation and systems interoperability. Reflecting NIST’s vital role 

in supporting the economy and infrastructure, the 2012 Budget of $764 million for 

the Institute’s intramural laboratories amounts to a 15.1 percent increase over the 

2010 enacted level. That increase will support high-performance laboratory research 

and facilities for a diverse portfolio of investigations in areas germane to advanced 

manufacturing, health information technology, cybersecurity, interoperable smart 

grid, and clean energy. For NIST’s extramural programs, the 2012 Budget requests 

$143 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), an $18 

million increase over the 2010 enacted level. The 2012 Budget also requests $75 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a $5 million increase over 2010, 

and $12 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program, a 

new public-private partnership that will develop road maps for research that will 

broadly benefit the Nation’s industrial base. All of these NIST programs are important components of A Framework for American Manufacturing, a comprehensive 

strategy for supporting American manufacturers announced in December 2009, and 

the Administration’s revised Innovation Strategy released this month. 

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

NOAA plays a vital role supporting research on the Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, 

and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of $5.5 billion is an increase of $749 million 

over the 2010 enacted level. This will allow NOAA to strengthen the scientific basis 

for consequential environmental decision-making, improve critical weather and climate services that protect life and property, invest more heavily in restoring our 

oceans and coasts, take advantage of high-performance computing to manage weather and climate data, and ensure continuity in crucial Earth-observation satellite coverage. The 2012 Budget proposes a restructuring of NOAA, including the creation 

of a Climate Service line office in NOAA that will focus on the delivery of climate 

services while sustaining research on oceans, atmosphere, and climate. 

NOAA satellite systems are critical for our Nation’s ability to forecast severe 

weather, such as blizzards or hurricanes, and as such can save lives and property. 

Ensuring that we retain these capabilities remains a top priority in the 2012 Budget. The former National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS) program had a troubled history, as illustrated by numerous Congressional hearings and GAO reports. Because of this, in early 2010 the Administration 

announced a significant restructuring of the program, and this plan was endorsed 

by Congress as part of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (Section 727). This restructuring was accompanied by significant increases in NOAA’s 2011 Budget request in 

order to expedite the launch schedule of these essential weather satellites and reduce the risks of a gap in forecasting data. However, because the current continuing 

resolution allows for only a fraction of the funding necessary in FY2011 to continue 

work on the instruments and spacecraft for the first of NOAA’s satellites (the first 

Joint Polar Satellite System mission, or JPSS–1), work on the first JPSS satellite 

has been slowed down considerably. Under current funding scenarios, the JPSS–1 

mission could be delayed by up to two years, thus forcing the weather forecasting 

community to rely solely on satellites that will be operating well past their planned 

mission life. The 2012 Budget request provides $1.1 billion to continue the development of the Joint Polar Satellite System, a significant increase over the 2010 enacted level which reflects the need for NOAA to fully fund the acquisition of satellites for the afternoon orbit within its own budget. NOAA recognizes the magnitude of the requested investment for environmental operational satellites. However, given the impact of weather on society and the nation’s economy, the ability 

to warn and protect our citizens from harm is well worth the cost. 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

The Administration is directing Federal innovation incentives to one of the most 

important, job-creating, innovation-inspiring challenges of our time: making clean 

energy affordable and abundant. The DOE R&D portfolio is a key part of this effort, 

which is why DOE R&D increases to $13.0 billion in the 2012 Budget. This rep-
31 

resents targeted growth of 19.9 percent and does not include DOE’s non-R&D cleanup, weapons, and energy-deployment programs. The 2012 Budget also proposes significant resources for demonstration and deployment incentives as part of a comprehensive framework for moving the United States toward a clean-energy future. 

The Administration’s clean-energy R&D priorities focus on developing cutting-edge 

technologies with real-world applications to advance a clean-energy economy, increase energy efficiency in industry and manufacturing, reduce energy use in buildings, and reach the goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. 

To help pay for these priorities, we are proposing to cut inefficient subsidies that 

we currently provide, unnecessarily, for fossil fuels. The 2012 Budget proposes $550 million in appropriations for the Advanced Re- search Projects Agency–Energy, or ARPA–E, and another $100 million in mandatory 

funding under the Wireless Innovation Fund. The Budget will advance ARPA–E’s 

portfolio of transformational energy research with real-world applications across 

areas ranging from grid technology and power electronics to batteries and energy 

storage. First funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA), ARPA–E is a signature component of the America COMPETES Act, which 

was recently reauthorized. 

The 2012 Budget also doubles the number of Energy Innovation Hubs to solve key 

challenges that require cross-cutting inputs from diverse disciplines. The three new 

Hubs will focus on Batteries and Energy Storage, Smart Grid Technology and Systems, and Critical Materials. Two weeks ago, the President visited the existing Energy Efficient Building System Design Hub, which will accelerate the development 

of innovative designs for cost-effective lighting, sunlight-responsive windows, and 

smart, thermodynamic heating and cooling systems, which together will help make 

America home to the most energy-efficient buildings in the world. The other two existing Hubs focus on Fuels from Sunlight and Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear 

Reactors. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science pursues fundamental discoveries 

and supports major scientific research facilities that provide the foundation for longterm progress in economically significant domains such as nanotechnology, advanced materials, high-end computing, energy supply and end-use efficiency, and climate change. The 2012 Budget of $5.4 billion, more than 10 percent above the 2010 

enacted level, increases funding for facilities and cutting-edge research geared toward addressing fundamental challenges in many areas including clean energy and 

climate change, as well as multi-scale carbon cycle research to underpin measurement, reporting, and verification of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Investments in DOE’s clean-energy applied R&D programs target gains over the 

next several decades for reducing dependence on oil and accelerating the transition 

to a low-carbon economy. The President’s 2012 Budget increases investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by more than 40 percent over the 2010 appropriation to a total of $3.2 billion. EERE supports important work in industrial 

productivity, R&D on advanced batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles, and building technology R&D to cut energy consumption. It also supports new deployment activities in these areas, including a $200 million competitive grant program to encourage electric vehicle (EV) readiness and a $100 million competitive ‘‘Race to 

Green’’ program to encourage state and local governments to streamline codes, regulations, and performance standards and make efficient building the norm. Strong 

support continues for carbon capture and storage options that can significantly reduce the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The Budget also increases 

investments by more than 40 percent over 2010 funding levels in R&D to modernize 

the electric grid, critical to enabling clean energy sources, by providing $238 million 

for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

To help pay for these programs and align policies toward new clean energy tech- nologies, the Budget proposes to repeal over $4 billion per year in inefficient fossil 

fuel subsidies. The Administration will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to 

put in place market-based incentives to promote U.S. leadership in the clean-energy 

marketplace. Consistent with Administration policy to phase out inefficient fossil 

fuel subsidies, the Budget eliminates funding for R&D focused on increasing hydrocarbon production. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The R&D portfolio of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is $584 million 

in the 2012 Budget, a decline of $13 million or 2.2 percent compared to the 2010 

funding level. With this investment, EPA will focus on enhancing and strengthening 

the planning and delivery of science by restructuring its research and science programs to be more integrated and cross-disciplinary. This request supports high-priority research of national importance in such areas as endocrine disrupting chemi-
32 

cals, green chemistry, e-waste and e-design, green infrastructure, computational 

toxicology, air monitoring, drinking water, and STEM fellowships. In addition, by 

way of strategic redirections, EPA will significantly increase—by $25 million—its 

outreach to the broader scientific community through its Science to Achieve Results 

(STAR) program. This investment will bring innovative and sustainable solutions to 

21st century environmental science challenges by engaging the academic research 

community. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

The total 2012 budget of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Interior’s lead science agency, is $1.1 billion or a $6 million increase from the 2010 enacted 

level. The Budget includes a total of $126 million in program increases, offsetting 

a total of $120 million in program reductions and savings, reflecting shifting priorities towards climate variability research and ecosystem restoration. There are significant decreases in minerals and water resources research as well as targeted increases, including $11 million to complete the network of climate science centers 

that will develop research-based decision support tools for use by Federal land managers. The 2012 Budget also proposes an addition of $60 million over the 2010 level 

for Landsat operations and the development of a new operational Landsat satellite 

program, which will continue to collect remote sensing data that are invaluable for 

many purposes, including climate and land-use change research. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D totals $1.1 billion in the 2012 Budget, up $167 million or 18.8 percent from the 2010 enacted level. Within the 

DHS Science and Technology Directorate, the 2012 Budget proposes $150 million to 

begin construction of the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF), which will 

serve as a new, state-of-the-art biosafety level 3&4 facility for the development of 

vaccines and anti-virals and enhanced diagnostic capabilities for protecting the 

United States against emerging agricultural diseases. The Budget also proposes $64 

million for research to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative 

(CNCI), an increase of $22 million from the 2010 enacted level. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

The 2012 Budget provides $1.2 billion for Department of Transportation (DOT) 

R&D, an increase compared to the 2010 funding level. One significant part of DOT’s 

R&D activities is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Research, Engineering, and Development program. The Budget includes funding for several R&D activities in FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen. The 

Joint Planning and Development Office coordinates this important effort with NASA 

and other participating agencies. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also 

manages a comprehensive, nationally-coordinated highway research and technology 

program, engaging and cooperating with other highway research stakeholders. 

FHWA performs research activities associated with safety, infrastructure preservation and improvements, and environmental mitigation and streamlining. 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

The 2012 Budget requests $6.65 million for White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) operations, 5 percent below the 2010 enacted funding 

level, in recognition of the need for shared sacrifice to freeze non-security discretionary spending. OSTP works with OMB to ensure that the President’s S&T priorities are appropriately reflected in the budgets of all the executive branch departments and agencies with S&T and STEM-education missions. OSTP also provides 

science and technology advice and analysis in support of the activities of the other 

offices in the Executive Office of the President and supports me in my role as the 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, with the responsibility to 

provide the President with such information about science and technology issues as 

he may request in connection with the policy matters before him. In addition, OSTP 

coordinates interagency research initiatives through administration of the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC), serves as the lead White House office in 

a range of bilateral and multilateral S&T activities internationally, and provides administrative and technical support for the very active 21-member President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST). This work is accomplished with 

approximately 34 full-time equivalent staff supported by the OSTP appropriation, 

which includes the OSTP Director, four Associate Directors (for Science, Technology, 

Environment, and National Security and International Affairs), additional technical 

experts, and a small administrative function. In addition, there are approximately 
33 

40 scientific and technical experts detailed to OSTP from all across the executive 

branch along with approximately a dozen other experts brought in under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act or various fellowship arrangements. This mix of personnel allows OSTP to tap a wide range of expertise and leverage all available resources to ensure that the science and technology work of the Federal government 

is appropriately resourced, coordinated and leveraged. 

Interagency Initiatives 

A number of priority interagency S&T initiatives are highlighted in the President’s 2012 Budget. These initiatives are coordinated through the NSTC, which as 

noted above is administered by OSTP. 

Networking and Information Technology R&D 

The multi-agency Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program plans and coordinates agency research efforts in cyber security, high-end computing systems, advanced networking, software development, 

high-confidence systems, information management, and other information technologies. The 2012 Budget provides $3.9 billion for NITRD, an increase of $74 million over the 2010 funding level. 

Networking and computing capabilities are more critical than ever for a range of 

national priorities, including national and homeland security, reforming the health 

care system, understanding and responding to environmental stresses, increasing 

energy efficiencies and developing renewable energy sources, strengthening the security of our critical infrastructures including cyberspace, and revitalizing our educational system for the jobs of tomorrow. The 2012 Budget includes a focus on research to improve our ability to derive scientific insights and economic value from 

enormous quantities of data that heretofore would have been too large to take full 

advantage of, and continues to emphasize foundations for assured computing and 

secure hardware, software and network design, and engineering to address the goal 

of making Internet communications more secure and reliable. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative 

The 2012 Budget provides $2.1 billion for the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), an increase of $201 million over the 2010 funding 

level. Research and development in the NNI focuses on the development of materials, devices, and systems that exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter at the nanoscale. NNI-supported R&D is enabling breakthroughs in disease detection and treatment, manufacturing at or near the nanoscale, environmental monitoring and protection, energy conversion and storage, and the design of novel electronic devices. In 2012, NNI agencies will be moving forward, using close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration, on three signature initiatives in 

areas ready for advances: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond; Sustainable Manufacturing–Creating the Industries of the Future; and Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion. 

In addition, agencies continue to maintain a focus on developing nanotechnology 

responsibly with attention to potential human and environmental health impacts, 

as well as ethical, legal, and other societal issues. I will also add that within weeks, 

I will be submitting to the Committee a revised strategic plan for the NNI reflecting 

the changing opportunities for frontier research at the nanoscale. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program 

The Budget includes an expanded commitment to global change research, with the 

understanding that insights derived today will pay off with interest in the years and 

decades ahead as our Nation works to limit and adapt to shifting environmental 

conditions. Investments in climate science over the past several decades have contributed enormously to our understanding of global climate. The trends in global climate are clear, as are their primary causes, and the investments in this research 

arena in the 2012 Budget are a critical part of the President’s overall strategy to 

mitigate U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and move toward a clean-energy economy 

even as we adapt to those changes that are inevitable. Specifically, the 2012 Budget 

provides $2.6 billion for the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP)—an increase of 20.3 percent or $446 million over the 2010 enacted 

level—to continue its important work of improving our ability to understand, predict, project, mitigate, and adapt to climate change. 

As you are no doubt aware, the USGCRP was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101–606) to improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science, expand global observing systems, develop science-based 
34 

resources to support policymaking and resource management, and communicate 

findings broadly among scientific and stakeholder communities. Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP. OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work closely with the USGCRP to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure the program is aligned with the Administration’s 

priorities and reflects agency planning. In 2011, the USGCRP is undertaking a comprehensive process that will result in an updated strategic plan, which will be submitted to Congress later this year. 

Funding in the 2012 Budget will support an integrated and continuing National 

Climate Assessment of climate change science, impacts, vulnerabilities, and response strategies as mandated by Congress. The Budget also prioritizes an interagency research effort for measuring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse-gas emissions. 

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Job Creation 

The President believes we must harness the power and potential of science, technology, and innovation to transform the Nation’s economy and to improve the lives 

of all Americans. In addition to the investments in research and development (R&D) 

I have described, the President’s 2012 Budget targets strategic investments to spur 

innovation in the public and private sectors and to maximize the impact of the Federal R&D investment for innovation. Earlier this month, the President released a 

revised Strategy for American Innovation, building on an earlier version released in 

September 2009. This strategy describes how investments in R&D work together 

with other Federal investments and policies to support American innovation. Let me 

share with you a few highlights that are reflected in the Budget. 

The Budget proposes a permanent extension of the research and experimentation 

(R&E) tax credit to spur private investment in R&D by providing certainty that the 

credit will be available for the duration of the R&D investment. In December, the 

President and Congress worked together to extend expiring tax breaks for Americans; as part of that agreement, the current R&E tax credit was extended through 

the end of this year. The 2012 Budget proposes to expand and simplify the credit 

as part of making it permanent. 

In addition, two weeks ago the Administration announced Startup America, a 

campaign to inspire and accelerate high-growth entrepreneurship throughout the 

Nation. This coordinated public/private effort brings together an alliance of the 

country’s most innovative entrepreneurs, corporations, universities, foundations, and 

other leaders, working in concert with a wide range of Federal agencies to increase 

the prevalence and success of American entrepreneurs. A broad set of Federal agencies will launch a coordinated series of policies that ensure high-growth startups 

have unimpeded access to capital, expanded access to quality mentorship, an improved regulatory environment, and a rapid path to commercialization of federallyfunded research. 

The 2012 Budget sustains the Administration’s effort to promote regional innovation clusters as significant sources of entrepreneurship, innovation, and quality jobs. 

These efforts are taking place in several agencies working together, including the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), DOE, and especially the Economic Development Administration (EDA) within the Department of Commerce. EDA will be pursuing several programs in research parks, regional innovation clusters, and entrepreneurial innovation activities, as authorized recently in the America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act. And as mentioned earlier, the 2012 Budget continues to increase funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) in 

NIST to disseminate the latest advanced manufacturing techniques and innovative 

processes to small- and medium-sized manufacturers around the Nation. Taken together, these investments will help ensure that Federal investments in innovation, 

education, and infrastructure translate into commercial activity, real products, and 

jobs. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

In his State of the Union address, the President said: ‘‘If we want innovation to 

produce jobs in America and not overseas, then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.’’ To help win that race, the 2012 Budget emphasizes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, building on two strong 

years of progress. Through his past budget requests and actions—including his recent hosting of the first White House science fair, his launch of the ‘‘Educate to Innovate’’ and ‘‘Change the Equation’’ initiatives, and his challenging the Nation’s 

200,000 Federal scientists and engineers to get more involved in STEM education— 

the President has shown that he is deeply committed to improving STEM education. 
35 

These efforts have engaged not only the Federal government but also the private, 

philanthropic, and academic sectors. The Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $700 million in financial and in-kind private-sector support for STEM 

education programs. And the Change the Equation program has brought together 

over 100 corporations in a historic effort to scale up effective models for improving 

STEM education. The Administration has also integrated STEM education into 

broader education programs. For example, the Race to the Top competition provided 

a competitive advantage to states that committed to a comprehensive strategy to improve STEM education. 

Building on these efforts, the 2012 Budget proposes an investment of $100 million 

as a down payment on a 10-year effort to help prepare 100,000 new highly effective 

STEM teachers. This coordinated effort between NSF and the Department of Education will help prepare teachers with both strong teaching skills and deep content 

knowledge. The Administration proposes $80 million for the Department of Education in the 2012 Budget to expand promising and effective models of teacher 

STEM preparation within the new Teacher and Leader Pathways program—for example, ones that provide undergraduates with early and intensive field experience 

in the classroom along with extensive STEM subject coverage. At the same time, 

NSF proposes to launch a $20 million teacher-education research program called 

Teacher Learning for the Future. In cooperation with the Department of Education, 

this NSF program will fund research that will increase our understanding of what 

makes a great STEM teacher and how to best prepare, support, and retain highly 

effective STEM teachers in the most cost effective manner. The coordination of these 

two programs will ensure that there is continual innovation and improvement in 

teacher preparation that is grounded firmly in evidence. 

This is part of a broader Administration commitment to look carefully at the effectiveness of all STEM programs and find ways to improve them. To further this goal, 

in coming weeks I will establish a Committee on STEM Education under the National Science and Technology Council. The STEM Education Committee will be cochaired by OSTP’s Associate Director for Science, Carl Wieman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist renowned for his work on improving STEM education, and will involve participation from the many Federal agencies involved in STEM education activities. 

The work of this Committee will be closely aligned with the vision for STEM education outlined by Congress in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and 

will focus on improving the coordination and effectiveness of all Federal STEM education programs. In this spirit, the Department of Education and NSF are leading 

an effort, with active OSTP participation, to increase the impact of the Federal 

STEM investments I’ve outlined above by (1) developing an aligned strategy that 

emphasizes key agency capacities; (2) clarifying evidence standards used to assess 

program impact; and (3) identifying the most promising STEM efforts for further 

validation, testing, and suitability for scaling up. 

All told, the 2012 Budget requests $3.4 billion for STEM education programs 

across the Federal government. This is $200 million lower than the 2010 funding 

level and reflects some difficult choices. However, we feel this budget is better focused on programs that will make an impact. 

OSTP looks forward to working with this Committee on our common vision of improving STEM education for all of America’s students. 

21st Century Infrastructure 

I’ve talked about innovation and education, and now I would like to talk briefly 

about the third step in winning the future: rebuilding America. In his State of the 

Union address, the President established a vision of rebuilding America for the 21st 

century. This vision is reflected in the 2012 Budget in investments that will not only 

rebuild the roads and bridges of the 20th century but will also help build the new 

infrastructure needed for America to remain competitive in this century. 

Within science and technology, the 2012 Budget proposes a Wireless Innovation 

and Infrastructure Initiative to help businesses extend the next generation of wireless coverage to 98 percent of the U.S. population. This Initiative will enable businesses to grow faster, students to learn more, and public safety officials to access 

state-of-the-art, secure, nationwide, and interoperable mobile communications. It 

will also foster the conditions for the next generation of wireless technology, nearly 

doubling the amount of wireless spectrum for mobile broadband and providing critical support for R&D in wireless innovation. The Initiative builds upon the Presidential Memorandum on spectrum released last year, which proposes to reallocate 

a total of 500 megahertz of Federal agency and commercial spectrum bands over the 

next ten years to increase the Nation’s access to wireless broadband. 
36 

As part of the Initiative, the 2012 Budget proposes the creation of a $3 billion 

Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund to be funded out of receipts generated through 

electromagnetic-spectrum auctions. This Fund will advance our economic growth 

and competitiveness goals, supporting key technological developments that will enable and take advantage of the private sector’s rollout of next-generation wireless 

services and pave the way for new technologies. The WIN Fund will support basic 

research, experimentation and testbeds, and applied development in a number of 

areas including public safety, education, energy, .health, transportation, and economic development. 

The 2012 Budget also proposes investments in novel, game-changing physical infrastructure systems including a national high-speed rail system, an improved civil 

aviation system taking advantage of the NextGen air-traffic-control innovations, and 

new standards for smart-grid technologies. 

Conclusion 

The investments in research and development, innovation, STEM education, and 

21st century infrastructure proposed in the President’s FY2012 Budget reflect his 

clear understanding of the critical importance of science and technology, STEM education, and 21st century infrastructure to the challenges the Nation faces. Recognizing the importance of responsibly reducing projected budget deficits and holding 

the line on government spending, the President has made difficult choices in order 

to maintain and in some cases increase critical investments that will pay off by generating the American jobs and industries of the future. Indeed, the science and technology investments in the 2012 Budget are essential to keep this country on a path 

to revitalized economic growth, real energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better health outcomes for more Americans at lower costs, strengthened national and homeland security, and continuing leadership in science and in space. 

As this Committee has long understood over the decades, the best environment 

for innovation in all technologies is a broad and balanced research program for all 

the sciences. Such a broad base of scientific research will provide the foundation for 

a cornucopia of multidisciplinary discoveries with unimagined benefits for our society. The truth is that this country’s overall prosperity in the last half-century is due 

in no small measure to America’s ‘‘innovation system’’—a three-way partnership 

among academia, industry, and government. 

One of President Obama’s guiding principles is that America’s present and future 

strength, prosperity, and global preeminence depend directly on fundamental research. Knowledge drives innovation, innovation drives productivity, and productivity drives America’s economic growth. And so it logically follows that economic 

growth is a prerequisite for opportunity, and scientific research is a prerequisite for 

growth. 

That is why President Obama believes that leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of our nation—today it is an economic and national security imperative. This Administration will ensure that America remains at the epicenter of the ongoing revolution in scientific research and 

technological innovation that generates new knowledge, creates new jobs, and builds 

new industries. 

By sustaining our investments in fundamental research, we can ensure that 

America remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our ability to shape and improve our Nation’s future and that of the world around us. 

I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of the President’s FY2012 Budget proposal a reality. I will be pleased to answer any questions 

the Members may have. 

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN P. HOLDREN

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Co-Chair of the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST), and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and 

Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy 

School of Government, as well as a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, at Harvard University. Concurrently, from 2002, he served as cochair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy; from 

2005, as the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center; and, from 2008, as Guest 

Professor in the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsinghua University, 

Beijing, China. 
37 

Dr. Holdren holds degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT (SB 1965, SM 1966) and Stanford (PhD 1970) and is the author of 

some 350 publications on global environmental change, energy technology and policy, nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, and science and technology policy. 

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Council on Foreign 

relations, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London. He is also 

a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; 

former Chairman of the Federation of American Scientists; and one of the 

firstrecipients, in 1981, of a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship. In 1995 he 

gave the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences 

on Science and World Affairs, an international arms-control and scientific-cooperation organization in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997. 

From 1994 to 2001, Dr. Holdren served as a member of President Clinton’s 

PCAST; from 1994through 2004 he chaired the Committee on International Security 

and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences; and from 1991 to 2005 he 

was a member of the Board of Directors of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

Foundation. Early in his career he held positions at the Lockheed Missiles and 

Space Company, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Environmental Quality Laboratory and Division of Humanities and Social Sciences at the 

California Institute of Technology. From 1973 until 1996 he was the founding core 

faculty member and co-leader of the campus-wide, interdisciplinary, graduatedegreegrantingEnergy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. 

Among other distinctions, he has been the recipient of the Volvo International Environment Prize, the Kaul Foundation Prize for Excellence in Science, the Tyler 

Global Environment Prize, and the Heinz Prize in Public Policy. He holds three honorary doctorates. 

Holdren has been married for 44 years to Dr. Cheryl E. Holdren, a biologist; they 

have two grown children and five grandchildren ages 5 to 19. He was born in 

Sewickley, Pennsylvania, and grew up in San Mateo, California, attending public 

schools there. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. I will recognize myself 

for the first five minutes and I will try to stay within the five minutes. 

EPA announced the endangerment findings on December 7, 

2009, at the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. I am sure you remember that, don’t you, Doctor? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Chairman HALL. And I understand you as well as President 

Obama and other officials also attended. That finding was, so far 

as I know and believe, was the first time EPA had made a standalone declaration of a pollutant in advance of proposed regulations. 

I think that is true. Do you agree with that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Well, maybe I can help you. Maybe I can be of 

some benefit to you. 

And it is curious that the announcement was made during the 

Copenhagen Conference and touted there by Administration officials presumably to give the Administration more leverage in the 

international negotiations. What was your role in the 

endangerment finding discussions and decisions, particularly with 

respect to the timing of it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, I did not have a role in the 

endangerment decision at all either in the internal deliberations at 

the EPA that led to reaching it or in the timing of the decision. 

That was not my domain. 

Chairman HALL. Who made that decision? 
38 

Dr. HOLDREN. I assume the decision on the timing of the finding 

was that of the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. I don’t have any 

knowledge to the contrary. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Then let me move on. The Administration has told us time and again of the calamities of climate change, 

and you know there are some differences of opinion there, and we 

have been told that it was based on bad science. We don’t know 

who told us that but we are going to try to have them before us 

to ask them who told them that and then try to have them before 

us because if it is based on bad science, people are entitled to know 

it. If it is not based on bad science, people are entitled to know it. 

We are really just going to seek the truth, and I don’t think anybody ought to object to that search because we are sure going to 

make it. 

In a recent interview, you had stated that Republicans needed to 

be educated on this issue. Maybe that was just something that our 

speechwriter put in there when they were mad at us like we say 

things to you that we try to impress upon you because you are in 

such a position to do so much for the states and the country and 

for the man that you report to. In recent interviews, you stated 

that we needed to be educated on the issue. I have to take issue 

with you on that a little bit. In August 2006, you knew I was going 

to ask you about the interview you had with BBC News, didn’t 

you? You reportedly said that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea-level rise of 4 meters—that is 13 feet—was 

within the realm of possibility. While you were giving the interview, how sure were you about your prediction? As you know, the 

very next year the so-called gold standard of scientific consensus by 

global warming advocates projected that the oceans would rise between 7 and 23 inches, not 13 feet but less than 2 feet, between 

now and the year 2100. Let me ask you this: how sure was the scientific community of their prediction, in your opinion? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, there are actually a number of questions 

there but let me start with the most recent, the one of sea-level 

rise. At the time there had been two referenced peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature that pointed out that twice in 

the last 19,000 years the rate of sea level went up as much as 3 

to 5 meters per century under forcings, that is, influences, on the 

climate, natural ones in this case, that were in the same range or 

smaller than the forces that are now being imposed on the climate, 

we believe mainly by human activity. At that time, therefore, the 

view that a sea-level rise of as much as four meters, which was in 

the middle of the range of 3 to 5, was a reasonable statement based 

on what was in the peer-reviewed literature. Subsequently, newer 

analyses have reduced that figure somewhat but the upper end of 

the range remains in the domain of 1 to 2 meters over the century 

we are now in at worst. 

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change arrived 

at the estimate which you quoted, Mr. Chairman, they explicitly 

excluded, and they said so in a footnote, the dynamic processes 

which led in the past to these more rapid increases in sea level and 

they said they were leaving those out because they didn’t believe 

that the scientific basis for modeling them quantitatively was yet 

adequate to support a particular number. Since that time—that 
39 

was the 2007 report of the IPCC, whose scientific inputs were finalized in December 2005. since that time, there have been extensive 

new analyses which have supported the proposition that the sealevel rise in this century could be in the range of 1 to as much as 

even 2 meters. That is not a particular prediction. The range of uncertainty is large. But even half a meter would be an extremely 

consequential matter for people and businesses with oceanfront 

property. 

Chairman HALL. There were a number of so-called scientific 

consensuses stated, yours among several others, and some to the 

effect that the science is not good, not based on good science. I 

know you have heard that. I have heard it. I want to know who 

said it, who told them that, and what their background was. 

Your projection of potential sea-level rise was over 11 feet higher 

than even the worst-case scenario projected by your colleagues less 

than a year ago so there is more than just a few of us Republicans 

that need to be educated on the issue. Given the disparity of these 

projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in 

the Administration’s assurance of the global calamities to come or 

trust your climate change education campaign? That ought to roll 

you one that you might knock out of the park. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, I want 

to clarify that in the interview you mentioned, I was not asked 

about Republicans as a whole, I was asked what do you plan to do 

in relation to those Members of Congress who believe that climate 

change is not a fact, is not real, and I said in relation to that particular question that I thought this was a matter of education because the scientific facts on the reality of climate change are very 

robust indeed. 

Every major national academy of sciences in the world and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence 

for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human 

activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is 

already occurring from these changes, and that the harm will grow 

unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. 

This is not the view of a few isolated scientists. This is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the 

world. 

You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will 

say they don’t believe it but they are very much in the minority. 

You could also produce people on this witness stand who will say, 

with Ph.D.’s attached to their name, that they don’t believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. There are always 

skeptics, there are always heretics. That is in the nature of science. 

But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being 

of the public against very long odds. 

Chairman HALL. Well, up to this time and for the past two years, 

say we have six or eight to testify such as you are testifying, socalled experts, five or six of them believed it was good science, 

maybe two of them—and we had no choice on who to bring. We 
40 

now have a choice and we asked for you first, and I thank you for 

your kindness. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am happy to be here. 

Chairman HALL. My time is expired. I recognize Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. Johnson, you have five minutes, and I used about eight, so I 

will pay you back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Holdren, I have looked at the President’s budget, and though 

I am disappointed, it does look better than what we are dealing 

with here now, but I did notice that the proposed STEM programs 

have been cut some, and I also would like to speak a bit about the 

coordination of the various programs between the Department of 

Education as it relates to STEM. I know there has been some 

major effort to coordinate. Give me a little update of where you are 

and how you think we are better utilizing the money. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Ranking Member Johnson, let me start by 

saying we are doing a lot of work to coordinate the efforts in education across the different federal agencies that have activities in 

this domain. I and OSTP, Melody Barnes, who chairs the Domestic 

Policy Council and has wider responsibilities for education in the 

White House, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, all work very 

closely together on this to coordinate these activities and we work 

as well with the Department of Energy, with NASA, with the National Science Foundation and with other agencies. Even the Department of Defense has activities related to STEM education. We 

work with them as well. We think we have succeeded in bringing 

the parties together, focusing on the magnitude of the challenge, 

figuring out how to use our resources in complementary ways 

across those different agencies. This has led to identification of 

some savings that are reflected in the budget. 

I would also say, though, in relation to the budget, and in particular the NSF part of the budget, that a great deal of the STEM 

education activity in the National Science Foundation actually goes 

in the various research directorates as a part of their activities 

without the word ‘‘education’’ appearing in the budget line because 

in the research directorates a great many of the grant programs actually require that educational activities be part of the activity of 

the researchers who receive the grant, and those kinds of activity 

have been increasing and we believe they are very effective. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now, just looking at the Continuing Resolution, 

there are really very deep cuts toward the hispanic-serving institutions like 78 percent, a third of the historically black colleges and 

a third or more of the tribal colleges. But what really gets my attention as well is that $1 billion was cut from Head Start, and 

which means then it makes it more difficult to implement STEM 

courses because most of the kids that really need this orientation 

by a greater percentage—all of them need it but by a greater percentage—are Head Start-eligible children, and I wonder what kind 

of review has been given to these potential cuts? And I ask that 

because our U.S. companies or CEOs that we have had before this 

Committee have said that if we don’t focus on the skilled labor and 

better education, that our companies would leave this country, and 

we are already behind now so I am wondering how do we move for-
41 

ward to try to maintain some competitive edge with all of these potential cuts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would have to say that the process of analyzing the impact of the cuts in the Continuing Resolution has only 

begun, and I don’t have available to me detailed analyses, but looking at the magnitude of those cuts, it is clear that they would be 

devastating to many of the activities in support of STEM education, in support of R&D, in support of catalyzing innovation that 

the Administration believes and I think many on this Committee 

believe this country is going to need if it is to succeed in maintaining its leadership position in the world in innovation, its competitiveness, if it is going to succeed in creating the products and industries and jobs of the future. 

I do know of an analysis of what the C.R.’s cuts in the National 

Science Foundation would do. The estimate is that versus the 2010 

enacted level, the NSF in its research directorates would make 500 

fewer awards supporting 5,500 fewer people, that in the education 

and human resources directorate they would make 235 fewer 

awards and 4,400 people would be supported, in total 10,000 fewer 

people supported by NSF in these domains, which are in our view 

so critical to maintaining our competitiveness, to maintaining the 

technological savvy of our workforce, to maintaining the scientific 

savvy of our voters. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. One last question. In NASA, for the 

fiscal year 2012, your request includes a five-year runout that 

shows a flat budget of $18.7 billion per year while the federal budget requests $18 billion, and only increasing slightly again in fiscal 

years 2015 and 2016. Why is the agency showing a different runout 

than the federal budget, and what version is correct? 

Dr. HOLDREN. My understanding, Congresswoman Johnson, 

Ranking Member Johnson, is that the out-year budgets are only 

notional at this point and I think the differences is between what 

NASA did and what the OMB put out probably mainly reflect the 

last-minute character, which also attends the preparation of these 

numbers, but they are only notional at this point, and I think the 

out-year numbers simply should not be taken that seriously at this 

particular moment. 

As you know, the President is committed to freezing non-security 

discretionary spending over a period of five years as a whole, and 

I think the numbers which are in that ballpark in both cases simply reflect that commitment on an agency-by-agency basis. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The Chair recognizes Dr. Broun, chairman of the Investigations 

and Oversight Subcommittee, for five minutes. 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, at his Inauguration the President promised to ‘‘restore science to its rightful place.’’ As a physician and an applied 

scientist, I applaud that promise. Since then, a number of actions 

taken by this Administration or inactions such as the handling of 

the Gulf oil spill and its decision on Yucca Mountain make me 

question that goal. 
42 

Dr. Holdren, I have a number of questions related to that notion 

of scientific integrity. When did the President ask you to deliver 

scientific integrity recommendations? 

Dr. HOLDREN. As you know, Congressman Broun, the President 

on March 9, 2009, issued a Presidential Memorandum on Scientific 

Integrity in which he asked me to deliver guidelines that would 

elaborate on those recommendations in 120 days, and as you know, 

I missed that deadline by a very large margin. We discussed that, 

you and I, at a previous hearing. 

Dr. BROUN. When did OSTP have that draft ready? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The guidelines were released on December 17th of 

last year after going through many, many drafts and much discussion among agencies and within the different offices in the White 

House. 

Dr. BROUN. What prevented the release of those guidelines from 

the point that you developed your OSTP draft to the final delivery 

of them? 

Dr. HOLDREN. As I said, Congressman, there were many, many 

drafts of those guidelines, and what took so long was the complexity of the task of developing guidelines that were both specific 

enough to add significant value to what the President had already 

promulgated on March 9, 2009, and at the same time would be general enough to be applicable across all the departments and agencies and offices that deal with science and technology matters. That 

proved to be a much more demanding task than any of us thought 

at the outset, and it involved a great deal of debate with virtually 

every department, agency and office with a stake in this matter. 

Getting it right took us a long time, for which I have abundantly 

apologized. 

Dr. BROUN. Whose job is it to bring about that process? 

Dr. HOLDREN. My job, sir. 

Dr. BROUN. Okay. Thank you. Would you characterize these recommendations as guidelines or orders? 

Dr. HOLDREN. They are guidelines in the sense that we encourage the departments and agencies to build on them, and where possible even to strengthen them. 

Dr. BROUN. Okay. Are there any recommendations for Presidential action on these guidelines? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think the action continues to remain with the departments and agencies and with me. The departments and agencies have been asked to respond to the guidelines by producing 

within 120 days of my issuing the guidelines their own detailed 

policies department by department and agency by agency which 

would reflect those guidelines but again would elaborate on them 

further in the context of the particular responsibilities, functions 

and constraints that exist within those departments and agencies. 

Dr. BROUN. Very good, sir. Did you direct these agencies to implement these policies or did you simply say that they should? 

Dr. HOLDREN. They are directed to implement them, and I would 

emphasize that the President was clear in his memorandum of 

March 9, 2009, that the principles embodied in that memorandum 

were effective as of the time that they were issued and I made sure 

departments and agencies understood that as well. 
43 

Dr. BROUN. Okay. What deadlines do the agencies have to implement these guidelines? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is no specific deadline, I think, other than 

the timeline that they are expected to produce drafts of their policies in the next 120 days, and as we get those, we will determine 

what we are going to ask of them going forward. 

Dr. BROUN. Where are we in that process of the 120 days? What 

is the timeline? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I issued the guidelines on December 17th. A 

hundred and twenty days obviously would be four months from 

then, so one has got January, February, March, April would be the 

time we would expect those draft policies to be delivered, and I 

should say that two agencies have delivered theirs already. 

Dr. BROUN. Very good. And I hope the Committee gets those policies. Are these new guidelines going to be written down so that we 

can—everybody in America can see these? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely. I mean, number one, the President’s memorandum is a public document. My guidelines of December 17th are a public document and the policies of the offices, agencies and departments will be public documents. 

Dr. BROUN. Very good. I look forward to those. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. I have got a couple more 

questions that I would like to give the good doctor, and I assume 

that we can get a written response. Thank you so much. I yield 

back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren, the gentlelady from California, for five minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. 

Holdren, it is delightful to see you here. I am glad to be back to 

the Science Committee after several years deployment to the 

Homeland Security Committee and to get back to these issues 

which I love. 

I live in Silicon Valley, and I know that if we want prosperity 

in this country, we have got to double-down our investments on 

science and technology, so there is much in this proposed budget 

that is to like. I do have—I just want to make a stray comment. 

You know, being from Silicon Valley, we are near Stanford, and 

Steve Schneider along with Jim Prall did issue a paper last year 

in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science where they 

assessed what the climate scientists, active climate scientists were 

saying, and found that 97 percent of active climate scientists had 

reached the certain conclusion that climate change is occurring and 

that humans are the cause of it, so I think that issue is settled, 

and how we respond of course is the big question for us. 

As the Science Advisor to the President and Co-Chair of PCAST, 

you are in a wonderful position to provide advice not just on the 

purely science issues but a whole variety of things that touch on 

the future and so I want to ask, and you may not know the answer 

to this but I hope that you will take it up. Renewable energy is a 

big part of what we need to do in this country both for our economy 

but also for the climate change challenge that we face, and in San 

Jose I have very many solar energy and alternative energy companies, and one of the things that was hugely helpful to them was 
44 

the Renewable Energy Grant Program established in the Recovery 

Act. Now, I see that the proposal is to extend it just through 2012, 

and that is good, but I am wondering, could you advise the President or OMB or whoever is making these decisions that a longer 

extension would be much more helpful to these energy companies 

that are trying to make some plans? And they are going to get 

there without these grants and credits but they are at an embryonic stage right now. Would that be a fair thing to ask you, Doctor? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. Let me make a couple of comments on that. 

Certainly, all of these incentives, encouragements, and grants are 

going to be reviewed going forward to see which ones we actually 

need in order to encourage the development and deployment of the 

relevant energy sources. As you know, we have moved in what we 

are recommending from a renewable energy standard to a clean energy standard which embraces, in addition to the renewables, 

cleaner coal technologies, nuclear energy technologies, and with 

partial credit for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas. 

We think we are going to need all of those, and we want our policies going forward to reflect a balanced approach that encourages 

all of the cleaner energy sources that we are going to need to address the whole array of energy challenges we face, and those include staying competitive in the global energy technology market. 

They include creating high-quality jobs that will stay in America. 

They include reducing conventional air pollutants and they include 

reducing our dependence on imported oil, and they also of course 

include reducing our contribution to the dangers from climate 

change. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I ask, I noticed that there was a substantial 

downward slope on the fusion energy science, and I have been talking to the Department and I think I understand the reason why, 

and I don’t think I want to get more information on that but I want 

to make sure that we are adequately supporting the analysis at 

NIF because we are at a crucial stage there. We have invested a 

huge amount of money with bipartisan support over many, many 

years and I just want to make sure that we are adequately supporting the analysis that is going on right now. Do you think that 

we are, and do we need to discuss that further? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think we are. This is something that Secretary 

Chu is knowledgeable about and looking at. There are some benefits to having a Nobel laureate in physics as the Secretary of Energy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. He is terrific. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am looking at it. My Associate Director for 

Science, Carl Wieman, who also has a Nobel Prize in physics, is 

looking at that, among other large science and research and development projects in the portfolio. So yes, I think we are doing what 

we need to do in that domain. 

You mentioned the decrease in funding for fusion overall. As you 

know, fusion is a very long-term energy project, not likely to succeed in delivering electricity to the grid much before the middle of 

the century, but we do very much need things that we can do for 

an encore after the middle of this century and so it is not our intention to starve fusion. The size of the budget relates to, among 
45 

other things, what our partners are doing, where the program is 

at the moment and what it will take to move it forward. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. I see that my 

time is expired, and I thank the chairman for recognizing me. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you, and welcome you back to the 

Committee. You have always been a good member of this Committee. 

The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Fleischmann, for five minutes. We have all taken seven minutes so 

I might as well recognize you for seven minutes. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you for coming today. I represent the third 

district of Tennessee, which includes Oak Ridge, ORNL, of course, 

Y–12 and the cleanup and reclamation mission at ETTP, and since 

my short tenure as a Congressman, I am immersed in energy 

issues so I thank you for being here today. I have a few questions. 

Doctor, in your testimony you discuss how the investment in research and development by this White House will help keep America competitive. However, there are many other factors that can 

play into our competitiveness in the world. How is the Administration actively working to identify any U.S. policies or regulations 

that act as barriers to trade and investment in the United States? 

And further, are there any particular laws or regulations that act 

as barriers to trade and investment in the United States? I am 

sorry. Are there any particular laws or regulations that you have 

identified as increasing the cost for U.S. business compared to foreign competitors or forcing businesses to want to locate overseas? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congressman, for that very good question. We are addressing that in a number of domains. First of all, 

as you know, I am sure, Cass Sunstein, the Director of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB, has the mandate 

from the President to review the whole array of regulations that 

exist in this country looking for ones that may no longer be needed, 

that are not effective, that are too costly, that are inhibiting us in 

the various goals that we need to reach. You are probably also 

aware that there is a review underway of export controls, which we 

expect to yield a report soon and recommendations for reforming 

our pattern of export controls in a manner that will make U.S. 

companies able to be more active in a variety of dimensions of 

international trade. 

You mentioned that there are a lot of ways to encourage innovation, and we are very much aware that most of the innovation that 

this country needs will come from the private sector. We are very 

much aware that, for example, making an expanded research and 

experimentation tax credit permanent would be a great benefit in 

terms of the certainty available to our companies, large and small, 

as they plan their R&D expenditures going forward. We want to 

get that done. It is proposed again in this year’s budget. 

I know that, responding more specifically to your question about 

particular regulations, that there will be some announcements 

forthcoming soon on that particular front but I don’t want to jump 

the gun. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Yes, sir. Dr. Holdren, in 2008, the United 

States trade deficit in high-technology products was $55.5 billion, 
46 

up from $16.6 billion in 2002. The U.S. trade balance in high-technology products was last in surplus in 2001. A portion of this deficit from U.S. companies that manufacture overseas and bring the 

products back to the United States, even if we invest more in research and development programs and attract more professionals 

into high-technology fields, how do we discourage companies from 

taking production out of the United States? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think one of the key elements there actually 

comes back to this domain of science, technology, engineering, and 

math education. We need to create a workforce in this country that 

has the skills and the capabilities that make it attractive for U.S. 

firms to hire American workers and to stay in America in order to 

be able to hire them and bring them on board. That may be the 

single most important thing we can do, lifting the capabilities of 

our workforce to keep American companies here. America has always competed on the skills of our workers and our capacities to 

innovate, our capacities to deploy better technologies for manufacturing, to develop better products. We need to revisit those sources 

of our strength because we are never going to compete—at least 

not for a very long time, we are not going to compete with China 

on the cost of our labor. We are not going to compete with Malaysia 

and Indonesia on the cost of our labor or even with Brazil but we 

can and we must compete with them with a higher quality workforce, a more skilled workforce, a more technology-savvy workforce, 

and with continuing innovation that makes our manufacturing 

technologies better than those our competitors, that makes the 

products we are producing better than those of our competitors so 

that we will have those high-quality jobs that stay in this country. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Doctor. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Miller, who is the ranking member 

on the Energy Subcommittee. Mr. Miller, you have seven minutes, 

sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. You can give us back two if you want to. 

Mr. MILLER. There is a remote possibility that could happen. 

Dr. Holdren, there has been a great deal of attention to the issue 

of critical supplies of rare earths in the media. It was also a subject 

of interest to this Committee in the last Congress. There was a 

hearing in the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, which 

I chaired, on that topic and on our domestic supply of rare earths. 

Our subcommittee developed legislation which Kathy Dahlkemper, 

who was vice chair of the committee, introduced that did pass the 

House. It went to the Senate, where bills go to die, and sure 

enough, it did. But I understand that—well, I am preparing legislation at this time and I know that others are as well. 

What we found is that it is not an issue that fits neatly within 

the jurisdiction of any of the federal departments. It kind of crosses 

boundaries, which is also true of the committees of Congress. It 

doesn’t fit neatly within the jurisdiction. It does cross boundaries. 

I understand that OSTP has an ad hoc committee working on the 

issue of critical and strategic materials. Can you kind of tell us 
47 

about that ad hoc committee? Is it a formal committee? What is the 

status and what is that committee doing? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, we have had an interagency policy committee 

that is chaired by Dr. Cyrus Wadia in my office that has been operating since last March on the issue of rare earths in particular, and 

that committee has included representation from the National Security staff, from the Department of Defense, the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of the Treasury and so on working toward developing solutions to the current degree of overdependence 

on China for our supplies of rare earth metals, which are needed 

for our defense technologies, for our information technologies, for a 

number of our clean energy technologies, so these are—these rare 

earth minerals are crucial to us and currently 95 percent of the 

world’s supply is being produced in China. That is not, by the way, 

a result of the concentration of all of the resources in China. The 

resources are more widely distributed. We have considerable resources of these rare earth minerals in the United States. We 

have—there are considerable resources in Australia and elsewhere. 

The problem is that we have allowed the supply chains for these 

materials to migrate to China, again on grounds of economics, of 

low cost. We are obviously in the process of reconsidering the wisdom of having allowed that to happen. There are activities in the 

United States and Australia to restore rare earth mining and processing operations to diversify the supply from what it is now. We 

are also going to be standing up, in all likelihood, a subcommittee 

of the National Science and Technology Council to look at the 

science and technology dimensions of strategic mineral issues more 

broadly than just the rare earths. As you probably know, the National Science and Technology Council is a body that is nominally 

chaired by the President and populated by Cabinet secretaries. In 

practice, it is chaired by me and populated by deputy secretaries 

and under secretaries and administrators of NASA, of NSF, NOAA 

and so on, and its purpose is to address science and technology 

issues that cross over the boundaries that affect the interests of 

multiple departments and agencies. So we are on the case. 

Mr. MILLER. I would like to use my remaining time to discuss climate change research. You have said earlier in testimony, you have 

said today that there is substantial agreement among scientists 

that climate change is occurring and that human activity is contributing substantially to it but there is some uncertainty about exactly how quickly it will happen and how dire it will be, and to use 

the phrase that an economist would use, there is a baseline scenario which is very bad and an adverse scenario that is cataclysmic. And we have heard testimony in the last four years from 

scientists who have said that yes, there is uncertainty but almost 

all the uncertainty is on much quicker, more sudden and more cataclysmic change, and they may be, as you said earlier, events that 

we cannot foresee or model. One that I recall is the possibility that 

there could be millions of tons of methane, which has much more 

of a greenhouse effect than CO2, released if the permafrost in the 

Arctic thaws. 

But despite feeling pretty confident that it is happening, you 

want to do more research. The Obama Administration has recommended doing more research. Others who criticize climate 
48 

change research want to do less. They want to cut the funding for 

NASA, NOAA, and EPA. Are you proposing the research just to 

prove that you are right or is there something we will do with that 

research? What are the consequences of not proceeding with the research into climate change? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, I would say that, as I have noted 

before, while the core understandings from climate science are that 

the climate is changing in unusual ways, that humans and responsible for a large part of that and it is already doing a variety of 

kinds of harm, there is a tremendous amount of detail that we do 

not yet understand. We don’t understand enough about the regional patterns of climate change as they are likely to emerge. As 

you know, climate is a complicated business, even without any 

human interference in it, and if we want to be able to adapt to climate change, the degree of climate change we are no longer able 

to avoid, we have to be able to tell farmers and fisherman and foresters and homeowners what is going to happen where they live — 

developing that sort of understanding of how climate is changing 

in particular places, which places are going to get wetter, which 

places are going to get drier, which places are going to get stormier, how fast are those things going to happen, which places are 

going to be experiencing more wildfires. We have come to understand that climate change is a challenge not just in terms of how 

we mitigate it, what we can do to reduce the pace and the magnitude of climate change through changes in energy policy and 

land-use policy and so on, but we really do need the detailed 

knowledge that will enable firms and individuals to adapt. That is 

one of the great challenges in climate change research. 

We need of course, to continue the observation networks that in 

addition to telling us about climate tell us when particular storms 

are coming. We have a whole set of challenges in our earth observation satellites which in many cases are dual-purpose satellites. 

They are both monitoring variables related to climate but they are 

also telling us when powerful storms are coming and who they are 

going to hit. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Holdren, when I was a child and I heard scary 

noises that I thought might be a monster, I pulled the covers over 

my head and it worked great. There was never a monster in my 

house, but I am not sure it is because I pulled the covers over my 

head. Do you think if we don’t do the research in climate change, 

it is more or less likely to occur? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say if we don’t do the research, that 

doesn’t affect at all the likelihood that it will occur but it does affect very dramatically our ability to cope with it. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. You have just made it 

possible for Ms. Adams to have eight minutes. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Florida for I guess as much time 

as she consumes, just so she doesn’t consume over eight minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Holdren, last year, you may recall, there was sustained and 

vigorous debate here between Congress and the Administration 

about the future of NASA, the human spaceflight program. At the 
49 

end of the day with the enactment of the NASA Authorization Act 

of 2010, both sides went away claiming some small measure of victory but clearly neither party, the White House nor Congress, got 

everything it wanted. The President signed the bill, and he did so, 

I thought, putting the debate behind us and moving forward. A 

central feature of the bill was a smaller authorization level for commercial crewed services, and Congress’s decision to forego implementation of the Constellation program. Yet the NASA fiscal year 

2012 budget request diverges from last year’s authorization bill in 

two respects: It proposes spending at a rate 70 percent above 

amounts authorized for commercial spaceflight and it significantly 

underfunds in fiscal year 2012 the authorized amounts for the 

Heavy Lift System, requesting only 70 percent of the amounts in 

our bill, in the Congressional bill. Why has NASA chosen to ignore 

the will of Congress? And I don’t need to remind you that the 

Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, took strong exception to last year’s budget request? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do not believe that the budget is ignoring the 

will of the Congress. I testified on December 1 before the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on this question. I was asked does the Administration intend to follow the law? 

Are you going to obey the Authorization Act? And I said we will 

to the best of our ability. But I also mentioned that our ability to 

do so would depend on having a budget for 2011, and it would depend on being released from the constraints of the 2010 appropriations bill which prohibits NASA from making changes to the Constellation program. 

We now are where we are, and in light of where we are, which 

is still no 2011 budget and still no relief from the constraints from 

the 2010 Appropriations Act, starting from there, you have to consider what it is practical to do from where you are now in pursuit 

of the Authorization Act’s aims. We agree with the Authorization 

Act’s aims. If you look at the numbers, you will find we are funding 

Heavy Lift and the associated crew capsule at quite close to the 

2011 levels, which is probably the best we could meaningfully 

spend under the circumstances given where we are starting now. 

In addition, the Authorization Act recognized very clearly that the 

continuing operation of the International Space Station and minimizing the duration of our dependence on the Russian Soyuz to get 

our crew members up there was also a very high priority. And 

again, in terms of where we are and what we can do from where 

we are, we believe that the budget the President has presented is 

responsible and appropriate in light of the need to do as much as 

we can toward all of the Authorization Act’s goals under the circumstances we are now in. So we don’t think we are defying the 

will of the Congress at all. We think we are doing our best to 

achieve the multiple goals of the Authorization Act. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. I will let that go for a minute. The Authorization Act gave clear direction to NASA to rely on existing contracts 

as it begins work on the new space launch system and multipurpose crew vehicle. Sections 302 of the bill said, in part, the Administrator shall, to the extent practical, extend or modify existing vehicle development associated contracts necessary to build a new 

launch system. 
50 

I realize to the extent practical is more than just a tiny loophole. 

But based on Members’ statements during hearings, markups in 

the House and Senate floor, there were a clear expression that to 

save time and money and to capitalize on investments, technology 

workforce, NASA should give first consideration to using existing 

contracts. With that as background, how closely will the Administration follow the intent of Section 302? 

Dr. HOLDREN. You are quite right, Congresswoman, that to the 

extent practicable is important. We don’t think of it as a loophole. 

We think of it as a necessity. And as you know, there was a requirement for NASA to produce in 90 days an initial assessment 

of what it believed it could achieve in this domain. It has produced 

that assessment, and it has identified real challenges in meeting 

the timelines of the Authorization Act, namely the completion of a 

heavy lift vehicle and a crew capsule by the end of 2016, real challenges in meeting those deadlines under the budgets that look likely to be available. But NASA is examining what the extent practicable is for using those existing contracts. And again, I think if 

you look at that 90-day report, you will see that that is exactly 

what they are doing. They are looking for additional ways to find 

savings that would enable us to get where we need to go more 

quickly, but it is a big challenge to achieve the goals of the Authorization Act and to achieve them under the fiscal constraints that 

we now face. 

Ms. ADAMS. Will you? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We will sure try. 

Ms. ADAMS. I just have a quick question. You know, we talked 

about STEM and everything. Do you think that human spaceflight 

encourages our youth to get involved in STEM, the programs, you 

know? Science, technology, engineering, math? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely. We know first of all that the response to Sputnik, the development of the U.S. space program, our 

moon mission and so on was an enormous boost in terms of the 

number of kids who went into math and science and engineering 

as a result of that great adventure, and we think more great adventures are in prospect and they will have that effect. We have 

been very clear about that from the outset. I am one of those who 

went into math and science because of the excitement about the exploration of space. My senior project at MIT was to design a crude 

Mars mission. I co-led it with another member of my aeronautics 

and astronautics senior class at MIT. I think it is very important 

stuff. Charlie Bolden thinks it is very important stuff. We after all 

have NASA being run by a four-time astronaut, twice-pilot and 

twice-commander. He is very excited about human spaceflight. So 

am I. We have got to do it, of course, in a manner that we can pay 

for. But we will do it. And the President, I have to say, is excited 

about it. The President, every time we talk about this, and I have 

talked about it with the President, with the President and Charlie 

Bolden together, the President has had astronauts into the Oval 

Office and into the Roosevelt Room seven times since he has been 

in office. 

Ms. ADAMS. Well—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We love this stuff. 
51 

Ms. ADAMS. —my question is for our youth. And we don’t want 

to hinder their yearning to explore, now do we? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely not. 

Chairman HALL. Do you yield back any time at all? Okay. You 

did a good job. Thank you. 

I recognize at this time, I am not sure I want to, but Ms. Edwards, the gentlelady from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I adore 

you. 

And Dr. Holdren, I want to thank you very much for being here 

today, and I look forward to exploring with you and others in more 

detail, particularly around NASA human spaceflight, the importance of what I think is a really important mission, both for human 

spaceflight and exploration, also for Earth sciences. But I won’t 

take up my time here today. 

What I would like to talk to you about is following up on Mr. 

Fleischmann’s line of questions regarding research and development and manufacturing and the interrelationship between those 

two. 

My good friend, Mr. Bartlett, from Maryland and I have introduced a bill that links research and development with manufacturing, domestic manufacturing, here in the United States because 

too often we make deep investments and we are at the cutting edge 

of R&D in so many different sectors, and then the manufacturing 

takes place someplace else. It takes place in China, in Germany 

and lots of other places. And I think that we can actually do some 

things through our tax policy and across agencies to incentivize not 

just the R&D and making it permanent which is so important, particularly for small firms. The big guys will figure out a way to go 

from year to year if it is not permanent. It is the small, innovative, 

creative nimble firms that really struggle when we don’t have a 

permanent tax credit, then linking that to domestic manufacturing. 

So I have been able to visit some firms out in my district who are 

just doing the most amazing work around mapping the human genome and, you know, really the most cutting-edge science. But they 

are small firms, and they want to be able to do that manufacturing 

domestically because it connects their R&D people to the manufacturing line. If there is an opportunity to make changes along that 

manufacturing line, you have got your R&D people right there. 

So I hope that you will look into the legislation that has been introduced by Mr. Bartlett and myself along with Congressman Sarbanes and others as a way to get there. 

One of the recommendations in the report that was released by 

the White House in 2009 that you cite in your testimony, A Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing, is to improve the 

coordination of manufacturing R&D programs through the National 

Science and Technology Council. And so I wonder if you could tell 

us what the status is of that interagency process and how we can 

look at all of these, particularly civil scientific agencies, to make 

sure that we have got a sort of similar pathway to their success. 

And so if you could give us a brief overview of the Administration’s 

strategy and vision to revitalize manufacturing, including federal 

R&D investments in creating jobs here, that would be helpful, and 

any plans to develop a strategic plan for manufacturing R&D so 
52 

that we don’t let everybody else take our good ideas and build stuff 

and create jobs. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congresswoman Edwards, I thank you for 

that question, because it enables me to say we are doing a lot. We 

are just in the final stages of setting up a National Science and 

Technology Council subcommittee on advanced manufacturing 

under the technology committee, standing committee, of the NSTC. 

It will have three co-chairs, a co-chair from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one from DoE, and one from 

the Department of Defense. They are currently in the last stages 

of vetting for those roles. We also have underway a study requested 

by the President of his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, on advanced manufacturing which is nearly complete and which we hope actually to brief to the President in just 

a couple of weeks. 

We have an assistant director of OSTP for advanced manufacturing. Sridhar Kota has been in place for the past couple of years 

on leave from his professorship at the University of Michigan, and 

one of the things that Professor Kota has been working hardest on 

and interacting with folks from the business and academic communities around the country, is how one links discovery and innovation in our universities with translating those discoveries and innovations into commercial products in the private sector. And one of 

the things I would note is there is a wonderful example of how this 

can work at the University of Michigan from whom we borrowed 

Professor Kota which is a very large, state-of-the-art 

nanotechnology manufacturing laboratory and experimental facility 

in which businesses of all sizes can come and use those facilities 

to develop their own products and their own approaches, including 

small businesses that could never afford this kind of equipment 

themselves. And it is a wonderful example of how we can do better 

at translating the capabilities of our universities and for that matter, our national laboratories into tighter interactions with the private sector and particularly, as you point out, the smaller businesses that wouldn’t be able to muster the capital to develop these 

kinds of innovation and experimentation capacities on their own. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, and I just want to point 

you to something that we are doing in Maryland, and it is relatively new, a new initiative by our governor, and it is essentially 

to create that kind of investment fund that could spur the kind of 

investment that is tough to get in this economy and particularly for 

small firms. And I think whatever we could do to encourage states 

on their own to do that, it just bolsters what is happening with our 

federal agencies. 

Lastly, I would just want to ask you, we are in an environment 

here, considering this continuing resolution where it feels odd to 

talk about new investments in science and technology and research 

and the things that are actually going to make us grab hold of the 

21st century when we are cutting in this Congress, this CR, just 

about every scientific agency out there. It is mindboggling to look 

at the kind of cuts across a number of agencies where the investments that we need to make for the future are exactly the ones 

that are being put on the chopping block. And I think that is particularly true for NASA, and perhaps it is that the White House 
53 

and the President could do a much better job of helping the public 

understand the value of investment in NASA and space exploration 

and the science that comes out of that because it really does translate into what happens in our broader commercial sector and the 

way that we remain competitive. So I look forward to the President, you know, just speaking out because otherwise, Democrats 

and Republicans alike just put NASA and our other scientific agencies right on the chopping block as though it is something that we 

can afford to discard and still hope to be even remotely competitive 

in this century. 

And with that, I would yield the balance of my time if I have 

any, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the lady. You are right on the spot, 

right on the dot here. 

I recognize now the former Chairman Bart Gordon’s favorite Republican, Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

submit now for the record a list of 100 prominent scientists who 

have serious disagreement with the man-made global warming 

theories that we have talked about today. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. These scientists I would like to add are chairmen of science departments at major universities, they are at internationally respected institutes of science, and there are many more 

than just 100 as you are well aware. 

Doctor, in the past you have made public statements referring to 

those who question your assessment on man-made climate change, 

and you have labeled them as deniers. The term deniers is only 

commonly used in one other context and that is to question whether or not the Holocaust actually took place. Do you believe that this 

is an appropriate term and what purpose does it serve except to 

stifle debate rather than to have an honest discussion? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Rohrabacher, when I used the term, 

I only intended to use it in its most straight-forward interpretation. 

These are folks who are denying the reality of a particular thing, 

namely climate change. It was not my intention to compare them 

to Holocaust deniers and to the extent that that is the impression 

given, I regret it. And for that reason, I will doubtless choose to use 

other words in the future. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Now, with that said, 

of course, we have a disagreement on whether or not climate 

change or what used to be called global warming and then when 

things changed, it became climate change. And now maybe it is 

going back to global warming again. We know there have been 

these cycles throughout the history of the planet where it has become warmer or colder, and I take it from your testimony today 

that this increase that you are asking for research into climate 

change is going to be mainly aimed not at proving whether mankind is responsible because what I have found is that is usually 

used to justify controlling human behavior rather than trying—because that is based on the fact that the change is based on human 

behavior, but instead, on perhaps researching things that can help 

us adapt to what could be natural climate change. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would say first of all that you are correct that 

part of the increased research activity that we propose in the President’s budget would relate to adaptation, and that adaptation 

would be germane, whether changes in climate had been caused by 

humans or caused by natural forces. That much is certainly correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But that is not the only activity in climate change 

research that we would continue to support. We have extensive observing networks, satellite-based observations, on-the-ground observations which are helping us understand how climate is changing. 

We have extensive analytical and modeling activities which help us 

try to understand the extent to which human activities are contributing. No one in the climate science community denies that climate 

has changed naturally over the millennia and that there continue 

to be natural forces influencing the climate. The question is what 

is the relative magnitude today of the natural forces and the 

human influences. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We intend to continue to conduct research which 

will shed light—to support research which will shed light on that 

question as well. 
58 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that the end result of scientific 

activity is to make our lives better and not to control our lives in 

the name of saving the planet. 

But one thing we can really agree on, and we can agree on what 

you have just said as well, I might add, is when I am looking at 

your—also the research for the Department of Energy, we talk 

about a certain decrease, but I want to pinpoint it because it might 

not be aimed directly at what I am worried about. Number one, I 

think that we have provided funds for fusion energy research for 

a long time and have very little to show for it. So that perhaps does 

justify some bringing down the level of research. But I also understand it says nuclear R&D in general, research will decrease by 

eight percent, but I have in front of me a figure. It says that there 

are $67 million going to be spent for helping the Small Modular 

Reactor Deployment program to assist in developing and licensing 

of these small modular reactors. Now is that $67 million, is that 

an increase? The overall level of R&D would decrease, but that, for 

small modular reactors, would increase, is that correct? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, that is correct. The increase for small modular reactors is for work that would provide the analytical basis to 

assist in the licensing of this new class of reactors which have a 

great deal to recommend them, by the way—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —as potential contributors to our electricity supply 

and to our balance of payments, I should say, because we could 

market them rather widely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Exactly. Let us note that where we have 

many disagreements, we also have many agreements, and this happens to be an area that I have agreed with the Administration, for 

example, much to the dismay of some of my own colleagues on the 

space proposals that have been made about NASA, and I really 

agree thoroughly on this concept of trying to get down to business 

so that we can go into the business of manufacturing small modular nuclear reactors. It would both have a positive impact on energy, and it is consistent with the climate problems that some people are worried about. But I am also worried about air pollution 

whether this would affect as well. 

So thank you very much, and I appreciate you being here today. 

Chairman HALL. You yield back? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I note Mr. Luja ́n who was here earlier, the gentleman from New Mexico, you have five minutes, sir. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. Dr. Holdren, 

thank you for taking the time to be with us today as well. I appreciate the Administration’s commitment to research and development and innovation as key to the Nation’s economic development 

and international competitiveness. 

I am particularly passionate about capitalizing on our investment in R&D, transforming new scientific discoveries and technological capabilities that are produced by R&D into new commercial 

products, new businesses that can create jobs, namely those that 

we see especially with our DoE national labs, DoD research facilities, Air Force research labs, NNSA facilities which are often overlooked as a key component of innovation of the country, especially 
59 

as they lead to opportunities with working small businesses. We 

need to find better ways to open up opportunities. There are entrepreneurial lead programs today for scientists, physicists, nuclear 

engineers to work with entrepreneurs. 

But I think that they are only as good as they are on paper. We 

need to find a better way to engage these experts with our entrepreneurs and small businesses, even to the extent we are able to 

take advantage of the modeling and computer capacity that we 

have to turn these new ideas together. Without the important step 

of tech transfer, our competitors will only be the ones who reap the 

benefits. Oftentimes we see technology that is invented and 

thought of here in the United States to even mature and be commercialized outside of the country, and we need to change that. 

I am very happy to announce that myself with my co-chair, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, have started a bipartisan technology transfer caucus to begin to look at ideas and ideals around 

the Bayh-Dole legislation which concentrated most of its efforts 

with universities, but making sure that we not forget the applications associated with our national labs and science and research 

taking place in these areas. 

The bipartisan technology transfer caucus in the House, we look 

forward to working with the Administration and with the many capacities I think that have to still present themselves. 

You stated in your prepared testimony that as part of the President’s Start-Up America initiative a broad set of federal agencies 

will launch a coordinated series of policies that ensure high-growth 

start-ups have unimpeded access to capital, expanded access to 

quality mentorship, an improved regulatory environment and a 

rapid path to commercialization of federally funded research. I applaud those remarks, and I support them strongly, but I would like 

to hear more about what is actually going to be done in these 

areas. My concerns are with the naming of the tech transfer coordinator under DoE, for example, that we have yet to rapidly move 

toward making sure they have access to the needed support they 

need to move this forward. With the collapsing of Creative Cooperative Research and Development Agreements—in near past with 

the funding that was accelerated in the 1990s, and through the 

early years of the Bush Administration, we saw it go away. And 

it seemed to me that when we talk to small businesses, this was 

an important tool that was used. 

And so I am interested to hear your thoughts in these regards 

and how we might be able to work together to make sure we are 

able to spur this forward. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Luja ́n, I can only applaud 

what you have said about the importance of technology transfer 

and the importance of the national laboratories in this domain. My 

own first job after getting my Ph.D. was at the Livermore lab. I almost went to Los Alamos. 

And the potential there for doing more to enable discoveries 

made in the national laboratories to cross the boundary into the 

commercial sector is enormous. 

You asked about the Start-Up America initiative. That was only 

rolled out about a month ago, and when we did, we announced the 

participation of a number of the country’s leading high-tech entre-
60 

preneurs and venture capital folks who have pledged their cooperation in setting up the specific activities and institutions that for example are going to provide the mentorship that the program talks 

about where successful high-tech entrepreneurs have agreed to 

mentor budding entrepreneurs to increase their probability of success and where the venture capital community is stepping up in 

the form of many of its real leaders to get this done. 

So it is a new initiative, but we do not intend this to just be 

about an initial meeting where all these high-powered folks come 

and pledge their participation. This effort is being led in OSTP by 

my deputy director for policy, Tom Kalil, who is immensely energetic and determined to work with others in the Administration 

and the Congress to make this a success. And I am delighted to 

hear about your tech transfer caucus that you and Congressman 

Wolf are heading. That can only be a benefit. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman, 

I think this is an area where visiting with former Members and 

Members that we have today, that this is an area where we can 

work together to make sure we jump-start the opportunities for 

small businesses. 

I have some other questions around regional innovation clusters 

and minorities in STEM, and Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I would like to make sure that we submit this into the record 

and maybe we can work with Dr. Holdren to get these answered 

later. But I very much am eager to see how the national labs, especially NNSA facilities, will be included in that effort. So Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Without objection, they will be. 

And Dr. Holdren will answer those, will you not, by mail? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will. 

Chairman HALL. And I hate to tell Mr. Sarbanes we have two 

more. Has Mr. Sarbanes left? He is so patient. I was going to give 

him ten minutes. I wish he stayed. Mr. Hultgren from Illinois, you 

are recognized for five—I started to say five seconds, five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I would talk really fast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

I want just to talk briefly. I am concerned about funding for Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and specifically, the HighEnergy Physics Program which we all know is in a period of transition. The Administration has notified Congress that it intends to 

shut down the Tevatron at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, 

or Fermilab, which is in my district, 14th Congressional District, 

as originally planned at the end of Fiscal Year 2011. With the end 

of operations at this record-breaking machine, Fermilab is ready to 

transition to new programs including the Long Base-line Neutrino 

Experiment (LBNE). The LBNE is to be the anchor project for the 

deep underground science and engineering laboratory or DUSEL at 

the Homestake mine in South Dakota. Originally planned by the 

National Science Foundation, a study is now under way to recommend how to proceed with DUSEL under a revised stewardship 

agreement between DoE and NSF. 

I just had some questions about current status of funding for 

DUSEL for Fiscal Year 2011. Has NSF identified the resources to 
61 

keep DUSEL under way while the study is conducted and decisions 

are being made on the path forward for this project? 

Dr. HOLDREN. My understanding is that NSF and DoE have 

reached agreement on a plan to keep DUSEL moving. I have not 

actually seen that agreement yet, but I have been informed by my 

associate director for science that it has been reached, and we will 

have it shortly. But I am assured that it will succeed in keeping 

the DUSEL project going. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. And as you hear things, we are interested 

in that, and I would love to hear obviously what the next steps are 

there. The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget requests of $797.2 

million for high-energy physics overall would amount to a freeze at 

the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level when other programs in the Office of Science are slated to increase from 21 to 24 percent. Why 

is there such imbalance between the basic research portfolio in the 

Office of Science? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say that the kinds of restraints imposed on us by these fiscal times has required some very hard 

choices, and I have been striving to make clear as I talk about this 

budget that it has had to either hold flat or in some cases even reduce things that we would much rather have increased. But it becomes a difficult exercise in priority setting to decide what we absolutely have to keep going as opposed to things we would prefer to 

keep going or expand. 

I think high-energy physics remains an important area. The request for high-energy physics in 2012 is almost $800 million. This 

is not chicken feed. It is, however—if I had my choices in the best 

of all possible worlds, it would be more. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Real quickly, within the overall funding request 

for high-energy physics, am I correct that the President proposes 

funding for the two new projects at Fermilab that are important to 

its future as the Nation’s only laboratory for particle physics research? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Short answer is yes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I like short answers, especially when they say 

that. So that is good. And last, and I appreciate your time and your 

help with this, is the $17 million that is requested for the long 

base-line neutrino experiment sufficient to start this project at 

Fermilab and the transitions from running the Tevatron? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is my understanding from Dr. Brinkman, who 

heads the Office of Science, that that is the case. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. Well, again, thank you very much for your 

work. I do know these are difficult times. We want to be a part of 

that to make sure that we continue great work that is happening, 

make sure that we don’t cut things short that really are looking toward the future. I know it is so important to be looking at immediate transition of projects that we have but also looking to the future and making sure that our Nation stays on that forefront. 

So Dr. Holdren, thank you so much for being here. Look forward 

to working closely with you during these difficult times and hopefully as times get better as well. So thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
62 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke, for five minutes. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Chairman Hall. Ranking Member Johnson, Dr. Holdren, I am new to this Committee. In fact, I am new 

to Congress. But I am born and raised in the Motor City, and I represent the City of Detroit right now. And that city’s achievements 

in manufacturing and automotive technology was recently highlighted by the artist, Eminem, in a recent Super Bowl ad, and I am 

really proud of the cars, you know, especially in the district that 

I represent. General Motors manufactures the Chevy Volt which I 

believe represents the best in plug-in hybrid auto technology. 

Just on a personal note, and I am doing this also because I want 

to promote my city and really what it meant to me. My dad was 

an immigrant from India who came to this country 80 years ago, 

came to Detroit specifically for the purpose of working in the Ford 

Foundry. So manufacturing is in me. It is what made my city 

great. 

Our lack of focus on that, though, I believe has also led to the 

decline of the southeast Michigan region, temporary decline. But 

also as our President noted in the State of the Union, it is in new, 

American manufacturing is how we can help bring more stability 

to our families financially, create a really enduring prosperity for 

our country and great products that we can sell worldwide that 

folks in other countries can enjoy. 

Anyway, those are my preliminary remarks. I appreciate your at 

least giving me the time to at least, you know, share with you the 

importance of metropolitan Detroit, the importance of investing in 

manufacturing and in that region. It is not only going to help Detroiters, it is going to help this country. 

In the proposed budget, can you give me some examples on how 

this proposed budget would help further develop and deploy new 

technologies that really can advance manufacturing here in this 

country, if you are able to? And then I also have—let me just give 

you the second question. It is really related to that. It is if you can 

comment on the impact of federally funded R&D in terms of creating those small businesses that create jobs as well, especially in 

the manufacturing-related sectors. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Congressman Clarke, I can only 

underscore and agree with your comments at the outset about the 

importance of manufacturing in this country, about the importance 

of manufacturing obviously in Michigan and Detroit. I already 

mentioned a particular activity at the University of Michigan linking their capacities in nanotechnology with the small business community and the opportunities for small business to use facilities 

and equipment they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own. My 

understanding is that that facility has already spawned a number 

of successful start-ups and launched them into domains in which 

they are succeeding. 

I would mention the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the 

funding it receives in the 2012 budget as a good example of feeding 

the underpinnings of advanced manufacturing. Nanotechnology is 

going to be immensely important in the manufacturing domain 

going forward. We have to invest in maintaining and extending 

American leadership in this domain, and it is a domain in which 
63 

small companies as well as large ones are succeeding and are going 

to continue to be able to succeed. 

Another domain that is very important is the domain of networking and information technology. Again, there is substantial 

support for that in the budget. It is important in part because the 

use of information technology in advanced manufacturing, using information more effectively to save energy, to save materials, to 

make products to finer tolerances, to make them in new ways is 

going to contribute to our capabilities in the advanced manufacturing domain. I think you find all across this budget, in the budget for NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

in the budget for DoE, even the budget for the Department of Defense, which of course, is very interested in advanced manufacturing as reflected in their co-chairmanship of the embryonic National Science and Technology Council Committee on Advanced 

Manufacturing. There is a lot of support for that domain. The 

President understands it is important. One of the studies that the 

President requested from PCAST was that we look at the potential 

in advanced manufacturing and make recommendations for what 

more we can be doing, and we will be doing that very shortly. 

Mr. CLARKE. May I have an opportunity—— 

Chairman HALL. Yes, sir? 

Mr. CLARKE. —to ask one more follow-up on this. Just one, sir. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes you for another minute. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Also to the doctor, we have got a great research university in my district whose 

capacity for R&D has grown dramatically in the last 30 years. That 

is Wayne State University, and I look forward to some type of partnership with that university and some of your agencies. 

Just my last point on this, I would like the opportunity to actually comment on STEM and how we can make sure that we can 

get teachers trained in that area in inner-city districts like my 

own. But for the sake of time, I will just ask this last question. Can 

you comment on the impact on jobs in the economy should the Federal Government really slash its investment in R&D as proposed 

in the current continuing resolution that we are considering this 

week? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, I would say that most economists who 

studied economic growth over the decades have concluded that well 

over half, some say as much as 80 percent, of increases in productivity in the United States over the last 50 years have come from 

innovation, have come from our past investments in science and 

technology and innovation. Nobody could predict the future with a 

clear, crystal ball. But looking at the history of the contributions 

of science, technology, and innovation to our economy, it would 

seem to be imprudent to cut off our investments in that domain if 

what we are interested in is economic growth and prosperity. I 

think the President said it very well in his speech in North Carolina some weeks ago when he said if you are trying to make an 

overloaded airplane lighter, you don’t do it by throwing overboard 

the engines. And really, science, technology and innovation have 

been the engines of our economic growth over the decades. They 

are expected to be the engines of our economic growth going forward as long as we don’t throw the engine overboard. 
64 

Chairman HALL. Do you yield back? Ms. Johnson and I are probably going to give a prize for the one that represents their district 

better, and Mr. Clarke, you were the one today. 

All right. Let us see. Who will we recognize now? Mr. Lipinski. 

He is a Ranking Member of the Research and Science, Education 

Subcommittee, and he has a lot of other obligations. Thank you for 

coming and including us today. We will recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr. 

Holdren for spending all this time with us today. He has probably 

been here since I have cast 14 votes, been here, been to another 

committee, asked questions, went to a delegation lunch, and I am 

back here and you are still here. I appreciate that. 

I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Clarke and 

also Ms. Edwards on manufacturing. It is critical. I am not from 

Detroit, but I also did love that Eminem commercial. I don’t love 

Eminem either. He’s alright, but I don’t know. But it was a fantastic commercial. It is sort of what we, I think, really need to get 

that back in this country. We need to be building things, and I 

think you understand that. You were just talking about 

nanotechnology. I have said many times in this Committee that I 

have drunk the nanotech Kool-Aid. I believe that it is critical in so 

many different areas to the future economic growth and jobs, and 

I think the United States has to be on the forefront of that. 

I was pleased to see in the President’s 2012 budget that the 

funding for nanotechnology research was modestly increased, and 

I was particularly interested to see substantial new investment in 

nanomanufacturing research. 

So one thing that I think is very critical, and hopefully we will 

get through this quickly—I have one other question in one other 

area—is what more can be done for nanotechnology commercialization? That is an area that I have been very focused on in my time 

on this Committee since I have been in Congress. What more can 

be done in commercialization? What are your plans? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think there is a substantial amount of effort in the National Nanotechnology Initiative moving in that direction. In fact, you mentioned that it is up in the 2012 budget, and 

the reason it is up is precisely to support some areas that are moving successfully in the direction of commercialization but need 

some more help to get all the way there. 

I would also say that the model I mentioned before of having facilities that have the advanced equipment that is needed to do cutting-edge research on nanotechnology and how it can be commercialized, the model of that facility at the University of Michigan 

which is available to the private sector to work with, that is a 

model we ought to expand. And we ought to do it with our national 

laboratories as well as our great research universities as a way to 

help bridge this gap that sometimes occurs between discovery and 

commercialization. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Just to make the Chairman proud, Northwestern 

University, my alma mater, is doing a great job of nanotech research, although it is not in my district. It is close enough. 

One other thing I wanted to talk about is you know that one of 

the most significant accomplishments of this Committee last Con-
65 

gress I think is the Congress’ passage of the America Competes Reauthorization, and there is one particular provision I wanted to 

talk about. It is Section 105 which is based in part on the genius 

grants, the Genius Act that I introduced with Representative Wolf. 

This section gave the research agencies broad, new authority to 

offer prizes for innovative research or solutions to critical problems. 

I think the prizes as a complement to traditional research funding 

mechanisms, not as an alternative but a complement, can offer a 

new way to incentivize high-risk, high-reward research and generate excitement on the frontiers of science and engineering. I 

know that COMPETES was passed too late for this section to be 

reflected in this year’s budget, but can you comment on whether 

you see this authority being helpful in the future and how you 

think research agencies might take advantage of this language 

about giving authority to do the prizes? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, certainly the Administration, President 

Obama, are very enthusiastic about COMPETES having been reauthorized. The President was delighted to sign that Reauthorization 

Act. OSTP is already in the process of implementing that Reauthorization Act. I happened to write a blog celebrating the passage 

of that. Very shortly afterwards it appeared on the White House 

website, but we have done a number of things in direct support of 

that act. We have established a National Science and Technology 

Council Committee on STEM education. We will meet for the first 

time in just a couple of weeks. That is Section 101. We have established as I mentioned already an interagency working group on advanced manufacturing R&D under the NSPC. We are in the process of establishing an interagency public access committee, which 

is Section 103, which I think you referred to. We have an interagency group on scientific collections that is working on the aspect 

of America COMPETES there. And you mentioned competitions 

and prizes. We are enormously enthusiastic about the potential of 

competitions and prizes. A lot has been happening there. I am sure 

you know about the Automotive X Prize where $10 million in prize 

money put out by the private sector in a competition that was cosponsored and co-organized with the Department of Energy led to 

$100 million of investments by the competitors competing for the 

$10 million prize on how to make automobiles that would get more 

than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent. 

We now have a one-stop shopping website called Challenge.gov 

where all the existing prizes and challenges that are out there that 

are documented so that folks can find them and identify things 

they would like to compete in. We think this is a very high leverage domain and again are very happy indeed by the encouragement 

provided in the reauthorization of America COMPETES for that direction. So we are great fans of this Committee and what it has 

managed to do through the original America COMPETES and now 

its reauthorization. This is great stuff. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Holdren, and I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. Finally, the very patient 

Mr. Sarbanes. I am glad to recognize you for five minutes where 

I don’t have to say I didn’t see the woman come in here with that 

hat on. You are recognized. 
66 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. I understand I stepped out just before you called me. I will 

try not to do that again. 

Chairman HALL. We were going to wait for you if you came after 

dinner. 

Mr. SARBANES. Dr. Holdren, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your patience. 

I wanted to just go back to the climate change thing real quickly 

because Congressman Rohrabacher was pointing to a group of I 

guess you might call them dissenters on the view that climate 

change is now being driven by this sort-of a man-made phenomenon at this point, and I just wanted you to comment, if you 

could, on the notion of what it means to reach scientific consensus. 

Obviously, that can’t mean that we will have 100 percent universal 

agreement on whatever the particular scientific judgment is that 

needs to be made. We are charged with making policy judgments 

and setting a program direction and so forth based on looking at 

the preponderance of evidence and so forth. And isn’t that the case 

here? I mean, however many scientists there may be out there who 

indicated some anxiety or concern or resistance to the notion of climate change, there is an exponentially greater number of people, 

it appears to be, on the other side who really believe this is happening. And we have to base our judgments on sort of the balance 

of what is there, in this case, I think a very heavy balance in that 

direction, and that would constitute a consensus for purposes of 

making policy, would you not agree? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would agree. I have not seen the particular list 

of 100 that Congressman Rohrabacher mentioned. I can only say 

that in the past that when such lists have materialized, most of the 

names on them were folks who were not actually climate scientists. 

And one could reasonably assume that they had not spent as much 

time in the scientific literature of climate change as those who do 

that as a full-time profession. As was mentioned earlier here, rather serious and systematic studies of what professional climate scientists believe have indicated that well over 95 percent of professional climate scientists believe the basic propositions that I have 

summarized here now a couple of times about climate change going 

forward in ways that are highly unusual against the backdrop of 

natural variations, that humans are very likely responsible for a 

large part of that and so on. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that answer. I am going to jump to 

another topic real quick. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me just say if I may, it would be a very odd 

thing indeed if all of the academies of sciences of the world, the 

Chinese Academy, the Russian Academy, the U.S. Academy, the 

Brazilian Academy had all reached this conclusion. These academies are rather conservative bodies. They don’t lightly issue reports and statements about matters of science bearing on public 

policy. The fact that every academy of science in the world virtually 

has done this should have considerable weight in telling us where 

the scientific consensus is. And you are absolutely right, there will 

always be dissenters, but they are very much in the minority and 

the question is why should we bet the welfare of the public against 
67 

the very long odds that the vast majority would turn out to be 

wrong and a very small minority would turn out to be right? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. I was encouraged by the President’s 

fiscal year 2012 budget with respect to the investments being made 

in some of the critical areas that we have talked about today. I 

wanted to ask you about STEM education. The President announced this particular recommitment to that investment at Parkville Middle School a few days ago which is located in my district, 

and we are very proud of the STEM education program that they 

have there. 

I understand there is a group coming together that is going to 

try and look at where there might be some duplication of effort or 

how better to coordinate across agencies the delivery of STEM education and that emphasis, and I applaud that. And just looking for 

example at the relative resources committed to the Department of 

Education for that effort versus say the National Science Foundation and other agency commitments is going to be important. But 

what I wanted to ask you is, how do you think we compare to our 

peer nations? I mean, the Parkville Middle Schools of America are 

doing a good job with STEM education, but how much is that the 

exception versus the rule, particularly when you lay it against 

what is happening in these nations that are competing with us 

with respect to that kind of investment? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, as you know, in the various standardized tests on math and science, the United States has not been 

doing well in relation to our competitors. We tend to rank variously 

between 17th and 25th among the nations of the world in standardized math and science tests in various grades, ranging from 4th 

to 8th to 12th. And what is even more discouraging is our rankings 

tend to get worse as you go up in age. So we are doing worse in 

the 8th grade than in the 4th, and we are doing worse in the 12th 

grade in comparison to our competitors than in the 8th. 

On the other hand, it remains true that we have by far the greatest college and university system in the world, and one of the reasons we continue to lead in so many fields of math and science and 

engineering is that the strengths of our college and university system in some sense have been at least partly compensating for the 

shortcomings at K through 12. But we need to lift our game in both 

places. We need to lift our game in K through 12. We need to lift 

our game in colleges and universities because even as good as the 

colleges and universities are, they are losing too many people who 

come in enthusiastic about science and technology and then end up 

drifting off into other fields because their teachers aren’t inspiring 

enough, their curricula aren’t stimulating enough, and we have got 

to fix that. We have got to fix it at K through 12. 

I would also say, though, by way of balance that when I talk to 

my counterparts in China and Japan and South Korea as I did this 

past summer in joint commission meetings on science and technology cooperation that we have with those countries, they still 

envy our school system because they think although we are doing 

worse than they are on standardized tests, they believe that we do 

better at inculcating creativity in our kids. And they complain that 

their systems are not doing as well in terms of creativity and that 

is hurting them ultimately in innovation. 
68 

I think there is a lot that we need to get to the bottom of as we 

try to understand what we do well and what we do not so well in 

K through 12 education, and something that is very refreshing is 

that over the past decade, there has been a growing emphasis on 

serious systematic research to actually understand what works and 

what doesn’t work, rather than simply basing our opinions about 

this matter on anecdotal experiences and what we may have experienced ourselves in our schools. Our STEM education effort in 

OSTP is now being led by our Associate Director for Science, Carl 

Wieman, whom I mentioned before is a Nobel Laureate in physics, 

but he is focused far more these days on STEM education, which 

has become his passion, other than on just physics itself. And Carl 

is overseeing the setting up of the National Science and Technology 

Council Committee on STEM education that is going to do this 

work you mentioned of looking across all of our STEM education 

efforts across all the agencies that engage in this, looking for duplication, looking for symbiosis and looking for more rigorous application of what research shows about what works in this domain. 

Chairman HALL. Will the gentleman yield? Before you yield back 

your time, Mr. Rohrabacher is not here, but if he is here, I would 

imagine that he wouldn’t agree with your dismissal of those 100, 

either you or the witness’. There just might be some scientists in 

there that know what they are doing, and I would guess that 

maybe there is not one in the 100 that would have seven years ago 

predicted a catastrophic sea level rise of 15 feet when it is only two 

or three or four inches. Don’t pooh-pooh what you call the minority 

of people that don’t believe what is being trying to be sold as a majority of scientists. We need to get them beforehand and have you 

a chance to visit and inquire of them, us to have a shot at them, 

and then decide, okay? Thank you. 

Is there anyone else here? All right. Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for 

your valuable, willing testimony and congenial testimony and the 

members for their questions. The members of the Committee may 

have additional questions for you, Dr. Holdren, and I would ask 

you to respond to them in writing if you will, sir. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and the Ranking Member as well. 

Chairman HALL. The record will remain open for two weeks for 

additional comments from Members. The lady from Dallas Ms. 

Johnson, do you have anything further? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No, I just want to thank the witness. 

Chairman HALL. With that, she just wants to thank the witness. 

I join her. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(69) 

Appendix: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall 

Q1. It is my understanding that departments/agencies participating in the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) are assessed a certain amount 

each year to support National Research Council studies, the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program Integration and Coordination Office (USGCRP ICO), several 

international programs (e.g., International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme 

(IGBP), and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP),etc.), and several 

IPCC activities (e.g., the IPCC WGII Technical Support Unit (TSU) and travel 

for U.S. scientists to participate in IPCC meeting). 

Q2. For each of Fiscal Years 2008-2012, please provide actual, estimated and requested funding as appropriate for each USGCRP centrally-funded entity/activity, as well as the amounts assessed each department/agency participating in 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) using the following table 

as a template. 

A1. Please see the attached table and technical notes. 
71 

NOTES: (1) NSF administrative costs are for handling interagency fund transfers 

related to the shared costs (2) DOS has USGCRP funding but does not participate 

in Distributed Cost Assessments (3) NASA observations and science; observations 

reduced by 1/3 for purposes of distributed cost assessment (4) Represents assessment equaling approximately 0.35% of total enacted USGCRP funding for all agencies (5) Agency assessments for FY2011 Distributed Cost Budget Supplemental 

(FY11 activities) and FY2011 Distributed Cost Budget (FY12 activities) are subject 

to change pending Congress’s approval of FY11 and FY12 President’s budgets. 

SOURCE: USGCRP National Coordination Office 
72 
73 

Q4. In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), please update the Climate Change Science and Climate Change Technology sections of the 

June 2010 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress to incorporate the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 [sic] budget request. 

A1. The June 2010 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress will 

be updated later in 2011. OSTP will provide updated funding data to the Committee 

at that time. 

Q4. You did not transmit Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research 

Program for Fiscal Year 2011 to Congress until January of this year - some 11 

months after the President released his Fiscal Year 2011 Budget. 

a. Why was this report delayed so long? 

b. When can we expect to receive Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change 

Research Program for Fiscal Year 2012? 

A1. Because the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment, additional time 

was required to develop the FY 2011 edition of the Our Changing Planet report. The 

FY 2012 edition ofOur Changing Report is currently scheduled for release and 

transmittal to Congress in late summer or early fall of 2011. 

Q5. Over 1.6 billion people - 25 percent of the world’s population - do not have access 

to electricity. Many of them soon well, thanks to expanded use of coal, which is 

forecast to increase 50 percent by 2030. The affordable electricity provided by 

coal will enable economic development and help alleviate poverty in places such 

as China, India, and Africa. 

a. How will U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have any impact on 

climate change given the expected dramatic increases globally? Should the 

U.S. impose higher energy costs on its citizens if the benefits are negligible? 

b. You have often said that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid 

climate change-caused ‘‘suffering,’’ but won’t forcing developing countries to 

avoid expanded fossil fuel use (or pay more for fossil fuels via carbon capture 

and sequestration, etc.) serve to prolong global suffering and poverty? 

A1. In its 2010 International Energy Outlook, DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that world coal consumption would increase to about 186 

quadrillion BTU (quads) in 2030, which is 30 percent greater than 2009 consumption of 143 quads. A single country-China-accounts for 80 percent of the world increase in coal consumption. Almost none of the increase in Chinese coal consumption will go to providing basic access to electricity, because over 99 percent of Chinese households already have access to electricity. 

Access to electricity and to the services it provides, such as lighting and refrigeration, is vital to economic development. But in many countries coal appears to be the 

most ‘‘affordable’’ source of electricity only because many of the costs of coal useair pollution, acid deposition, and climate change-are not included in the price. In 

2007, the World Bank estimated that air pollution, largely from coal burning, was 

responsible for 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths per year in China. In 2003, a 

joint study by the Chinese Institute of Environmental Science and Qinghua University estimated that acid rain from coal burning caused economic losses of over $13 

billion per year. In 2010, an interagency working group estimated that $5 to $65 

in economic damages results from each additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted 

(e.g., lost agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased 

flood risk due to climate change), equal to about $12 to $160 per ton of coal burned. 

These damages to human health, economic productivity, and ecosystems from air 

pollution, acid deposition, and climate change are not included in the price of coal. 

When a full accounting of the costs is done, cleaner sources of electricity, such as 

natural gas and renewables, provide greater overall benefits to citizens. 

The EIA scenario discussed above, in which coal consumption increases by 30 percent by 2030, does not include policy actions designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Policy actions by China, India, and other major emitters will be required to reduce global emissions and limit climate change. The United States cannot do it alone, but the United States should and must lead. Reductions in U.S. 

emissions are essential as part of a strategy to achieve reductions in global emissions, because other major emitters will not act in the absence of tangible action 

by the U.S., which is the world’s largest economy. In addition to the direct health 

and environmental benefits of our own emission reductions, there will be the larger 

effect of global emissions reductions that can be spurred by our willingness to act, 

as well as the economic benefits of leading the world in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy technology. As the President has said many 
74 

times, ‘‘The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads 

the global economy.’’ 

The Administration is not proposing to ‘‘force’’ developing countries to avoid expanded fossil fuel use. Rather, the Administration is attempting to persuade other 

countries that 3 policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are in their own longterm interests, as well as in the common interest of humanity. As noted above, the 

long-term economic benefits of moving to cleaner sources of energy, such as efficient 

natural gas and renewables, are greater than the long-term benefits of expanded 

use of coal without modern pollution controls and carbon capture and sequestration. 

The short-term economic gains from burning more coal with old technology will be 

offset by premature deaths due to increased air pollution and by economic damage 

due to acid rain and climate change. 

Q6. A couple of years ago, a group of well-respected economists, led by Dr. Bjorn 

Lomborg, prioritized a number of global challenges to determine the most costeffective way to improve the quality of life for people around the world. Recognizing that we have limited resources, they ranked the value of addressing problems such as disease, malnutrition, climate change, health care, sanitation, and 

water quality. Compared against these other challenges, climate change came in 

last - signaling that spending billions to address it would have the lowest impact for the highest cost. 

a. Do you believe it makes sense to undertake an economic exercise such as this 

to informpolicymaking? 

b. Do you disagree with the group’s conclusions that our money would be better 

spent fighting disease and addressing water quality issues than trying to impact global climate through CO2 reductions? 

A1. In connection with the Lomborg exercise mentioned, which took place in 2004, 

I would note that (a) Lomborg is not an economist, (b) the group he convened did 

no formal and consistent analysis of costs and benefits of the various proposals that 

were examined, but simply lumped the proposals into four categories based on the 

personal impressions of the participants after brief discussion of some non-peer-reviewed background papers prepared for the purpose, and (c) Lomborg himself has 

since changed his view and now advocates large investments in R&D to develop new 

energy technologies to abate the climate-change threat. 

Estimates of costs and benefits are an important guide to policymaking. In a recent Executive Order on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563, 

January 18, 2011), the President required that agencies ‘‘propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs, and that 

agencies ‘‘select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that that maximize net benefits.’’ But the Executive Order also recognizes 

that costs and benefits can sometimes be difficult to quantify. I believe it is important to carefully consider all of the potential future costs and benefits of proposed 

policies. 

The test of a policy is whether the benefits justify the costs, and whether the policy is designed to achieve the greatest net benefit among feasible alternatives-not 

whether one can find another policy that has greater benefits per dollar spent. For 

example, guardrails may save more lives per dollar spent than further safety measures such as seatbelts and airbags, but even given the existence of guardrails, seatbelts and airbags have very high net benefits. Although it is true that public policies 

should consider existing measures, such as guardrails, when considering adopting 

other safety measures, in this case we are clearly better off with all three. 

The costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gases are difficult to quantify. This 

is due to the combined effect of uncertainties in future emissions and greenhouse 

gas concentrations; uncertainties in the response of the climate system to increased 

greenhouse gas concentrations; uncertainties in the cost to adapt to these changes 

in climate and to adopt technologies that reduce emissions; and uncertainties in the 

monetary value of climate impacts, particularly those far in the future, and those 

that have no obvious market value, such as the extinction of species. As a result, 

estimates of the social cost of carbon span a wide range. In 2010, an interagency 

working group led by the Executive Office of the President estimated that $5 to $65 

(in 2007 dollars) in economic damages results from each additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted that year (e.g., lost agricultural productivity, human health, property 

damages from increased flood risk due to climate change). This means that it would 

be economically beneficial to spend at least $5 per ton, and as much as $65 per ton, 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The working group also estimated these values 

would increase over time as the magnitude of climate change increases, reaching approximately $16 to $136 per ton (in 2007 dollars) by 2050. Even taking the lower 
75 

values,there are many actions that can be taken to significantly reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, in the United States and other countries, that cost less than $5 per 

ton, and many more that cost less than $65 per ton. 

Q7. In testimony before Congress shortly after the ClimateGate scandal broke in December 2009, you characterized the controversy as something that would be 

‘‘sorted out over time. by the process of peer review.’’ I am concerned, however, 

about the integrity of the peer review process itself. The ClimateGate emails revealed a strong pattern of scientists suppressing scientific information that does 

not conform to their alarmist viewpoints. For example: 

a. Several emails discuss attempts to blacklist certain researchers’ papers from 

publication, and initiating a boycott of scientific journals that publish papers 

skeptical of the alarmists’ viewpoints; 

b. Other emails discuss ousting editorial board members with non-conforming 

views; and 

c. Perhaps most disturbing, one researcher commits himself to ensuring that no 

non-conforming science is included in the report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Specifically, this researcher said ‘‘Kevin 

and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peerreview literature is!’’ 

Please provide your opinion on the appropriateness of these specific emails, specifically whether you agree that they reveal an attempt by leading influential scientists 

to undermine the peer review process. How does this correspondence impact on your 

confidence in the peer review process to ‘‘sort out’’ scientific controversies as you stated in earlier Congressional testimony? 

A1. The point I was making in my testimony is that scientific controversies—such 

as the controversy about the validity of the ‘‘hockey stick’’ representation of the temperature history of the Earth over the past two millennia, which was the focus of 

most of the stolen emails—generally get sorted out over time by the process of peer 

review and continued critical scrutiny by the knowledgeable community of scientists. Nothing in the e-mails shakes my confidence in the validity of this contention. Scientists, like other human beings, sometimes make mistakes in their work, 

and, like other human beings, in the midst of controversy and the heat of debate 

they sometimes say ill-considered things. But peer review and continuing discussion 

in the community of the knowledgeable is an excellent mechanism—the best we 

have—for sorting through claims and counter-claims, filtering out the wrong and the 

irrelevant, and clarifying, over time, what we can say with confidence. 

In the case of the ‘‘hockey stick’’ controversy addressed in the stolen e-mails, the 

matter ended up going to the highest U.S. ‘‘court of appeal’’ in the domain of peer 

review—the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy’s exhaustive report (National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 

Years, National Academy Press, 2006, 156 pp) concluded that the methods of analysis used by the ‘‘hockey stick’’ authors were scientifically acceptable and that the 

authors’ key conclusion that the last 50 years have been the warmest in many centuries is likely to be correct. And, while in science there is never a ‘‘last word’’, nothing that has been said or published since the 2006 Academy report has offered a 

plausible refutation of its conclusions or made a case that the Academy’s review was 

itself marred by bias. 

The stolen e-mails do reveal that some of the scientist authors became frustrated 

and impatient with queries about their data from critics whose motives they felt 

were other than the pursuit of knowledge, and frustrated as well by the publication 

of a transparently flawed critique of their work in a supposedly peer-reviewed journal that had become notorious for publishing flawed work. (When this particular 

case came to light, in fact, its editor resigned in embarrassment.) Some of their emailed comments in this situation were in a circle-the-wagons vein, not properly respectful of the need for transparency with data no matter the perceived stance of 

the requestors, and some of the comments lent themselves to misinterpretation outside the context in which they were made. But there is nothing in these e-mails that 

comes close to supporting a case for pervasive corruption in the peerreview system 

in climate science. 

That has also been the conclusion of all five formal reviews of the e-mail flap that 

I am aware of. Thus, the UK House of Commons report(http:// 

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf) 

concluded on this point that ‘‘Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics 

should not be criticized for making informal comments on academic papers.’’ 
76 

A second UK review, The Scientific Assessment Panel headed by Lord Oxburgh 

(http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP) , wrote: ‘‘We 

saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the 

Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we 

would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers who were illprepared for being the focus of public attention. 

As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.’’ 

The RA-10 Inquiry Report investigating Professor Michael Mann’s actions under 

Penn State’s research misconduct policy concluded as follows: ‘‘The Investigatory 

Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted 

practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.’’ 

The Independent Climate Change Email Review (http://www.ccereview.org/pdf/ 

FINAL%20REPORT.pdf) stated that ‘‘On the specific allegations made against the 

behavior of CRU scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are 

not in doubt... In addition, we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the 

balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence 

of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.’’ 

Most recently, last month’s Report of the Inspector General of the Department of 

Commerce, on whether the e-mails pointed to any wrongdoing by NOAA scientists, 

found as follows (http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html): ‘‘In our 

review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately 

manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M [Monthly Global Historical Climatology 

Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.’’ 

With regard to ‘‘blacklisting,’’ ‘‘boycotting,’’ and ‘‘ousting,’’ please see the discussion in Chapter 8 of The Independent Climate Change Email Review, beginning on 

page 68 (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf). The Review concludes: ‘‘In our judgment none of the above instances represents subversion of the 

peer review process nor unreasonable attempts to influence the editorial policy of 

journals. It might be thought that this reflects a pattern of behavior that is partial 

and aggressive, but we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble 

of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested and where 

strongly opposed and aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both 

sides. The evidence from an editor of a journal in an often strongly contested area 

such as medicine (Appendix 5) suggests that such instances are common and that 

they do not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.’’ 

Q8. The centerpiece proposal in President Obama’s State of the Union address is his 

plan to require 80 percent of U.S. electricity to be derived from ‘‘clean’’ energy 

sources. A study by economists at Suffolk University found that the cost of a 

clean energy standard similar to what the President is proposing would be almost $200 billion a year and over $4 trillion over a 20-year period. Other studies 

might estimate these figures to be higher or lower, but as a matter of basic economics, doesn’t the President’s proposal amount to mandating Americans to pay 

significantly higher electricity costs? If the President’s plan is successfully implemented, and we do indeed achieve his 80 percent clean energy goal, how much 

will projected climate threats be reduced? 

A1. The Suffolk University study focuses on a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). 

Unlike the President’s proposal, an RPS does not include natural gas, nuclear, and 

coal with carbon capture and sequestration as sources that qualify towards meeting 

the target. The omission of natural gas from an RPS is particularly significant because natural gas is an abundant low-cost resource and because generation can be 

increased substantially at existing gasfired plants, in addition to building new 

plants. Even if the Suffolk University study had correctly assessed the impacts of 

an RPS, which I do not believe to be the case, the results would not apply to the 

President’s clean energy proposal. 

While the President’s proposal is not an RPS, other available analyses of an RPS, 

including several studies conducted by the Energy Information Administration at 

the request of both House and Senate Committees, estimated much smaller effects 

of an RPS on electricity prices and consumer expenditures. 

The President’s clean energy proposal is not a mandate for higher electricity costs. 

The implications for electricity prices will depend on the specific details of the program, which have not yet been determined, but it is possible that electricity prices 

over the next decade would be reduced as generators using efficient natural gas 

plants would have an incentive to increase electricity generation. The long-run effect 

of the clean energy goal on electricity prices would depend significantly on the cost 
77 

of various clean generation technologies in the future, and that is why it is important to reduce the costs of clean energy by accelerating the pace of innovation 

through research and development. In addition to the price of electricity, one must 

take into account the health and other economic and environmental benefits associated with reduced air pollution and climate impacts that result from using cleaner 

sources of energy. 

Electricity generation currently accounts for about one-third of U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions, and nearly 40 percent of net U.S. emissions after accounting for land 

use and land-use change. A program that substantially reduces emissions associated 

with electricity generation would significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Policy actions 

by China, India, and other major emitters will be required to reduce global emissions and limit climate change. The United States cannot do it alone, but the United 

States should and must lead. Reductions in U.S. emissions are essential as part of 

a strategy to achieve reductions in global emissions, because other major emitters 

will not act in the absence of tangible action by the U.S., which is the world’s largest economy. In addition to the direct health and environmental benefits of our own 

emissions reductions, there will be the larger effect of global emissions reductions 

that can be spurred by our willingness to act, as well as the economic benefits of 

leading the world in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy 

technology. As the President has said many times, ‘‘The nation that leads the clean 

energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.’’ 

Q9. You testify that you will soon be convening a new National Science and Technology Council STEM Education Committee. Please describe how you envision 

this Committee identifying duplicative and ineffective STEM programs across 

the federal government and what actions will be taken to save the American taxpayer from continuing to support these programs? Similarly, how will this Committee work to replicate or promote successful programs? 

A1. STEM education itself is a very broad topic. It encompasses instructional activities that target the earliest years of school through adulthood, covers a large range 

of subjects and enormous variations in the depth of learning desired, varies with 

geography and local cultures and socio-economic conditions, involves a host of public 

and private enterprises, and involves a range of formal and informal educational 

settings. Because of the span and complexity of STEM education, it is appropriate 

that there are numerous and diverse programs devoted to it across a number of Federal entities. But there may well be some overlap and duplication, and the newly 

convened NSTC Committee on STEM Education will be examining this issue as 

called for in the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010. 

The first step in this process will be to appropriately characterize the numerous 

existing STEM education programs. A detailed classification of programs, once complete, will then allow us to determine appropriate methods and standards for evaluation to determine the effectiveness of a given program. We will work with OMB 

and the agencies to find suitable cost-effective ways to examine the effectiveness of 

the programs, and to find how their effectiveness can be improved. 

Q9. You testify that the Administration plans to invest $3.4 billion across the federal 

government for STEM education, including many new initiatives primarily at 

the Department of Education. While the Department of Education should certainly take a more active role in STEM, what is the rationale for shifting support from NSF to Education? How actively involved can you be, as Director of 

OSTP, in decisions being made at the Department of Education on STEM-related issues? What steps has the Administration taken to ensure that these new 

activities are researchbased and will have input from not only the education 

community but also the scientific community? 

A1. Both NSF and the Department of Education can and should play critical roles 

in STEM education. Budgetary decisions on STEM-education programs are made 

within the individual agencies. In both NSF and the Department of Education there 

are multiple programs that are proposed for increases or decreases in the 2012 

Budget in response to changing priorities and evaluations of the impact of existing 

programs. No explicit decision was made to trade off funds in one agency for funds 

in the other. Each agency has its particular mandates and strengths. The new Committee on STEM Education, working with the Office of Management and Budget, 

will work to better coordinate STEM education activities throughout the Federal 

government, including within NSF and the Department of Education. The importance of utilizing research and evaluation to inform STEM-education efforts is clear 

to OSTP. OSTP has and will continue to push all federal agencies to develop education efforts based on the latest research in education and scientific disciplines. 
78 

Questions submitted by Representative Paul Broun 

Q1. As a follow-up to our conversation regarding Scientific Integrity, please respond 

to the following: 

a. Does your December memo exempt OMB or the White House Offices from the 

scientific integrity guidelines? 

b. Are you familiar with the memo your predecessor developed titled ‘‘Principles 

for the Release of Scientific Research Results’’? 

c. Please point out how these documents differ. 

Aa. No. 

Ab. Yes. 

Ac. One important difference is that the ‘‘Principles’’ document from the last Administration focuses on just one aspect of scientific integrity - the public release of 

scientific research results through the media and other channels. While that subject 

is covered in my Dec.17 memorandum (in a number of places but primarily in Section II), my memo covers a number of other issues important to scientific integrity, 

including the use of Federal Advisory Committees, activities relating to the professional development of Federal scientists and engineers, conflicts of interest, and 

whistleblower protections. My memorandum also explicitly calls upon all covered departments and agencies to craft scientific integrity policies consonant with the 

guidelines in his memorandum, and imposes a deadline by which time agencies and 

departments are to report to me on their progress. 

Further, with regard to public release of government information, my Memorandum goes further than the last Administration’s. It explicitly notes that just telling the ‘‘facts’’ is not enough. Specifically, it insists that government scientists and 

communicators provide underlying assumptions, contextualization of uncertainties, 

and descriptions of probabilities associated with optimistic and pessimistic projections, including best-case and worst-case scenarios where appropriate. My memorandum also explicitly states that ‘‘in no circumstance may public affairs officers ask 

or direct Federal scientists to alter scientific findings.’’ 

Q2. With regard to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, please respond to the following: 

a. What was your role in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill? 

b. Where did OSTP, OMB and Carol Browner fit into the national incident command structure? 

c. At any point did you approve or review scientific documents, declarations of 

peer review, or the release of scientific information from agencies? If so, which 

documents, declarations, or releases? If not, why were other White House offices like OMB and the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy involved 

in doing so, but not OSTP? 

d. You have been appointed co-chair of the National Ocean Council—an effort 

in part to better coordinate the Federal ocean policy and the two dozen or so 

federal agencies that work and have authority in the ocean. How will this 

new organizational structure better manage a crisis like the one in the Gulf 

last year? It appears as if you already had authority and a charter to lead 

and coordinate federal science response which you did not do with the BP Oil 

Spill. Will that change? 

A2. As the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of 

OSTP, I participated in the Administration’s response to the event from the outset, 

including taking part in the Principals’ conference calls and Principals’ meetings 

throughout its course. 

In the first days following the explosion, I helped Secretary Chu set up his government / private sector / academic science team focused on the challenge of capping 

the well. I provided an OSTP expert on deep-water drilling to serve as regular member of that group, and I took part myself in many of the team’s intensive, multihour conference calls over the months culminating in the capping of the well. 

Also in the first days following the explosion, I and OSTP Associate Director for 

Environment Shere Abbott started reaching out to leaders in the ocean-science community both inside and outside the government to help create connections among 

them to ensure that as much as possible of the country’s relevant expertise on understanding and mitigating the effects of oil in the oceans was brought to bear. Inside the Executive Branch, Ms. Abbott and I initiated interagency discussions involving NOAA, EPA, USGS, DOE, DHS, and FDA to identify S&T needs and capabilities for the response and recovery efforts and the longer-term concerns of restoration. 
79 

With respect to the short-term issues, it was clear that agencies needed to work 

together to quantify oil, gas, and dispersant volumes; understand and forecast the 

fate of surface and subsurface oil and dispersants; assess ecosystem impacts, including seafood safety; and evaluate mitigation measures. To address these short-term 

needs, OSTP worked together alongside other offices of the Executive Office of the 

President and the relevant Federal departments and agencies to establish action 

teams that immediately began working on analyzing the oil flow rate, the fate of 

oil in the water column and at the surface, dispersant use and its impacts, measurements and monitoring, coastal impacts and mitigation, seafood impacts and mitigation, and rapid assessment of mitigation technologies. OSTP also helped to foster 

the creation of the interagency Joint Analysis Group to provide rapid analyses of 

emerging data to guide real-time response, and OSTP’s experts were mainstays of 

that group’s work throughout the duration of the spill and continuing into the recovery and restoration phases. 

OSTP’s outreach to the nongovernmental community of expertise, meanwhile, was 

ultimately broadened and formalized in a series of national workshops bringing together the directors and research leaders from marine science centers around the 

country with experts from the relevant Federal departments and agencies. With Associate Director Abbott and USGS Director Marcia McNutt, I co-convened the first 

of these national meetings at EPA headquarters on May 19, attended by 30 leaders 

of the nongovernmental research community and 30 government officials including 

Secretary Salazar, Administrator Jackson, and Assistant Secretary Robinson of 

NOAA. One result of that meeting was a decision by NOAA, NSF, and EPA to expedite funding to universities for critical research in the Gulf of Mexico. Numerous 

follow-on meetings covering topics such as coastal and ocean impacts and 

dispersants took place in the Gulf region, hosted by NOAA, NSF, and EPA, with 

OSTP assistance and participation. 

In May 2010, OSTP also began to work on longer-term research needs including: 

the impacts of dispersants on the marine ecosystem; monitoring programs for the 

coasts and deepwater; the fate and impacts of oil on deepwater ecosystems; and the 

development of new clean-up technologies. We engaged the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) to 

begin interagency work on many of these issues. SOST organized and executed a 

workshop in early October for scientific investigators to discuss early results of their 

work and catalyze efficient and productive collaborations. 

For long-term recovery needs, OSTP provided input to Secretary Mabus’ report, 

America’s Gulf Coast—A Long Term Recovery Plan, that lays the foundation for the 

current work of the President’s Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force. OSTP’s Associate Director for Environment serves on this Task Force, and our Assistant Director for Ocean Sciences serves on its Science Coordination Team. OSTP contributed 

to Secretary Mabus’ plan, particularly in its recommendation that restoration activities be firmly based in sound science. 

Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, operated as the EOP coordinator of activities related to the oil spill. I reported regularly 

to her on OSTP’s activities in bringing relevant S&T expertise to bear, and also participated in Principals’ meetings on the subject. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a procedure for coordinated review of information related to the oil spill from the EOP and Federal agencies. OSTP participated in these OMB-coordinated reviews. The President’s July Executive Order establishing a new National Ocean Policy and cabinet-level National 

Oceans Council, which I co-lead with CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley, has put in place a 

framework for coordination and interaction among responsible Federal entities and 

stakeholders in state and local governments, tribal authorities, the private sector, 

and NGOs that, among many other benefits, will facilitate the coordinated responses that events like the Gulf oil spill require. The Policy’s focus on strengthening the marine science knowledge base and monitoring capabilities will also increase the national capacity to cope with and recover from future oil spills as well 

as other events impacting our oceans and coastlines. 

Q3. With regard to the Gulf Coast Research Initiative, please respond to the following: 

a. What was your role in working with BP on the independent Gulf Research 

Initiative, which set aside $500 million for scientific research? 

b. When did you first hear of it? 

c. What was the funding mechanism they were considering? 
80 

d. BP was ready to release a RFP on June 15 - but later stated they were directed by the White House to work with the Gulf Governors. (see White House 

Fact Sheet, June 16, 2010). Were you a party to those discussions? 

e. Under what authority did the White House direct the GRI to work with Governors? 

f. When did you learn of the plan to delay the RFP to work with the Governors? 

g. Did you think was a good idea? 

h. You had to expect a delay - which would mean that critical research and data 

could be missed while negotiating with the governors. As his Science Advisor, 

did you brief the President on how this delay would impact science? 

i. Only around $40-$50 million has been released so far, and at an 8 month 

delay. Were the awards included in that $40-$50 million peer reviewed? 

j. Would proposals have been peer reviewed under the system in place before 

White House intervention? 

k. What are the benefits of working with the Governors? 

l. Do they outweigh this delay? 

m. Would you characterize this as a slush fund? 

A3. The Gulf Coast Research Initiative (GRI) is a program led and administered by 

BP. I learned of BP’s interest in supporting a long-term scientific research program 

associated with the oil spill in mid-May, 2010, when staff from OSTP and the Departments of Commerce and Interior met with BP officials following the OSTP-led 

forum at EPA on ‘‘Scientific Research on the Effects and Fates of Oil in the Ocean’’. 

At the post-forum meeting, BP’s chief scientist described what the company had in 

mind for the GRI, which was to provide $500 million over a 10-year period to create 

a broad independent research program that would investigate the impacts of the oil 

and dispersant on the ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and affected coastal States. 

My government colleagues and I were welcoming of this BP initiative. 

Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge 

Q1. Last Congress, I introduced an amendment to COMPETES that would direct 

NSF and Department of Education to collaborate and identify the grand challenges facing research and development in STEM education teaching and learning. Specifically, it aimed to address how we can scale successful programs, increase teacher effectiveness, broaden participation, and understand the role of 

cyber-enabled teaching tools. This amendment also required the agencies to solicit input from stakeholders in the STEM community. 

Q2. I am pleased to see that OSTP is in the process of establishing an interagency 

STEM education committee. Could you please describe how the committee plans 

to solicit input from all the various STEM education stakeholders, and also address the challenges I just listed, especially the need to improve coordination on 

STEM education research? 

A. The Committee on STEM Education is very sensitive to the importance of all of 

these factors and the need to obtain input from stakeholders. The Committee recently met for the first time (on March 4, 2011). It is now in the process of formulating plans for how to achieve these goals. 

Questions submitted by Representative Ben R. Lujan 

Regional Innovation Clusters: 

Thank you for your commitment to job creation and making America a leader in 

technology and innovation. As you know, the America COMPETES Act authorized 

the Regional Innovation Program to promote regional innovation clusters. Research 

parks have the capability of bringing together students, entrepreneurs, scientists and 

engineers and other key innovators to support cutting edge research and development 

activities. My home state of New Mexico, for example, is currently engaged in science 

park activities at Los Alamos Research Park, the Sandia Science and Technology 

Park and the University of New Mexico Science and Technology Park. I believe these 

parks can serve as a basis for forming an innovation cluster. 

Q1. The President’s FY12 Budget Request requests $40 million for this program, $60 

million less than the authorization amount. Can you discuss in more detail the 
81 

Administration’s vision for implementation of this program, especially considering the scaled-back funding request? 

A1. The Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

will implement the Regional Innovation Program. EDA’s vision for implementing 

this program follows: 

Regional Innovation Program: 

Base Funding: $0.0 million; Program Change: + $40.0 million. EDA requests an increase of $40.0 million for a total of $40.0 million to fund the new Regional Innovation Program to foster collaboration across the Federal government to build regional innovation clusters based upon the inherent strengths of a community. 

Proposed Actions: 

The ‘‘America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010’’ will help advance the 

President’s vision by encouraging innovation that builds capacity for regions to improve and advance toward the future. This Act created the new Regional Innovation 

Program, which will be implemented by EDA, to build upon the understanding that 

robust regional innovation cluster strategies create a blueprint for improving the 

conditions or ‘‘ecosystem’’ in which innovation companies and entrepreneurs can accelerate the development or new businesses, products or services. 

In FY 2012, under this new Regional Innovation Program, EDA will implement 

a Growth Zones initiative. The Growth Zones initiative will provide strategic investments to help communities leverage their innovation ecosystems to create jobs, businesses, and regional prosperity. Specifically, the program will support a nationwide 

competition to encourage 20 communities to develop and implement regional strategic plans that identify how the community can build onassets and link to drivers 

of regional economic growth in order to stimulate job creation, business expansion 

and creation, and enhanced regional prosperity. 

Statement of Need and Economic Benefits: 

In his State of the Union Address the President stated, ‘‘We need to out-innovate, 

out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best 

place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the 

future.’’ 

The Obama Administration is responding by embracing more flexible and innovative policies and by launching strategic initiatives that will achieve smarter utilization of existing federal resources. For example, EDA launched its Jobs and Innovation Partnership to stimulate innovation and collaboration, which are key drivers 

of regional economic development. EDA’s Regional Innovation Program (Growth 

Zones) will further advance the Jobs and Innovation Partnership by providing strategic investments to help communities leverage their innovation ecosystems to create jobs, businesses, and regional prosperity. In short, through the Regional Innovation Program EDA will support investments that will help communities mitigate the 

impact of the recent fiscal downturn and accelerate the transition toward a more 

prosperous economy. This need is particularly acute given the current fiscal crisis 

and the national jobs and growth outlook. 

Base Resource Assessment: 

In FY 2012, this program will be specifically targeted to support Growth Zones, 

a collaborative, multi-agency effort to stimulate regional economic development. 

Specifically, the program will support a nationwide competition to encourage 20 

communities to develop and implement regional strategic plans that identify how 

the community can build on assets and link to drivers of regional economic growth 

in order to stimulate job creation, business expansion and creation, and enhanced 

regional prosperity. 

Schedule & Milestones: 

FY 2012-2016 

Creation of Regional Innovation Program (Growth Zones) Expansion of interAgency collaboration related to Regional Innovation Clusters 

Deliverables: 
82 

FY 2012-2016 

Strategic investments that can support globally competitive regions, promote regional innovation clusters, and encourage 21st Century innovation infrastructure; 

and, increasing focus on collaborative funding with other Federal agencies to leverage federal grant funds, support regional innovation clusters, and contribute to sustainable economic development.’’ 

Q2. Minorities in STEM The recent National Academy of Sciences report Expanding 

Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology 

Talent at the Crossroads makes clear that we must continue our efforts to increase minority participation in STEM. In 2007, underrepresented minorities 

comprised 33.2% of the U.S. college age population, and 26.2% of undergraduate 

enrollment, yet only 17.7% of those were earning science and engineering bachelor’s degrees. As OSTP moves forward with its new interagency STEM committee to coordinate federal STEM education programs, how will the committee 

ensure that this important challenge is addressed? 

A. Broadening participation is certainly a primary goal of the new Committee on 

STEM Education. The two separate, yet both very important, issues relating to 

these statistics are: First, the quality of preparation of underrepresented minorities 

in K-12 for college and careers; and second, retaining underrepresented minority 

students who enter college as STEM majors in those majors. The Committee will 

look closely at the level and quality of investment in programs that address these 

issues, as well as exploring ideas for how to do better. 

Æ