COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

Page 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) ..................................................................................... 1 

National Science Foundation ............................................... 143 

Office of Science and Technology Policy .......................... 233 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
PART 8—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

Page 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) ..................................................................................... 1 

National Science Foundation ............................................... 143 

Office of Science and Technology Policy .......................... 233 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

66–828 WASHINGTON : 2011 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

(NASA) 

WITNESS 

CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR 

CHAIRMAN WOLF’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The hearing will come to order and the 

record will be open. 

We want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

Our witness today is Major General Charles Bolden, the Administrator of NASA. 

We thank you for being here. 

Last night looking through all the material for the hearing, I 

reread your bio, and I just want to say I appreciate your distinguished service to the country. I notice your son is a Marine Corps 

aviator, and I want to thank you and thank him for the service. 

Thank you very much. 

Last year at this time, we were in the early stages of what 

turned out to be a very lengthy and contentious debate about the 

future direction of NASA’s human spaceflight program. I think everyone was hoping that the enactment of the NASA authorization 

bill would put an end to the programmatic uncertainty and conclude the debate, but that really has not been the case. 

Instead the debate has shifted to whether NASA can effectively 

implement the direction provided by the authorization, and that 

places the budget squarely in the middle of the discussion. No 

amount of authorizing language can hold NASA to a particular goal 

or commitment if that language is not backed up by a budget that 

adequately funds those obligations. 

But fully funding everything that was authorized is not a feasible 

possibility in the current fiscal environment. We saw that on the 

CR the other day on the Weiner amendment, which cut from this 

committee I think it was 300 and some million dollars, whatever 

the exact number. 

And so when you look at those circumstances, you really cannot 

have everything. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Instead, NASA will be forced to look across its programs and 

make some very hard choices. You have done that to some extent 

with your fiscal year 2012 request, which holds the NASA agencywide total to its fiscal year 2010 level, more than $700 million 

below the authorized amount. In order to work within that total, 

you have chosen to fund some programs significantly below previously projected levels. 

Congress has asked a lot of NASA and we need to seriously consider whether we can afford to simultaneously maintain our human 

exploration program, support the extension of the Space Station, 

continue with planned science missions, advance commercial 

spaceflight, and engage in NASA’s many other activities. 

My disagreement with NASA comes in the decision making about 

what budgetary tradeoffs are necessary to make. Your request has 

chosen to sacrifice progress on the development of the Space 

Launch System and the Multi–Purpose Crew Vehicle. The levels in 

your budget for these activities virtually guarantee that NASA will 

not have core launch and crew capabilities in place by 2016. 

Our failure to meet that goal will further erode our international 

standing in human spaceflight, which I think is beginning to take 

place, eventually ceding our prominency to places like Russia, 

China, India, or others. That is just not an outcome that I think 

is really good for the country. 

I know these are complicated issues and we can spend a lot of 

time on them. 

And this, Mr. Bolden, is really not directed toward you. I think 

until this Administration, and the President step forward and deal 

with the fundamental important issues in the entitlements, whatever concerns will be expressed by you or anyone in the audience 

or anyone in the country about these budget cuts cannot really be 

solved. 

We are fundamentally trying to balance the budget on 15 to 17 

percent of the pie, maybe even less. The President put forward the 

Bowles-Simpson or Simpson-Bowles, whoever you want to put first, 

Commission. It had the support of Tom Coburn, who I have a great 

respect for and even more respect for after he voted for it, and Dick 

Durbin, who used to serve on this committee and who I have 

worked with over the years. 

Nobody will ever remember except Dick Durbin, because I remind him periodically, but I was the deciding vote on eliminating 

smoking on airplanes. And I remember my side and the tobacco industry went after me. Virginia was a big tobacco state. And so to 

Senator Durbin’s credit, he also supported the Bowles-Simpson 

Commission. 

There was an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday by Ruth 

Marcus, who I read constantly, saying ‘‘Where’s Waldo’’, meaning 

the President. We are waiting for the President to come forward. 

Leadership is doing what President Reagan did on the Social Security issue, or what President Clinton did coming forward to deal 

with the fundamental entitlement issues. 

There is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ‘‘The Boxer’’ that 

says, ‘‘man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.’’ 

We cannot disregard this. Groups come in to see me and say, ‘‘Mr. 

Wolf, you are cutting this.’’ But I voted for the package that came 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

out because we have to begin somewhere. We have got to deal with 

the entitlements. 

I appreciate your service to the county. I was very impressed 

when I actually read your bio. You never mentioned those things 

to me, and I just wanted to be totally prepared. 

The way to deal with this problem is to come together in a bipartisan way and link arms the way that Senators Durbin and Coburn 

and Chambliss and Mark Warner are doing. If we do not deal with 

the overall entitlement issue, and I speak now as a grandfather of 

15 and father of five kids, fundamentally this Nation will begin to 

reach a tipping point. 

People are going to be concerned that we are cutting this, we are 

cutting that. But until we deal with the fundamental reality of the 

entitlements, we will never be able to resolve this issue. 

So you might tell the President, I do not even think he even 

knows who I am, but Mr. Wolf said, ‘‘if you do not deal with these 

entitlement issues, no one can complain about the budget cuts on 

any area unless they then come forward and say what they are 

prepared to do.’’ 

I have said I am prepared to step forward and support the 

Bowles-Simpson Commission, although there are things in there 

that I do not like and I would attempt to change. But coming up 

for a vote up or down, I would be there with those who want to 

save this country by dealing with this fundamental issue. 

I will go to Mr. Fattah. 

RANKING MEMBER FATTAH’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. FATTAH. And let me thank the Chairman and thank him for 

his leadership and for this hearing, and welcome the Administrator. 

Later on this evening, the President is going to reach out by 

phone and speak to the crew of the Discovery and congratulate you 

and the staff at NASA for such a great achievement given Discovery’s last mission. 

You know, the chairman has made some very courageous votes 

over his life here in the Congress and that is just one that he mentioned about ending smoking on airplanes. And I think that the 

President’s decision to proceed with a Debt Commission was a courageous one. The report is one that I feel very favorably about, that 

if we could get it to a vote and, yes, you could tinker around the 

edges, but that we as a country do need to come to grips with this. 

The other thing is that the public has to come to grips with 

something, which is that we have to make investments and we 

have to make sacrifices. When NASA was created, the country was 

not doing as well as we are doing today, but we have made sacrifices for space exploration and NASA has been a beacon of hope 

for the country and has created a lot of aspirations among our 

young people in terms of math and science. And I think that we 

have to make sacrifices. 

In fact, when you look at whether the President’s commission or 

whether you look at the majority CR, neither one of them cut 

NASA as much as the public would cut NASA if given a chance. 

And I think that those of us in a leadership position have to say 

that the public is wrong. That is to say that we as a country have 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

to invest, and we invest in technology. And NASA can be and 

should be always the leading technology entity in the world. 

I want to tell you that in terms of the budget request, I am very 

happy to see that in Exploration, there is a significant increase. 

Your leadership of the agency in a whole host of areas has made 

a tremendous difference. 

And your bio is quite impressive. Your work at NASA is quite 

impressive, and the breakdown of the budget request in which we 

have the lion’s share of the dollars in human spaceflight because 

I think that is the thing that excites the country. 

Obviously there is much more work that you do, and people in 

the Gulf Coast benefitted during the BP spill because of the work 

of NASA in being able to track where this oil was going. There are 

lives that probably were saved in Haiti because of the work in 

terms of what you do in terms of science. So there are a lot of great 

things that we can be proud of. 

I think those of us in the Congress have to speak forcefully on 

the need for our country to continue to invest in science. We, as 

the world’s only superpower, have to invest in this area, plus we 

have others who want to join us in this ranking in terms of superpower who are making significant investments. And we cannot afford to be caught short. A lot of benefits here on earth have been 

created through the work of NASA in all range of activities, medical, science, and also in industrial activities. 

And so I am happy to have you. I look forward to your testimony. 

And I think that on a bipartisan basis, that you have both in the 

Chairman and myself and other Members of the committee a lot 

of support for the work that NASA is doing now and will do in the 

future. 

And the Administration has put forth a very aggressive program 

in terms of aiming our sights outside of Earth’s orbit in terms of 

human flight. And I think it is a challenging mission, but I think 

that is what we should be doing. We should be challenging ourselves to develop the technology to move in even greater ways than 

we have to date. 

So thank you, and welcome. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Administator Bolden, your full statement will appear in the 

record, but you can proceed as you see appropriate. 

ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN’S OPENING STATEMENT

General BOLDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah and other Members 

of the committee. Let me, first of all, to the Chairman and Ranking 

Member, let me congratulate both of you on your new leadership 

roles, and I want to thank you both for all that you do as well as 

all the Members of the committee for the long-standing support 

that all of you have given to NASA. 

As is obvious from both of your opening statements, we have a 

common passion for space exploration and the benefits it brings our 

Nation. As you take on new responsibilities, I look forward to our 

continuing work together in the same collegial fashion as we have 

done in the past. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

I would like to take just a moment to note the absence in the 

House in general of one of your colleagues, Congresswoman 

Gabrielle Giffords, who continues to undergo rehabilitation in 

Houston following the assassination attempt on her life. Not a day 

goes by that I personally do not think about and pray for Gabby. 

All of us in the NASA family continue to pray for her speedy and 

full recovery. 

Today it is my privilege to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. Despite the President’s commitment to fiscal constraint, I am pleased that we are 

proposing to hold funding at a level appropriated for 2010 which, 

of course, continues to be our spending level under the Continuing 

Resolution. 

This budget request continues the agency’s focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery leading to an 

array of challenging destinations and missions that engage the 

public. 

Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of the Committee—Subcommittee should have a package of six charts that looks like this. 

I hope you do because I will be referring to them periodically. So, 

if there is anybody who does not and would like to get one, I think 

we may—it just does not have that cover on it. And the cover is 

not important at all anyway, so I will hold them up as we get 

there. 

The Authorization Act of 2010 gave NASA a clear direction. We 

are moving forward to implement the details of that act with this 

fiscal year 2012 budget. The President’s budget for NASA funds all 

major elements of the Act while supporting a diverse portfolio of 

key programs. 

Because these are tough fiscal times, we also had to make some 

difficult choices. Reductions were necessary in some areas, so we 

can invest in the future while living within our means. 

This budget maintains a strong commitment to human 

spaceflight and the development of new technologies. It invests in 

the excellent science, aeronautics research, and education programs 

that will help us win the future. It carries over programs of innovation to support long-term job growth and a dynamic economy that 

will help us out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build all others in 

the world. 

Along with our budget proposal last week, we published our 2011 

Strategic Plan, and hopefully, that has been made available to everyone. If not, we can get you that. 

NASA’s core mission remains unchanged. It is the same as it was 

at our inception in 1958, and this mission supports our vision that 

is in the Strategic Plan, which essentially says to reach for new 

heights and reveal the unknown, so that what we do and learn will 

benefit all humankind. 

Just this past week, we launched STS–133 on the Shuttle Discovery, one of the final three Shuttle flights to the ISS. Along with 

supplies that will support the Station’s scientific research and technology demonstrations, Discovery is delivering a robotic crew member, Robonaut 2 or R2. 

The Glory Earth Science Mission will launch from California this 

week, tomorrow morning as a matter of fact, on a mission to help 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

us better understand Earth and its atmosphere and the variables 

affecting our climate. 

Our Space Program continues to venture in ways that will have 

long-term benefits and there are many more milestones in the very 

near term. 

Yesterday, in fact, it was the day before yesterday, we announced 

three new program offices to carry out future work. NASA brings 

good jobs and bolsters the economy in communities across the Nation. 

I do not think you have the overall budget chart, so I am going 

to skip that. You know what it is because it was presented to everyone when I rolled it out, but it breaks down the $18.7 billion, 

but it provides the scope of our activity in the year 2012. 

Our priorities in human spaceflight in the fiscal year 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for American astronauts to 

low Earth orbit as we fully utilize the International Space Station; 

to facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided commercial access to low Earth orbit for American astronauts and their 

supplies as soon as possible; to begin to lay the groundwork for expanding human presence into deep space, the Moon, asteroids, and 

eventually Mars through the development of a powerful evolvable 

heavy-lift rocket and multipurpose crew capsule; and to pursue 

technology development to carry humans farther into the solar system. 

These initiatives will enable NASA to retain its position as a 

leader in space exploration for generations to come. At the same 

time in our other endeavors, our priorities are to extend our reach 

with robots and scientific observatories, to learn more about our 

home planet and the solar system, and to peer beyond it to the origins of the universe; pursue groundbreaking research in the next 

generation of aviation technologies; and carry out dynamic education programs that help develop the next generation of science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals. That’s a 

lot, but NASA thrives on doing big things. We have vastly increased human knowledge and our discoveries and technologies 

have improved life here on Earth. 

There has been some concern that NASA is abandoning human 

spaceflight. This simply is not true. I think you all do have a copy 

of our charts that look like this but show you a pie. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 66828a.001
8 

General BOLDEN. The reason I give you these few charts is that 

it will show you that contrary to what is conventional wisdom, 

human spaceflight in this budget constitutes a significant portion. 

It is 44 percent of NASA’s proposed budget. 

If you take the chunk out that deals with what it costs me to operate NASA’s centers and do other things, human spaceflight represents an even larger piece, and it is actually 57 percent of 

NASA’s budget. So I would say that I would not call that shrinking 

away from human spaceflight when over 50 percent of the budget 

is going to human spaceflight. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 66828a.002
10 

General BOLDEN. The final chart that I hope you all have is one 

that just takes human spaceflight, and it breaks it down into where 

that money is being spent. We devote some resources to closing out 

the Space Shuttle as you will see in this very small chunk. As the 

centerpiece of human spaceflight and the critical anchor for our future deep space exploration, the International Space Station actually gets the largest portion of funds at about 40 percent. The next 

generation of vehicles, the evolvable heavy-lift rocket and the 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle received 39 percent of human 

spaceflight budget. 

Our continuing efforts to facilitate commercial access to space received a significant boost in this budget; however, that still represents the second smallest piece of the human spaceflight pie, at 

about 12 percent. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 66828a.003
12 

General BOLDEN. I want to commend my NASA workforce both 

civil servants and contractors across the Nation for their dedication 

to our missions during this time of transition and change. These 

workers are our greatest assets, and they make us proud. They 

fully understand the risk of exploration and welcome the challenge. 

They will be the ones making tomorrow happen. 

These are exciting and dynamic times for us at NASA. The challenges ahead are significant, but so are our opportunities. We have 

to achieve big things that will create a measurable impact on our 

economy, our world, and our way of life. 

I thank you for allowing me to make my opening statement and 

I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 66828A.004
14 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 66828A.005
15 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 66828A.006
16 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 66828A.007
17 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 66828A.008
18 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 66828A.009
19 

MATCHING NASA’S MISSIONS WITH ITS BUDGET

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. 

In the current fiscal environment, we will have to consider the 

possibility that NASA has too many missions for the amount of 

money that is available. If we continue to divide a relatively static 

NASA budget between an ever increasing number of programs, we 

will just perhaps ensure that there is not enough money to execute 

any of these programs. 

Do you agree with that assessment? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, these are tough times. And we 

have had to make tough choices and the FY 2012 budget that the 

President and I have submitted reflects those tough choices. So I 

think we have submitted a budget that will allow us to carry out 

the programs that the Congress and the President have asked us 

to do. 

Mr. WOLF. If we were to take another look at NASA’s various 

programs and responsibilities with the intention of reducing or deferring some of the lower priority activities, where would you recommend that we start? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, because I think we have taken 

a very thorough look at where we stand under the Continuing Resolution of the FY 2010 spending level and that the President’s 

Budget for FY 2012 essentially represents a continuation of that 

Continuing Resolution with some adjustments, I would not propose 

any cuts. 

Mr. WOLF. How about moving money around? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, we did move some money. We 

propose moving some money around because of priorities, readjusting priorities. When the President submitted his FY 2011 budget, the world was different. Our fiscal situation was different. I 

don’t think any of us in this room thought it was different, but everybody came to, I hope everyone came to the realization that we 

are in dire straits as a Nation economically, and so what we did 

with developing the FY 2012 budget was we looked at what our 

priorities are. 

My number one priority is safely flying out the Shuttle right 

now. Very close to that is providing for safe access to the International Space Station over the next 10 years because the President and the leaders of all of our international partners have 

agreed that the International Space Station as the anchor for 

human exploration should be on orbit for another 10 years, and in 

order to maintain the Space Station as we operate it today, I have 

to be able to get cargo and crew there. 

Because the Shuttle will stop flying in June, the only way that 

I will have until I can bring aboard a commercial access to LowEarth Orbit for crew will be the Russians. They are an incredibly 

reliable partner, but I do not think anybody in this room wants to 

go for the next 10 years having to rely on Russia to take American 

astronauts to orbit. 

So we made an adjustment in the balance within the FY 2010 

budget. We complied with the elements of the 2010 Authorization 

Act, but I took a look at it with the people that I really respect in 

my agency, and we decided that in order to ensure that we would 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

have a commercial capability for both cargo and crew as early as 

possible, I needed to put a little bit more funds in there than was 

in the Authorization Act. That is how we got to the $850 million 

for 2012 and subsequent years. That is far lower than what we 

originally needed and still believe we need to be certain that we 

will bring this program on board, but we think we can make that 

work. 

DUPLICATION AMONG FEDERAL AGENCIES

Mr. WOLF. I believe your Earth science programs support valuable work, but I am concerned that we are consuming a significant 

portion of the budget to fund those activities when other agencies 

have sufficient authorities and abilities to do some of the same 

things. 

Do you believe there are activities currently funded in Earth 

science that could be adequately performed instead by NOAA or 

USGS or the National Science Foundation or entities that they 

fund? For projects that support those other agencies’ missions but 

still require NASA’s assistance, could they or should they contribute more funds toward NASA’s expenses in order to free up 

NASA’s resources for its own unique activities? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, because these are such difficult 

times, we took a look at where we were in all aspects of our budget. 

Everything that we do in Earth science is unique to NASA. We 

have looked and there is no duplication across agencies. Everything 

that we do with weather, for example, we manage programs that 

use weather satellites under NOAA’s budget that then we take to 

orbit, make sure that they are operating, and we turn them over 

to NOAA. 

So when I look at our budget, I do not think there is duplication. 

My concern about allowing other people to take the Earth science 

projects that NASA does is that money will not go with that, and 

so the requirements that go with those projects will not be able to 

be met. 

It is just like giving me operational control of NOAA projects. If 

I do not get money, that means those projects do not get done. So 

moving projects back and forth among Federal agencies where 

there is presently no duplication does not represent a solution. 

What it represents is just another way to get rid of some of the 

critical programs that we have in Earth science right now. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I do not agree with you there. I think it would 

allow you to have more money to go and do what you are doing. 

I heard the other day that Senator Coburn and I think Senator 

Durbin had asked for an in-depth GAO analysis. The first initial 

report came out and identified duplications, I think, of $200 billion. 

Are you part of that report? For instance, GAO said there are so 

many manpower training programs. I forget how many, and I am 

not going to guess because I may be inaccurate. Is GAO looking at 

NASA? Are you part of the Coburn request to see if there is duplication? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, we are a part of all the GAO 

studies. Actually, I understand what you are saying, and there was 

a previous GAO study and I will take it for the record to bring you 

the exact—I do not think they gave any statistics, but there was 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

a definitive GAO study done on whether there were duplications 

between NOAA and NASA, and that study said they found no duplications between NOAA and NASA in the Earth science work 

that we do and the climate research that we do and the weather 

research that we do. The study that I think you refer to for Senator 

Coburn, and I was not aware that that was at his request—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. But I have seen that one as recently as this past week. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

General BOLDEN. That one dealt with education, everything 

across the spectrum of government, and I would agree that there 

is duplication. 

Mr. WOLF. Is NOAA part of that report? 

General BOLDEN. NOAA and everything were a part of that, but 

GAO had previously said that there was no duplication between 

NASA and NOAA in our Earth science efforts. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. There is no duplication between NASA and the 

U.S. Geological Survey in our Earth science programs. We do the 

satellites. We do the program management for development of the 

satellites and NOAA and the USGS, we recently signed a memorandum of agreement with USGS for them to take over Landsat. 

We do not spend any money on Landsat other than the administrative cost of managing the program of developing, building, and testing the Landsat satellite to make sure that it is okay before we 

hand it over to USGS. So I do not think there is any duplication, 

but I will take it for the record. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if you can. Maybe the staff can contact Senator 

Coburn’s office to see what the range of the GAO study is. And 

they indicated that there were further reports about ready to release, so we should see if NASA was part of that. 

The report that you referenced, what was the date of that? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I think that was a 2000——let 

me take it for the record. I think it was a—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. 2009 GAO study, but I will have 

to—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Why don’t you submit it for the record. 

General BOLDEN. I will do that. 

[The information follows:] 

DUPLICATION IN EARTH SCIENCE PORTFOLIO

In 2009, the GAO conducted a study to ‘‘determine whether NASA’s programs 

. . . are duplicative with other activities of the federal government.’’ [GAO–10–87R, 

Oct. 15, 2009] The GAO study reported ‘‘No Duplication Found in Earth Science 

Portfolio’’ and ‘‘NASA provides a unique role in Earth Science that is leveraged by 

other federal agencies.’’ 

NASA carefully informs and coordinates its Earth Science programs with NOAA 

and USGS both through regular bilateral meetings and through interagency coordinating groups such as the US Global Change Research program. NASA is vice-chair 

of USGCRP with responsibility for integrated observations. Broadly speaking, NASA 

conducts leading-edge research in Earth system science including climate change, 

while NOAA is working to expand its weather prediction capability to climate time 

scales and USGS is working to understand land surface change (including water 

and biota). 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

NASA and NOAA coordinate their weather and climate activities via regular 

meetings between NASA’s Earth Science Division and NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Services (NESDIS) office, including development of research to operations transition plans. NASA’s Joint Agency Satellite Division oversees NASA efforts to develop and launch NOAA’s satellites on a reimbursable basis. NASA and USGS coordinate their land surface change research activities 

at the analogous level, and NASA’s Joint Agency Satellite Division is working with 

USGS as the latter assumes the lead role for the Landsat program. 

Mr. WOLF. And then we ask the staff to be in touch with GAO 

and also with Mr. Coburn’s office to see if NASA or NOAA or 

USGS were a part of that. We are not looking to take away. We 

are looking to see if there is a function of yours that someone else 

can do, not to take your money away, but to allow you to have 

more money to do what you think is important. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, if I can—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

General BOLDEN. Just for Mr. Ringler, I think it is GAO 10–87R 

dated 15 October 2009. So that was the one specifically dealing 

with duplication between NASA and NOAA. 

NEW EXPLORATION PROGRAM

Mr. WOLF. Okay. One other question, and then I will go to Mr. 

Fattah. 

When the NASA authorization was signed last year, the Administration assured us that it would fully implement the new exploration program. Only five months later, however, NASA is proposing to fund the new exploration program more than $1.2 billion 

below its authorized level. 

How do your reconcile your stated commitment to the program 

with the budget request? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we have made an effort to stay 

within the budget as defined by the Authorization Act and the fact 

that we are operating under the 2010 funding level and expect that 

we will not be operating anywhere above that. 

Again, safety to crews is critical, particularly safety of the crews 

on the International Space Station. So it required me to look at 

how I felt I could balance the portfolio in human spaceflight to continue the development of a viable, a realistic deep space exploration 

program while not putting at risk America’s access to Low-Earth 

Orbit and the International Space Station in the time that I need 

that. 

I need for commercial entities to be able to deliver cargo to the 

International Space Station by 2012. They are on target to do that 

right now. I have enough supplies on the International Space Station. Provided we successfully get the next two Space Shuttle missions off, we can go through 2013 and if, you know, if for some reasons, the commercial entities did not deliver, we would be okay. 

I then need to get crew there and I want to get the crew on 

American-made rockets. I do not want to have to take them to the 

International Space Station on Soyuz through the life of the International Space Station through 2020. And so I think that by 2015, 

2016, we will have active operating commercial entities that will be 

taking crews to the International Space Station. That is quicker 

than I could have gotten there had I done it the old NASA way. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

General BOLDEN. So we are putting forth a genuine effort to 

produce a heavy-lift launch vehicle. 

90-DAY PROGRESS REPORT

Mr. WOLF. In the 90-day progress report on the implementation 

of the authorized exploration program, NASA stated that it might 

not be able to meet the goals of the authorization within the schedule and budget parameters established in that bill. 

You did not provide, however, an estimate of what you believe 

would be necessary. Using your standard budget and schedule estimating procedures, what does NASA believe will be needed to implement the authorization, and how does that compare to the budget plan put forward in your request? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, because the authorization was 

below the level that the President had proposed in his FY2011 

budget and because we all realize that fiscal times have changed 

and we have got to live within our means, we decided that we 

would take a look at two things. One, can I transition existing Constellation contracts to the new MPCV and Space Launch vehicle; 

that is a legal and procurement question. I am pretty close to being 

satisfied that, yes, we can do that with maybe some limitations. 

The second thing I had to determine, okay, if I can do that, is 

it affordable and is it sustainable. I could do it and get a vehicle 

the first time out, but then I have shot everything I have, and I 

cannot produce a second, third, fourth. I cannot produce a sustainable exploration program. 

So I want to give you a realistic program that is affordable and 

sustainable, and that answer, we will have for the Congress this 

summer sometime. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Administrator. Let me join the Chairman in thanking you for your significant service to our country. 

You flew over a hundred combat missions in Vietnam? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. You led our Marines into Kuwait as the commanding general? 

General BOLDEN. I did not do that, sir. I served with Marines in 

Kuwait between the two wars. I was happily flying space shuttles 

when my fellow Marine generals led our troops from Kuwait into 

Iraq in the Gulf War. I did not serve in the Gulf War. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. But on the Marine Corps side, you were in 

the astronaut office? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. And you were on the mission that launched the 

Hubble? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So I just wanted to put those on the record because 

the Chairman had referred to your great bio, so I took a minute 

to take a look at it. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, that is all history. 

Mr. FATTAH. I got you. But history is important for us to reflect 

on. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

I saw your appearance yesterday before the authorizing committee. And I could imagine that that was somewhat of a—reminded you of some of your previous duties, I guess, in some respects. So it is challenging to come up here to the Hill—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. And deal with the various committees 

of jurisdiction. Our committee has responsibility for money. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, if I did not believe in what I am doing, I 

would be back in Houston. 

IMPLEMENTING THE AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. FATTAH. I understand. Our committee deals with money. The 

authorizing committee deals with the authorizing issues. And the 

Congress has passed an authorization bill that allows you to move 

forward on the President’s new missions for NASA. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So the Congress has sanctioned the fact that we are 

going to now work towards human spaceflight and to space outside 

of Earth’s orbit. And that is going to be a challenging moment. 

That is why you put together a set of programs to move in that direction. 

Also, the Administration and the President and NASA have decided that you want to believe enough in American business to 

commercialize crew missions back and forth to the Space Station. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. That is correct? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. And so this Commercial Crew Program is a belief 

in American business that we could take what NASA has been 

doing for decades now. 

General BOLDEN. That is a firm belief that American industry 

can do what I have been doing. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. The Shuttle mission is almost 300 flights, 

right, and you have 133 right now? 

General BOLDEN. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH. But that is still a lot. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, you were retired, though, and moved in this 

commercial area, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So the work that you see and the budget that you 

are presenting for next year would follow the path of what has 

been authorized by the Congress, the work that Senator Nelson 

and the authorizing committees did to come to an agreement to 

move forward. 

And this reflects your best judgment about what the cost would 

be? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it does. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Now, as we grapple with the allocation, 

because I think absent such a limited allocation, you would have 

broad-based support on this committee to do everything we could 

to help you move forward, the Chairman is interested and I am interested in where there may be opportunities to delineate more 

clearly missions between NASA and, for instance, NOAA, and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

whether or not, particularly in the satellite area, there is some 

area to—and, you know, since you are operating in space all the 

time, I mean, you got a Shuttle mission up today, you got a launch 

tomorrow with—is it Glory? 

General BOLDEN. It is Glory, yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. And you still have, on Mars, Opportunity and 

Spirit moving around. You have a lot going on in space, that spacerelated things might be better suited at NASA, so that is the real 

question around I think what the Chairman was asking about satellites, because I agree that we want to look to see whether there 

is some synergy. We are not trying to weaken NASA or NOAA. We 

are just trying to see. 

And for me, it is not a matter of saving money. I mean, it is really a matter of just trying to organize the government better because I think if we have to spend more money to have a superior 

scientific advantage in this world, we, as Members of Congress, we 

should be prepared to do that, that this idea that we are going to 

lead this world on the cheap, I think is a foolish notion anyway and 

that our ancestors and forebearers did not operate on that notion. 

They sacrificed. 

So, needless to say, this is the area that we are interested in, 

and it is not a punitive matter between NOAA and NASA. We 

want to look and see what makes sense—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. And, you know, see whether or not 

there is some way to proceed. So if you would help us in that quest. 

You know, it is that exploration that we are involved in, and we 

want to learn and see how we can go forward. 

Thank you. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

And just for the record, I do not want to be unfair to anyone. We 

try to go according to how people come in but we will go to seniority if Members came in together. 

Secondly, I kind of made a decision—and if Members would rather me not do it, I would like to hear from you—of not limiting any 

Member on the time that they ask questions. 

I served on one committee once where they had a timer, an egg 

timer. And I felt that the witness knew the egg timer was there 

and could see it and felt ‘‘if I can keep talking, I can rope-a-dope 

this thing so nobody has to answer anything.’’ 

I apologize to Mr. Yoder because we did not get to you the last 

time, two times ago, but I think it is better that any Member can 

just follow wherever their heart takes them while still showing respect for other Members. 

So we are trying to call people based on how they come in. If it 

is really close, we would go to seniority. I know Mr. Bonner chairs 

a committee, Mr. Culberson does, and we have ranking members 

on different committees, so we want to be sure that the witness 

cannot just take up the Member’s whole time. So that is sort of the 

reasons we are doing this. And if there is a difference of opinion, 

somebody could just say something to me. 

Mr. Culberson. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

CHINESE SPACE PROGRAM

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bolden, we are really glad you are there, sir, and appreciate 

your service to the country, both in our military and in the Space 

Program. 

And this committee is arm in arm in ensuring that we support 

NASA and do everything we can to ensure that you are able to continue to keep the United States Space Program on the cutting edge 

of the world and a world leader, particularly in an era when the 

Chinese are so aggressively moving to overtake us in space exploration, and in so many other ways; and becoming our banker. 

The joint operating environment analysis prepared by the U.S. 

Joint Forces Command, and I know this will resonate with the 

chairman, that America’s greatest strategic threat is our national 

debt and deficit spending. It is the greatest single long-term strategic threat to the Nation. 

They also get into a detailed analysis of the Chinese and point 

out that the Chinese have—the People’s Liberation Army has more 

students in American graduate schools than the U.S. Military. 

Given that the Chinese are growing in understanding of America 

and our military, the Chinese are following their long-standing rule 

that if you know the enemy and know yourself, in a hundred battles, you will never be in peril. 

The Chinese have, according to the—again, this is the most recent analysis for looking out into the future by the U.S. Joint 

Forces Command—that the Chinese have a sense that in certain 

areas such as submarine warfare, space, and cyber warfare, China 

can compete on a near equal footing with America. Indeed competing in these areas, space, submarine warfare, and cyber in particular seems to be a primary goal and the force development of the 

People’s Liberation Army. 

And, of course, as our chairman has pointed out many times, this 

committee is going to drive home the point that the entire Chinese 

Space Program is owned lock, stock, and barrel and controlled by 

the People’s Liberation Army. 

And I know the chairman has expressed grave concern and I 

know the committee is concerned. And I want to reiterate our concern, Administrator, that NASA not cooperate, it is not authorized 

by law, it was stringently opposed, this committee, in any shape, 

form, or fashion with the Chinese Space Program because it is 

owned lock, stock, and barrel, controlled by the People’s Liberation 

Army. 

And they are so aggressively working to steal technology, break 

into our computer systems. It is a real source of concern. And we 

are graduating I think a tenth of the engineers, Mr. Chairman, and 

scientists? The Chinese have vastly more engineers and scientists 

working on their Space Program than we do, sir. 

And you are as vital a part of America’s long-term strategic security as, in my opinion, any of the work that is being done, for the 

long-term, that is being done in the Pentagon. And God bless them, 

but you and I think NASA, all of us should think of NASA as a 

part of national defense, as a great strategic asset the Nation enVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

joys and needs to protect. And I know the chairman feels that way 

and you have got our strong support. 

NASA’S FUNDING CHALLENGES PRIOR TO THE AUTHORIZATION

However, this is often forgotten: you started out with an immediate disadvantage as soon as you came in because the Bush administration never fully funded the vision for space exploration, did 

they, sir? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir, they did not. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And NASA is self-insured, of course, right? 

NASA is self-insured for all intents and purposes, so the terrible 

loss of the Challenger and the irreplaceable loss of the astronauts 

in the 1986 disaster, that Congress did not appropriate funds to replace the spacecraft, correct? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And in the terrible 2003 loss of Columbia and, 

again, the irreplaceable loss of the astronauts, no way to measure 

that, but Congress did not appropriate any funds to compensate 

NASA either to buy a new vehicle or to compensate NASA for all 

the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars 

that were lost as a result of Columbia? You were never compensated for the loss of Columbia financially? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I would have to take that for the 

record. I was not in the agency at the time. I was working on the 

periphery, but I think your assessment is correct. But I would have 

to take that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

NASA COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF COLUMBIA

NASA was never compensated for the loss of Columbia and the resulting cost for 

the Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF) effort. Prior to Return to Flight in 2006, 

over $1.2B of Space Shuttle funding was reallocated to cover RTF costs from funds 

that would normally have been spent on Space Shuttle operations (the Shuttle was 

not flying), Space Shuttle program reserves (intended to cover Shuttle contingencies), and the Space Shuttle Service Life Extension Program (no longer needed 

given Shuttle retirement). Another $930M was reallocated from other NASA programs—primarily Exploration and International Space Station—in FY 2004, FY 

2005 and FY 2006, to also address RTF costs. 

The only monies specifically appropriated to NASA by Congress for the loss of Columbia was $100M in FY 2003 specifically to respond to the Columbia accident investigation and recovery. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I know my friend from Mississippi, you 

were never paid for all that hurricane damage, right, Jo? 

Mr. BONNER. But I am from Alabama. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am sorry. I am sorry. Isn’t that terrible? Texans are just awful. I mean, if it is north of—isn’t that awful? Isn’t 

that terrible? I really apologize, Jo. Awful. I mean, because north 

of Red River, east of the Sabine, we just lose track. It is terrible. 

I apologize seriously. 

But NASA was never compensated, all the facilities that were 

damaged by the hurricanes, you were never fully compensated, I 

think, for that either, right? 

Mr. BONNER. I think you are right. And I think there was damage that we were not compensated for. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Mr. CULBERSON. Massive damage. So in addition to not fully 

funding the vision for space exploration, which—and I think Scott, 

if you give me—this is the same chart that Sean O’Keefe did. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I want to make sure you all get a copy of this. 

This is essentially a sand chart that I know Sean O’Keefe prepared 

at the time the vision first was laid out that showed what was necessary in order to maintain not only the vision for space exploration, but to keep the american space program on the cutting edge 

for the world. And the, again, lack of full funding, loss of the Columbia, and the hurricane damage put you seriously behind the 

eight ball. 

Now we move into the Obama administration and we are entering this new era, an age of austerity unlike anything we have ever 

experienced before. And Chairman Wolf has quite properly, and I 

admire him and support him strongly in his focus on the urgent 

need to reform our entitlement programs to deal with the urgent 

threat caused by the national debt, and the deficit. 

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified, when 

asked by the Senate, what is the greatest threat to the United 

States’ long-term strategic security, he says the national debt. 

So you have got all these difficulties you are going to deal with 

and we are going to do our very, very best to help you, sir, and the 

request that you have made. And the President has asked to freeze 

NASA. You have not reached the authorized level of funding in the 

authorization bill. 

CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND THE

AUTHORIZATION

One thing I know that we could do right out of the gate to help 

you would be to clarify immediately the conflict between the CR 

that we are under, which is the one passed under—when we were 

here all together under Chairman Mollohan, which says that you 

shall build Constellation, as I recall, essentially statutory language 

to that effect, right, or am I just—it’s a prohibitive determination 

of Constellation. 

And while we are under these CRs it is a continuation of that 

essentially statutory, it is in the statute, I think, requirement the— 

and then you have got the authorization bill which says build a 

heavy-lift rocket and a manned capsule. 

One thing I hope we can do to one of these short-term CRs we 

are dealing with is get you some immediate clarification on what 

that would be—that would be helpful, wouldn’t it? 

General BOLDEN. That would be very helpful—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That would be a big help. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Congressman. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the work that you are doing on—I swear 

I will try to wrap this up. You guys are very gracious. 

Mr. WOLF. Take your time. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are very kind. And we are all going in the 

same direction on this, guys. 

Mr. HONDA. Probably. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. Mr. Honda wants to clarify that. I do not 

want to get him in trouble with his folks back home. But we are 

all arm-in-arm in supporting NASA. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

So if we get you some clarification on that right away so that you 

can comply with the authorization bill which says that you are to 

build a heavy-lift rocket, a manned capsule, and test it, right, is essentially—— 

General BOLDEN. The Authorization Act does not require me to 

test. And I will take it for the record, but that is the first I have 

heard that the authorization bill required me to fly a test flight on 

a Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle. It stands to reason—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, sure. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. That is what we would want to do, 

but I am trying to be very—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. 

General BOLDEN. I will take it for the record, and we will come 

back and let you know if there is a requirement for me to fly a test 

flight, that adds more money. To go to the chairman’s point, my 

hope is that I will be allowed to develop a heavy-lift launch system 

and an MPCV and then make the decision as to whether we need 

to fly a test flight or what. Otherwise, you have added another cost 

on top of what is already difficult. 

[The information follows:] 

TEST FLIGHT OF SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS)

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 does not require NASA to perform a test 

flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) prior to flying crew on the launch vehicle. 

NASA is still in the early stages of formulating the SLS program and as part of 

that process will determine the appropriate ground and flight tests to perform to 

validate the systems performance. The tests will depend on the architecture and 

systems selected for the SLS. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, if it is not a statutory requirement, I know 

that when the bill was written, because we all participated in that 

and discussed it, that it would be common sense that you are not 

going to put human beings on a rocket without testing it. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it is—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You all are going to do it. 

General BOLDEN. We did not fly a test flight on the Shuttle. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is true. I remember reading about—— 

General BOLDEN. Sometimes you have to accept risk. What I 

have tried to tell everybody is the Nation is averse to risk. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. The American public, going back to what Congressman Fattah said, it is incumbent upon me as the NASA Administrator to help the American public understand risk, and that 

if we want to remain the greatest Nation in the world and the technological leader in the world, then we have to do some things differently than we have done before, and that means we have to accept risk, which means we—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is true. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Have to think like we thought 

when we launched the first Shuttle. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is true. 

General BOLDEN. Challenger changed everything. We would have 

never flown STS–1 again after Challenger. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. I remember a visit with John Young and 

he said—I remember him telling me that. But to also drive home 

a point that you just made, I remember President Bush saying on 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

many, many occasions America has become risk averse. And it 

is—— 

General BOLDEN. But that is the Nation. That is NASA. 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. Let me pass the microphone on 

to my colleagues by asking about the amount of money that we are 

spending on commercial which all of us, and certainly I as a free 

market Jeffersonian conservative, support the idea of the commercial sector getting us to low earth orbit. 

What percentage of the cost, for example, as envisioned by the 

budget request and the direction that the President is asking you 

to go, what percentage of the cost of a typical commercial flight will 

be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, 50 percent, 60 percent? 

General BOLDEN. When we get to commercial crew or now presently under the COTS Program or—— 

Mr. FATTAH. When we get to commercial crew. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. When we get to commercial crew, I will have 

to again—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Ballpark, just ballpark. 

General BOLDEN. I cannot give you a ballpark figure because we 

have not gotten to the point where I will be this spring when I 

have a formalized acquisition strategy performed. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. And then we can give you that answer. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. Today I do not know that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I will follow-up on this in my second round, but 

I am deeply concerned at the dramatic increase in the level of funding for commercial spaceflight, I mean, from 39 to 612 is authorized and you got $850 million in this year’s request, yet you just 

told the chairman and just reiterated that you cannot even afford 

a test flight and you do not even know if you have got enough to 

even sustain a heavy-lift rocket. So it is a real source of concern. 

And, also, secondly, the President I understand is going to make 

a request, make an announcement sometime in Florida that I understand is—he is going to announce that they are going to try to 

move all the manned spaceflight preparation for commercial to 

Kennedy when all of that infrastructure exists in the Johnson 

Space Center, along with all the expertise. 

General BOLDEN. I think there is a misunderstanding of the commercial crew program office at the Kennedy Space Center and 

where we train astronauts. That will not change. Astronauts will 

still live, train, work in Houston, go to wherever the vehicles happen to be, whether it is Vandenberg Air Force Base or Cape Canaveral or the Kennedy Space Center. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. That is the way we have always done it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The last question on this. You will just—when 

the rocket lifts off the pad, the commercial will take over from— 

you will have the same structure you have today and that is all the 

training, all the everything before they lift off will be done at Johnson Space Center where we have got the expertise and the infraVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

structure, but the minute they lift off the pad, they are under the 

control of Kennedy? 

General BOLDEN. That has not been determined yet, Mr. Culberson. What I have asked the folks in the astronaut office and flight 

crew operations is to give me an operational concept: How do we 

want to do this. If I do it like the airlines, they send a pilot off and 

he or she goes somewhere and trains. The first time they fly an airplane, there are passengers in the back seat. I could do that or I 

could do my own training which is what I would prefer to do, but 

it may be more economical for me to allow the contractor to take 

my astronauts to their facility to train. That has not been decided 

yet. That is a part of the operational concept development and we 

are probably a year or so away from doing that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, I know we would encourage you to take 

advantage of the resources, the assets, the strategies. You know, 

you have got all the talent, the expertise, and the infrastructure at 

Johnson and we need to take full advantage of that, particularly 

in an age of austerity when there is no money. And we love you 

and we want to help you, so please do not—— 

Mr. BONNER. Will the gentleman yield for one question? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. BONNER. Is Johnson in Arkansas? 

Mr. CULBERSON. I deserved that. I deserved that. 

Mr. FATTAH. I think we just heard an argument for government 

focused efforts versus the private sector from a conservative Jeffersonian Republican. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your consideration of the 

time and allowing us to take the time. I think that that is a nice 

break from the past. 

Administrator Bolden, being a Marine, I know that risk is not 

something you worry about. I mean, just being a Marine Corps person. 

General BOLDEN. I do worry about it. 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah. So I think in terms of training in outer space 

and astronaut training since you have done that, you know, I have 

greater confidence that, you know, you have control and oversight 

on that because I like to fly with pilots who are experienced. You 

know, getting off is important, but coming back down safely is important, too, so—— 

General BOLDEN. I agree. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING CUTS PROPOSED BY THE HOUSE

Mr. HONDA. And there has been a lot of questions around how 

we spend our money. It seems to me that you have been seeking 

ways to create synergy and make the dollar go further and still accomplish the mission. 

I was going to ask you a question about the robotic precursors, 

the tension between technology and heavy-lift, human spaceflight 

interests, the space technology, NASA scientists versus outside 

grants. And I think that a lot of the stuff I will come back to later 

because the question had occurred to me as we were talking about 

more money, less money, and things like that. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

We have spent almost 90 hours on looking at our CR in the past 

few weeks. And I want to ask a question about a near-term question. What would happen to the completion of the Space Shuttle 

manifest and the long-term need and to the Space Launch System 

and the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle development schedules if H.R. 

1, the continuing resolution, is enacted and how would this impact 

other NASA activities? What would happen? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we have not evaluated our operations against H.R. 1 because it is something that passed the 

House and still has to be determined. But we feel that we can fly 

STS–135 under the budget scenarios that we looked at which is the 

Continuing Resolution, the way we are operating right now, and I 

am confident that we will be able to fly STS–135. 

Mr. HONDA. Based on your responses to previous questions then, 

my sense is that you are at the very bare minimum in terms of trying to get the best bang out of the bucks and trying to make everything work and meet some of the objectives that we have put out 

and the President has put out. 

And my sense is that if we enact a $60 billion, $100 billion cut 

again, that that would negatively impact all the things that you 

have done and accomplished up to now in terms of planning and 

moving the NASA program forward. 

Would that be an accurate statement? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, that is an accurate statement 

because we are working now to remain with the elements of the 

2010 Authorization Act, signed by the President in November. I 

promise you that I will not exceed the budget, and I will do whatever I can not to do that. I have also told you that my number one 

priority is safety of my crews whether it is as we safely fly out the 

Shuttle or whether it is safety of the crews on the International 

Space Station. That is a triangle. If the budget comes down, that 

triangle gets smaller, and I am not going to jeopardize safety of the 

crew, so naturally something would have to give. But that is not 

something that I am anticipating. I am hoping, as I mentioned yesterday in my testimony, that reasonable people can agree to disagree, but come to what is best for the country. 

Mr. HONDA. And that is, I guess, our role as policymakers, but 

taking into consideration the advice of our experts, that we should 

take that into consideration heavily before we make any fiscal decisions again. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I would agree very strongly with 

that. If I lose money for construction of facilities or operations and 

maintenance, then the natural fallout is that either I have got to 

lay people off or I have got to close facilities. I do not want to have 

to deal with that. I would plead with everyone as I have done in 

my visits with many of the Members of this committee prior to the 

hearing to just be cognizant of the fact that there are positions you 

can put us in where the only alternative is to lay off more people 

or to close facilities. That is not a decision that I have even considered. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. HONDA. And so we have discussed a variety of scenarios in 

terms of partnerships, international partnerships, level of trust. 

The International Space Station, you have been there. 

General BOLDEN. No, sir, I have not. I wish I had. I am an old 

guy. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. So have you had interactions with folks who 

had gone to the International Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. HONDA. Have you had relationships with those astronauts 

from the other countries? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. HONDA. Has those interactions and the cooperation, has that 

been positive and has there been learning on all sides where the 

contributions towards spaceflight knowledge has been positive? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I have not served on the International Space Station, but when you ask that question, my last 

flight in 1994, I was the commander of the first mission to involve 

a Russian cosmonaut as a member of the crew, and on the day that 

I was told that I was going to be made that assignment, I was the 

assistant deputy administrator here at NASA, and I told them to 

find somebody else. I had no interest in flying with any Russian 

because as a Marine, I trained all my life to kill them and I 

thought they had done the same for me. A wiser person at the time 

said, ‘‘calm down.’’ At least meet them, have dinner with them, and 

find out whether you really believe that, and I had dinner with two 

cosmonauts, Sergei Krikalev and Vladimir Titov. Vladimir was a 

veteran cosmonaut fighter pilot and Sergei was an incredibly talented engineer. That night we talked about families and kids and 

stuff like that, and I said, ‘‘this is going to be good.’’ 

Mr. HONDA. Uh-huh. Have you had experiences with other countries that had astronauts up at the Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. I have probably dealt with maybe not every astronaut who has been aboard the International Space Station, but 

most of them in different form and they all—if they sat here before 

you today, they would engage you in the same conversation I have 

had with the Chairman every once in a while. 

Mr. HONDA. Sure. How about China? 

General BOLDEN. I have had dealings with the Chinese. 

Mr. HONDA. Reaction? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, you know, my job is running NASA and I 

am intending to do that to the utmost. My focus right now is on 

the crew that I have on orbit and I want to make sure they stay 

safe. I am going to do that. 

It is for the President and the Congress to decide what our relationship is with other countries. The President is one who believes 

in international engagement and so when you tell me and the 

President tells me what to do, when the President signs his name, 

I am going to do that. 

Right now I do not deal in ‘‘what ifs.’’ I am concerned to keep 

my crew safe, make sure that they are safe for the duration of the 

International Space Station, and I think I can do that. I believe 

with my heart that we can do what you have asked me to do. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate your depth of response and I believe that working together on common projects like 

the International Space Shuttle where people from different backgrounds and have different histories have a chance to work together find that the project and the goals sort of become the important thing and our history fades, you know, in the past and we create new futures and new expectations. And scientists, teachers are 

probably the ones that are the cutting edge with our young people. 

General BOLDEN. Exactly. 

Mr. HONDA. Us politicians are probably the ones that have the 

hardest time letting go. I know I am one of them. But I just wanted 

to say for the record that I believe you when you say that we have 

a system right now that is tightly knit and set up so that we get 

the best bang for our bucks. And the kind of cuts that we are looking at right now only drive us backwards and become less efficient 

and fall further behind on our goals. 

And on the national debt, the debt is a result of the way we take 

care of our fiscal picture and so, you know, if we do not do that 

right, some things we have to make an investment for the future. 

And I think at times, we are our own worst enemies in many ways. 

And the history has proved that out. 

So with your experience and your background, I take your judgment and your plans and your admonitions seriously. And I do appreciate that and I appreciate your service to this country, a man 

who has proven himself both as a military person, as a civilian, 

and as an administrator for NASA which is, you know, aeronautics 

is a big word in NASA. I do not want to see that leave. I do not 

want to see the Administration leave either, but you have provided 

the best direction that I have seen in the ten years I have been 

here and knitting the things together and being diplomatic to folks 

like myself in your responses. So I just want to say thank you for 

your service and your work. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Dicks. 

SHUTTLE DISPLAY SITES

Mr. DICKS. I deeply appreciate my good friend from Alabama returning the favor. 

Mr. Bolden, you and I have had several discussions over the 

phone on the future, what is going to happen to the Discovery, 

Endeavour, and Atlantis when they end their service. And we know 

that the Enterprise is at the Smithsonian. I used to chair the Interior Appropriations Committee. I have a very strong feeling for the 

Smithsonian. 

But we also have a great place out in the State of Washington 

at the Museum of Flight which is run by Bonnie Dunbar, a former 

astronaut. And the museum is the largest nongovernmental, nonprofit air and space museum in the country, hosting 450,000 visitors a year. The museum serves more than 120,000 K-through-12 

students each year and has 22 programs that are aligned with 

state and academic standards. The museum is fully accredited by 

the American Association of Museums. And their geographic consideration is supposed to be taken into account. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

I also urge the White House to take into account the geographic 

diversity in selecting Shuttle display sites. The western United 

States I hope will not be overlooked. And you know, of course, 

about the Boeing Company out there, and the northwest is home 

to more than 25 astronauts. Two Washington State astronauts, 

Commander Dick Scobee and Colonel Mike Anderson, gave their 

lives in service to their country. 

And I would just like you to give us an update on where we 

stand on this, what is going to happen to these shuttles and it is 

very important to our State. 

General BOLDEN. I would be very glad to, sir. There is an ongoing process. It has actually been underway since before I became 

the Administrator, and I kind of tweaked it when I came in, a process by which I have a team that is evaluating the 29 requests that 

came in to get an orbiter. I have asked that team to bring that to 

a head, to a focus so that I can announce a decision on the 30th 

anniversary of the flight of STS–1, Columbia. 

Mr. DICKS. When is that? 

General BOLDEN. April 12th. 

Mr. DICKS. Coming right up here. 

General BOLDEN. Coming right up, sir. The chairman is smiling. 

I hope that is good. 

Mr. DICKS. So are we still operating under the criteria that the 

recipient has to come up with, like, $26 million? Is that still—— 

General BOLDEN. That is correct, sir. I should explain the funding required to get an orbiter was arrived at by looking at how 

much it costs NASA to perform the safety on the vehicle. There are 

a lot of volatile components in the Shuttle, a lot of dangerous components. We have to remove main engines, put simulated main engines on, remove the Orbital Maneuvering System engines, put 

simulated engines on, and all of that means that NASA has to 

produce replicas of real things, and that costs money. So when I 

asked what it was, it is about $28 million or somewhere in that 

neighborhood, so that is including the cost of transportation. So I 

think if I am not mistaken, it is in the neighborhood of $10, $11 

million for transportation and then the rest for preparation of the 

vehicle. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Administrator, Alabama has already given our 

friends from Washington State a big gift last week, so I do not 

know if we are on that 29 list of cities or states, but I would just 

say probably for Ohio and for Kansas and for Pennsylvania and Arkansas and Texas and all of the others, we just want to make sure 

that decision is fair. 

General BOLDEN. That decision will be fair, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Administrator, if the gentleman would yield, I 

think the fairest way to do this would be any State that does not 

already have a NASA facility of any kind might be, like, at the first 

cut on these lists. 

Mr. BONNER. I was hoping we would go in alphabetical order, but 

regardless—— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Mr. FATTAH. I am trying to build public support for space funding, you know. 

NASA OVERALL MISSION AND VISION

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I have got 

a few questions I would like to get in the record for the Administrator. He was generous enough to visit our office the other day 

and I appreciated that visit so much. 

Appreciate as everyone does your patriotic example for the rest 

of us, young and old alike. You are truly an American hero and we 

are grateful that you are serving your country again at this important time at NASA. 

We talked earlier. We had a chance to visit briefly about NASA’s 

overall mission and vision. And I confided that some of us are getting of age where we remember all sitting around the TV set in our 

living room and everyone gathering with great interest in what 

NASA was doing and whether it was the moon or the early days 

of Shuttle. 

I think we are in the Ag hearing room. I have been in this hearing room, but it looks like from the pictures on the wall that that 

is where we are. 

And one of my requests has been frequently with your predecessors as well back when I was on the Science Space Subcommittee of the Science Committee was we need to make sure 

that the American people understand what NASA’s mission is 

today, what NASA’s relationship to food safety or to medicine or to 

chemical breakthrough or the other wonderful things that NASA 

has played a role in in terms of science and healthcare. 

We need to make sure that the citizens of this country, the taxpayers of this country, and the people who have a soft spot in their 

heart for NASA that they understand what NASA 2011 is doing as 

opposed to NASA in the 1960s or 1970s. 

So just two questions and the others will be in the record. But 

the first one is, could you restate, and forgive me if you did it in 

your opening testimony, what in your view is NASA’s core mission 

today? Does that differ from your goals for NASA as it relates to 

the Administrator or from your perception of what the President 

and those in Congress who support NASA might be? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I believe NASA’s core mission is 

unchanged since the 1958 Space Act, and that is to enable the Nation to reach beyond the bounds of Earth into deep space, so that 

we understand more about our planet and that we can make life 

better for people here on Earth. 

As you and I talked about your concern for Red Tide and other 

kinds of things, and I mentioned the fact that in our Earth science 

programs, while we go to space to look back and learn things about 

our planet. We are on the International Space Station now, and 

some of the experiments that are ongoing that you and I did not 

have an opportunity to talk about, we are doing plant growth experiments that will greatly improve our ability to produce food for 

people here on Earth in places that right now it is very difficult 

to do that. 

We sponsor with the Agency for International Development a 

program that is called Servir. It is located in three countries 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

around the world. The first one was in Panama, second in Nairobi, 

Kenya, the third I opened in October in Kathmandu, Nepal. These 

take Earth science data from a 30-year archive and put it together 

with current Earth science data and help people in those three regions of the world do what NASA does for people here in the 

United States. It helps with crop planting, developing flood and 

drought models, and that is being done for East Africa, for Central 

and South America, for eight nations in Eurasia. That is really important. NASA does the same thing. 

When I look around, you talk about water purity. We hosted a 

conference at the Kennedy Space Center last fall that was just on 

water purity where people were there from all over the world, and 

NASA can do that. 

That may not be considered to be a core mission, but interestingly when you go back to the 1958 Space Act and you read what 

it says NASA is to do, the first thing is to perform Earth science. 

I mean, it is Section 102(d)(1) in the National Space Act, and the 

first thing is not flying humans to space. It is to steward the Earth, 

and we do that, we have found that we do it better when we are 

able to put humans outside earth’s environment and help us look 

back so that we can interpret what we see better. 

MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. BONNER. And as a follow-up to that, since there is probably 

no agency in government that is more closely identified with leadership in math and science and inspiring young children to grow 

up to want to be an astronaut or to want to be an engineer or doctor or physicist, than NASA, can you tell us a little bit about how 

your budget this year delves into the area of math and science education as it relates to the country itself? 

General BOLDEN. Sure. Our budget which this year is $138 million or so or proposed to be tries to focus on three levels of education: postgraduate, collegiate, and then secondary and primary 

school. 

When I became the Administrator, we decided we would also try 

to really focus like a laser as people say on intermediate school, 

middle school. That is the summer of innovation that we brought 

about which is really trying to get students and teachers in middle 

school to fall in love with math and science and technology. 

I had the privilege of visiting with the Chairman. He is big in 

education, and he puts his treasure into a school that is in the region of the district, and we went there and I was able to do something as an astronaut or former astronaut. I was able to go with 

the chairman and present the kids with something that they would 

not otherwise have an opportunity to do. 

We are not the Department of Education. I do not want to be the 

Department of Education, but I have incredible content. I have incredible employees who ask me every day how we can find a way 

to justify their going out to a school. Because of restrictions that 

we have and how we account for their time, they are frustrated because they know that they can help encourage kids to become interested in math and science. And we do that a lot. 

The Marshall Space Flight Center is incredible in what they do. 

They have a worldwide competition that is called a ‘‘Moon Buggy 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

Competition’’ and I know you know about it. We are about to be 

overrun by foreign teams because they get into this stuff. 

Mr. Culberson read the assessment that came from an old friend 

of mine, General Mattis, who is now the commander of U.S. Central Command. But that study was done when General Mattis had 

U.S. Joint Forces Command and he is an intellectual and a person 

who understands the importance of education. 

What we do at our NASA center is I have the most incredible 

workforce, so let’s try to use it. 

Mr. BONNER. I just think that as we go through this gap of 

where we will not be taking Shuttle up for or will not be taking 

Shuttle up and we are going to be waiting until the next opportunity comes for us to once again be in the driver’s seat on this, 

knowing the challenges that we have been presented and that then 

we are going to in turn present to you in terms of squeezing that 

dollar farther and farther, anything you can do, and I think this 

would be consistent with the chairman and probably other members of this committee’s view, is there anything we can do to make 

those investments so that children today can see a brighter future 

through the lenses and the opportunities of programs like what you 

are talking about with middle school? 

I do not want to sacrifice the collegiate or postgraduate or the 

other areas, but that is important for us, I think, to give our children and our grandchildren what our forefathers gave us. 

But thank you again for your great service to our country. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, thank you very much. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Schiff. 

PLANETARY SCIENCE

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Administrator, for being here. Really appreciate the 

fine work you do. And as my colleagues have said, we have just 

great respect and admiration for your long career and it is a pleasure to see you again. 

I want to raise a couple issues that first concerns a decrease over 

the next five years in funds for planetary science. We are awaiting 

the planetary science decadal results next week. That will provide 

priorities from the scientific community. 

Several of us on the committee including my colleague, Mr. Culberson, have an interest in ensuring that the exploration of the 

solar system continues to be a focus at NASA. And I know this has 

been a tumultuous time. We want to make sure that programs that 

provided some of NASA’s greatest successes like the Mars Exploration Program, the missions to the outer planets continue to receive attention and support. 

How do you plan to continue that tradition given the decreases 

in the planetary science budget? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we are anxiously awaiting the 

outcome of the planetary science decadal survey as are you. That 

will help us define where we go in the next two decades in terms 

of planetary science. 

We have a number of missions that are on the book right now 

that we intend to fly. We think that they are adequately funded, 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

those that are far enough along, we have them well planned, but 

we will be challenged to do everything that the decadal survey asks 

us to do as we always are. 

But, we have the Mars Science Laboratory which I know you are 

very familiar with. It is scheduled to launch the end of next year 

and should get to Mars in 2012. That will be an incredible step forward because we will be able to then take samples and analyze 

them on the surface of Mars. 

It is a big thing for NASA. It is the largest vehicle that we will 

have ever sent to another planet other than the Lunar Lander. It 

is the size of a small house or a big car. And then we have GRAIL 

and Juno, two other missions that are going to go in the planetary 

science series that are on cost and on schedule. So we are confident 

that we will be able to manage with the budget that we have put 

forth. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I just want to express my continuing support 

for that investment. Through some of the darkest hours of the 

Manned Spaceflight Program, these planetary missions have provided continued inspiration. The number of visits online to view 

some of the images from Mars, for example, are in the billions and 

it is just extraordinary. 

One of the things that I think unifies us around the globe is 

watching these exciting discoveries that come out of the planetary 

sciences. So I want to encourage our continued investment in that 

area. 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT, CONTINUED

The budget submission has $850 million for commercial crew. 

That is a bit more for commercial crew than was authorized in the 

authorization bill last year, but far less than the commercial crew 

funding proposed in the budget submission last year. 

My understanding is that the current budget is designed to get 

crew flying the Space Station by 2015 which would keep our dependence on the Russians to a minimum. I know I am not alone 

in here in wanting to return flying American crew on American 

rockets as soon as possible. 

If the Congress rejects this budget or cuts commercial crew funding down to $500 million a year, how much longer will it be before 

we can tell the Russians and their increasing fares that we no 

longer need their services? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, any reduction in spending 

means that we have to accept more risks. My idea would be that 

we end up with at least two companies that have produced vehicles 

that we can rely upon to get crews to Low Earth Orbit so I have 

some redundancy. With less funding, it jeopardizes the chance that 

I will be able to have multiple companies providing that service so 

it increases the risk. 

I do not think it would take away our capability of having commercial capability to get to Low Earth Orbit, but it increases the 

risk of having that capability be sustained and reliable, if you will. 

Let me correct one thing that I may have said earlier that might 

be a little bit confusing. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Administrator, in addition to increasing the risk, 

wouldn’t it also very potentially result in an increased delay in the 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

sense that if you are not willing to accept the additional risk to the 

crew, it may take longer to meet the safety standards that you set 

if you cannot make this investment? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I do not worry about it increasing the risk in terms of safety. What I do worry about it doing is 

increasing the cost because if I have to rely on one provider, I am 

now back into a monopoly and so just as I would be with my international partner, the Russians. If there is only one provider, that 

one provider sets the price and then, I do not have anywhere to go. 

That is not the cost savings that we look for in going to commercial entities. The reason that I want to go to commercial entities 

and I wanted to put a minimum of $850 million forward is because 

it takes multiple candidates forward, so that it stays competitive. 

You take the competition out and maybe they will be very patriotic, 

but that is unlikely. So the cost will go up. 

LEVERAGING PRIVATE INVESTMENT

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you something related. This December, 

we saw an amazing achievement in Florida with the successful 

launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9. For less than $600 million, the company designed and built a rocket and capsule, flew them into space, 

returned the capsule successfully to the earth. 

Of the $600 million, only 298, less than half, came from NASA. 

The rest was raised privately. So this was accomplished for about 

$300 million which is a pretty amazing bargain for NASA. And obviously that leveraging the private investment was pretty key. 

Can you talk a little bit about how much private investment you 

expect to leverage in the future and what greater capabilities that 

will give NASA by virtue of the fact that if you are able to leverage 

private funds for certain missions, you can devote more of NASA’s 

resources to doing other things. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, you stated it better than I could. 

My total investment as a partner with SpaceX and Orbital in the 

COTS Program and in SpaceX’s first demonstration, I am investing 

less than $300 million, and we will get a capable system that can 

carry cargo to orbit as opposed to anything that I could have produced. 

So it was a fixed amount based on a Space Act Agreement that 

we signed with Orbital and SpaceX. That is not like a cost-plus 

contract or anything where the cost varies for me. I know how 

much I am going to pay. In the future, when we go to commercial 

crew, once we have an acquisition strategy in place, that will help 

us to decide what type of contract we will enter into with the commercial entities, whoever they are. 

Ideally, I would like to have a fixed-price contract so that I know 

how much money I am going to pay up front. If I end up paying 

$3 billion for one of the two carriers to go, that is a great savings 

on what it now costs me to own and operate a system that takes 

people back and forth to Low Earth Orbit. So it frees up money for 

exploration. 

The reason I am so confident that we can do what we say we can 

do with the 2012 budget is because of the ability to leverage on the 

partnership with commercial entities, where it is their responsiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

bility to go out and raise additional funds to supplement what the 

government has to pay as a part of the partnership. 

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you a little bit about NASA as a technological agency. All of us have reaped the fruits of NASA’s technological prowess in our lifetimes. Unfortunately, as an excellent editorial in Space News last week pointed out, NASA’s investment in 

space technology has shrunk from ten percent of its budget in the 

1970s to two percent today. That is not enough for NASA to stay 

an agency focused on the future. 

Let me just pull one of the most pointed quotes from the editorial. ‘‘We spend billions of dollars on launch vehicles and capsules, but without immediate investments in space technologies, 

they will have nothing to launch and no place to go.’’ 

Do you agree with that sentiment? How important is the space 

technology research budget to NASA’s mission to explore the solar 

system? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the space technology research 

budget is vital. The reason that is a billion dollar increase over 

what was in the Authorization Act is because that is almost bare 

bones. 

We have a technology roadmap. Congressman Fattah referred to 

it earlier. We have a technology roadmap that Bobby Braun, my 

chief technologist, has laid out and it is now under evaluation by 

the National Research Council. We think that is very viable. That 

roadmap has been in place for decades. The reason it has been in 

place for decades, as you cited, the Nation has not chosen to make 

that investment. 

NASA took money away from space technology and technology 

development every time we needed a source of funding. We are not 

going to do that in the future. That is a commitment I made to the 

President. That is a commitment I made to this Congress. If we are 

going to be able to explore beyond Low Earth Orbit, then we need 

to have certain capabilities that do not exist today, and they will 

come from space technology. 

DESDYNI RADAR SATELLITE

Mr. SCHIFF. I just have one last question I wanted to ask you. 

NASA’s previous budget projections had NASA’s science programs 

increasing, particular Earth sciences. That was similarly an important investment in our future. But I want to talk about one particular satellite that is delayed in the budget proposal consistent 

with the recommendations of the National Research Council’s 

Earth science decadal. 

NASA’s DESDynI Radar Satellite was an essential component of 

top priority tier one research and recommended for launch this decade. This will, once launched, contribute support to mitigation assessment response after catastrophic natural hazards like earthquakes, volcanos, floods, fires, et cetera, which is obviously a very 

important topic to my State of California as well as my colleagues 

on the Gulf Coast. 

Given the critical importance of these measurements to scientists, first responders, and governors, how can NASA ensure 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

there is sufficient funding allocated to keep DESDynI Radar Satellite on an appropriate development path for launch this decade 

based on the phase one studies occurring in 2011 and subsequent 

developments in 2012? How much funding would we need in 2012 

to meet the next milestones in project development as well as solicit support from international partners on the mission? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I will get back to you. I will take 

it for the record. But if I can get a budget for 2011, that keeps the 

Earth Science Program on a course to intercept what we have said 

we need in 2012. 

[The information follows:] 

DEFORMATION, ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF ICE (DESDYNI)

The more constrained fiscal environment has necessitated hard decisions by the 

Agency. The DESDynI radar mission is currently in the pre-formulation phase and 

has completed the Mission Concept Review. The FY 2012 budget request provides 

sufficient resources to engage potential international partners on the radar mission, 

and NASA will evaluate whether contributions from partners can allow development 

for launch near the end of the decade within the overall Earth Science Division 

budget constraints. In addition, NASA will work to identify an international contribution of the lidar portion of the mission. 

So, when all of you ask me what is the impact of decreased funding in 2011, we really need a definitized budget for 2011 because 

everything in 2012 is contingent upon what the Congress finally 

appropriates for 2011. If the amount appropriated in 2011 is significantly less than where I am right now at the 2010 levels, then 

2012 becomes very problematic. 

DESDynI right now is back to its original projected launch date 

which is after 2020. You may remember when I talked to you when 

I became Administrator and we submitted the President’s 2011 

budget request we were really happy because it was going to enable us to pull DESDynI, CLARREO, a couple of other Earth 

science satellites forward by as much as a year or two. Now that 

we are living under the 2010 Continuing Resolution and it looks 

like the funding level is not going to be better than that, then we 

are back to where we were when I became the NASA Administrator and not trending well, if you will. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General Bolden, thank you for your service to our country. 

Thank you for your service as Administrator to NASA and for 

being here today. 

I was not going to put this pin on, but after Mr. Dicks’ comments, I had to put a pin on here that says land a shuttle in Ohio 

so Ohio is properly represented. We have got a million foot exhibition area called the National Museum of the Air Force as you are 

well aware of and over a million visitors in the Midwest and we 

would like to see the Midwest represented. So I had to get my two 

cents in on that. 

But thank you for being here today. 

MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS

And, General, let me ask you first, as you are probably aware, 

the NASA authorization calls for the modification of current conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

tracts. Specifically the language I am referring to in here, and I 

will read it, is, ‘‘In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs 

and support critical capabilities, the administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and 

associate contracts necessary to meet the requirements.’’ 

My question is, do you plan to continue to modify the current 

launch vehicle and crew capsule contracts as directed by the authorization bill or do you see where this scenario of these current 

launch vehicle contracts would not be modified? 

And I know there has been a significant investment over the last 

six years in moving forward this. Is there a scenario where that 

would not move forward? And I am concerned specifically about the 

tens of thousands of highly skilled positions that are involved there 

and closing hundreds of vital aerospace facilities. Those are positions that you just cannot go back and replace with that skill level. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we are working under the direction of the Authorization Act, and we are remaining within the fundamental elements of the Authorization Act. We are still looking at 

whether or not the existing contracts under the Constellation Program for both what will become an MPCV and what will become 

a Space Launch System whether existing contracts for the rocket 

itself and the crew carrier can be transitioned over to these new 

programs. 

I may have misled some earlier. I think I led you to believe that 

we were closer to this determination than we actually are. We are 

relatively comfortable that the Orion contract could be transitioned 

over because Orion version whatever it is was built, was designed 

as a deep space exploration vehicle. 

The Constellation Ares Launch System is not as clear cut and so 

we are still evaluating from two perspectives. One, the legal standpoint and, two, the procurement regulation standpoint. So it is left 

to be determined whether we can make that transition. 

If it is determined that those transitions are possible, then my 

second hurdle is to determine whether it is affordable, and that is 

where I am presently working with industry to help them understand and help me determine how, if we are going to convert those 

contracts, can we do it within the limits of the existing budget, 

within the limits of the 2010 Authorization Act and the President’s 

proposed budget for 2012. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Administrator, when do you see that determination? 

General BOLDEN. I should be able to bring a report to the Congress this summer. We provided the 90-day report which was an 

interim report. In that report, we said we would be back to the 

Congress by the summer with a determination as to whether or not 

those contracts can be converted if it is affordable and, if not, how 

are we going to go through a competitive process to determine 

where we go. We are just not there yet. 

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER AND PLUMB BROOK STATION

Mr. AUSTRIA. Administrator, let me ask you also as far as what 

do you see is the future for NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Ohio 

and also the Plumb Brook Station. You know, they play a very imVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

portant role and where do you see the future as far as your plan 

moving forward with those type of facilities? 

General BOLDEN. I think Ray Lugo, the Director of the Glenn Research Center, has probably met with you on a number of times 

and Ray and I both agree. Glenn is postured very well under the 

funding levels of 2012 budget. 

One of the things that adds confusion to the mix is we recently 

announced, two days ago, we announced three major program offices, that for the SLS at Marshall Space Flight Center, the MPCV 

at Houston’s Johnson Space Center, and commercial crew at the 

Kennedy Space Center. 

There is a common misconception that where the program office 

lies is where the money is spent. That is not the case. Glenn does 

not have a program office for any of these programs, but Glenn actually sees a healthy input of funds that will go into their community for technology development and for other programs. It is to be 

determined now that we have a program office for these three 

major programs, they can begin to decide what is needed to support 

a program and that is where the centers will find out what their 

level of work is, what their task orders are under a particular contract for a program. We could not do that prior to actually making 

these program office assignments. So that was a critical step for us 

as we did day before yesterday. 

DUPLICATION IN CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS

Mr. AUSTRIA. And let me, General, ask you also, we talked a little bit earlier, I know the chairman brought it up as far as duplication of services with different agencies, and you said the reports 

that you have seen that there is no duplication as far as climate 

research as far as Earth science programs, weather research. 

And I want to just get a better understanding of this, if I can, 

because when you look at, you know, NASA’s involvement in 

weather and climate change, you have also got the Department of 

Defense, for example, mainly through the Air Force Weather Agency spends a considerable amount of resources on weather forecasting, gathering significant intelligence on space, and the climate 

global environment. And then this data is provided to their joint 

warfighters, DoD, decision makers, national agencies, and allied 

nations. Similarly you have got NOAA that is spending a significant amount of resources on weather satellites, atmosphere research, and climate change research. 

I guess whose mission is this? Is it NASA’s mission or is it 

NOAA’s mission to do this type of research and how do we go back 

to the taxpayers and explain that this is efficient? You know, what 

specifically are you doing different that we need a third government agency to be involved in this type of weather data collection 

or research? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, NASA and NOAA have had a 

40-year partnership where we handle the program management responsibilities for their satellites. We produce them. We fly them to 

orbit. We check them out and then we give them to NOAA because 

NOAA establishes the technical requirements, and it comes out of 

NOAA’s budget, not NASA’s budget. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Earth science is NASA’s responsibility. The things that I talked 

about earlier with Mr. Bonner about climate, drought and flood 

models, crop planting and those kinds of things, that is Earth 

science that falls under NASA’s purview in cooperation with other 

agencies of the government. 

So that is why I continue to say there is no duplication in what 

we do. I do a lot of program management for satellites, but I do 

not pay for those satellites. They do not come out of the NASA 

budget. We will produce Landsat satellites for the U.S. Geological 

Survey. That will not come out of NASA’s budget. That will be reimbursable work. 

When you talk about DoD, NOAA, and NASA were involved in 

a partnership on something called NPOESS that was supposed to 

be a global weather satellite for DoD and the civilian entities. That 

has now been broken into two. But NASA had no money in 

NPOESS. NASA was the provider of instruments and the satellite 

for the DoD and NOAA, and that has now been broken off, and we 

are still partnered with NOAA to try to produce the JPSS, the 

Joint Polar Satellite System, but that is a NOAA project paid for 

and budgeted in the NOAA budget. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Sure. And, you know, from where we are sitting, 

we are trying to provide the best efficiencies for the taxpayers to 

their dollars. And when you have three agencies out doing this, I 

appreciate your explanation because it is important that we are not 

duplicating services, that you are working together, and that it 

makes sense from a taxpayer standpoint that we are being efficient 

with their dollars by having three agencies doing this type of research. 

General BOLDEN. You are exactly right, and we are even making 

an effort inside NASA. All this happens because government is so 

stovepiped, always has been. The President has told us, not asked 

us, has told us through the National Space Policy that came out 

last summer that we are going to knock down the stovepipes and 

agencies are going to begin to work together. Interagency collaboration is a really, really big part of the National Space Policy that 

the President released last summer, and so we are trying to do 

that. 

Inside NASA, we are trying to do the same thing. If you looked 

at us several years ago, the science directorate, may not even talk 

to the human spaceflight people because they jealously guarded 

what they had. Today that is not the case. 

Ed Weiler, Bill Gerstenmaier, Doug Cooke and Bobby Braun, the 

chief technologist, sit together quite a bit and they collaborate on, 

okay, we do not have the money we used to have and we are not 

going to get the money we used to have. How do we optimize the 

amount of money we are going to get so that science, human 

spaceflight, and technology development can all provide some input 

and get the best for the American public? That is where we are 

going. That is how we based our funding or our funding request in 

the 2012 budget. 

Now, if you make me do things the way we have always done 

them, then the 2012 budget does not stand a chance of working. 

The big premise in the 2012 budget was we were going to do things 

differently. We were going to rely on commercial entities to take 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

people and cargo to Low Earth Orbit, not NASA. We are going to 

rely on technology development to define the way that the heavylift launch vehicle and the crew vehicle evolve over decades actually until we finally put humans on Mars, at some point in the future. 

The vehicle that takes humans to Mars is not going to be the vehicle that takes humans to an asteroid in 2025 because we will 

learn, we will develop new technologies at every increment and we 

have to be able to do that or we are not going to get anywhere. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Administrator, thank you very much. And if you 

would like to wear a pin, I have got extra pins here, you are welcome. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Austria. 

Normally we would go back and forth, but Mr. Serrano was kind 

enough to let us go to Mr. Yoder. Mr. Yoder was the first person 

here. And two hearings ago, he never even got any time. So I appreciate that Jose ́. Mr. Yoder. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR SPENDING MONEY ON NASA

Mr. YODER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to learn 

from the questions of my colleagues, so I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few myself today. 

Administrator, thanks for your service. I have been reading your 

bio here during the questioning and you have a long, lengthy history of service. And certainly I would expect your return to work 

with NASA probably is not only from your deep-seated passion for 

service but your belief in the mission. And I assume it is a very 

exciting position for you as you can envision where we want to take 

this program and the possibilities. I just would believe that is a 

very exciting place to be. 

With that then, I wanted to ask you a couple questions about, 

maybe some macro questions here if you can help me out with a 

couple things. When we go home and visit with our constituents 

and they talk about the national debt and they talk about the overspending in Washington, and we have heard comments this morning regarding the greatest security threat to our country, can you 

help me with some points on how we justify spending money with 

NASA? There ought to be something I know you can share with us. 

And beyond that, how do we justify as we deal with competing 

efforts to capture resources in this city, not just from a perspective 

of, well, this is why our mission is important, but this is why it 

may be more important than other things we are doing in the 

budget because that is really the essence of what we need to be 

doing in Washington is not only just talking about what is good 

about certain programs but how we prioritize? 

I have been in Washington seven or eight weeks now and I am 

one of the new Members of Congress. And this is the only experience I have been in where we can sort of spend as much money 

as we want and there is really no concern over time, over decades 

and decades for the bottom line. 

And so we got to get away from this idea of this is why our program is important and move towards a this is why it is more important than other things we are doing in the budget. And do you 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

feel that if we have to fight for resources that money should come 

out of other programs into your budget and why? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, first of all, I do not think money 

should come out of any other programs into my budget. I am not 

encroaching on anyone else. I do not want to go there. But I would 

say if you want examples of things that you can tell your constituents on what their tax dollar is going for, let me give you two 

areas. 

Aeronautics is one that I do not get to talk about very often, and 

Glenn Research Center is key. The Boeing 787, which I think everybody knows about the Boeing 787, if you look at it and you look 

at the engines, the GE engines have a funny looking cell on it. The 

back end of it is what is called a Chevron nozzle. That was developed in the early 1990s at the Glenn Research Center, and they 

just were persistent. They kept letting industry know it was there. 

General Electric and Boeing decided for the 787 that they would 

pick that up and use it. It decreases pollution. It decreases noise. 

It increases the efficiency on the engine. 

We are working through the Ames Research Center and Langley 

Research Center with the FAA on NextGen, the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System. We have developed software and programming for something that is called constant descent and arrival. We have run tests in the Denver Airport, Continental and 

United Airlines, where they have demonstrated that the cost savings to them following the NextGen system is in terms of millions 

and maybe even billions of dollars. 

When I talk about these concepts that save fuel usage, for example, my Associate Administrator of Aeronautics told me that based 

on what we have seen in our tests, the amount of fuel that would 

be saved in some of our new systems, if we got one percent of that 

savings to industry reimbursed to NASA, it would take care of my 

aeronautics budget. 

So those are the kinds of things that I would, if I came to your 

area, I would tell your constituents. 

If I looked at Earth science, which is always questioned, we do 

water monitoring in the western United States. Water is a critical 

commodity. We have fought wars in that part of our country, you 

know, among ourselves over water. Water is a valuable commodity 

and we are doing water research for the western United States. 

There is an alliance of states out there and we are contributing to 

that. 

So those are the kinds of things that I would offer to constituents 

who said what I am getting back for my dollar to NASA. 

Mr. YODER. Well, and I think those are helpful for a couple good 

examples. I do want to suggest, though, that one of the things we 

have to do in this town is decide what our priorities are going to 

be and we do have to decide whether our dollar is going to go into 

your program or whether it is going to go into many of the other 

priorities of this government. So I encourage you to not only pitch 

why. 

I mean, we hear from folks every day. They come into my office. 

They come into committees. This is an important value to our country. Very few folks come and argue that it is not an important 

value. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

So how do we grade our dollar invested into NASA versus our 

dollar invested into education or to highways or to social services? 

And that is the challenge I think that we have to engage in here. 

And so that is difficult and uncomfortable because your drill is to 

pitch NASA. 

But it is helpful to us if you can pitch it, at least to me, if you 

can pitch it in a way and why and a dollar invested here is maybe 

not perceived as a short-term benefit as getting, you know, food to 

hungry people, but long term, the value is so great that we cannot 

ignore the mission. 

So we have got to be able to—because I think it is an incredible 

mission and the mission statement, you know, reach for new 

heights and the unknowns so that what we do and learn will benefit all mankind. That is a pretty all encompassing statement. That 

covers a lot of ground benefitting all humankind. And so we need 

those tools, or I do at least, to be able to pitch how we are doing 

that. 

NASA’S LONG TERM GOALS

And I guess my second question would be, again on the macro, 

what is the vision? We have talked a lot about specific things we 

are doing in the 2012 and you mentioned 2025 being able to go to 

an asteroid a second ago. What is the 50-year, 100-year vision? I 

know that is really hard to do, but I assume when you get up in 

the morning, one of the passions is seeing where this could go. 

And recently, in recent years we have seen new satellite or I 

guess new data related to planets and other solar systems. You 

know, I cannot speak for the rest of the committee. When I grew 

up, you know, we talked about the planets in our own solar system 

and tried to learn, you know, the ordering and all those things. But 

now it is so broad. 

And how expansive does this get and where do you see things 

going in 50 years? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, space is the ultimate high 

ground. If I go to where Mr. Culberson is, I am not interested in 

controlling that high ground, but I want to be there so that whoever is there with me is there as a partner or at least I can keep 

them from doing something untoward. 

If I have the capability of putting humans on another planet, if 

I have the capability of putting humans on Mars, I can look even 

deeper into our solar system and even beyond. To some people, 

they say, okay, but that does not feed little kids. It does. Everything we do in order to reach these new heights brings about some 

technology that we did not have yesterday. 

I love to give people the example of something very simple. An 

emergency medical ambulance, an EMT and an ambulance that 

goes to Anacostia to get a gunshot victim, if you will, if you want 

to be stereotypical, which I hate, but that is what you see on the 

news. That gunshot victim gets, one little patch put on his or her 

chest that has no wires to it. By the time that gunshot victim gets 

into whatever hospital they take him, the doctors have all the vital 

signs. They know what kind of condition they are in. They know 

where to put him in triage and they can save a life. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

The same thing on the battlefield. Because of things we have 

done to go to the Moon, we are able to save soldiers, marines, coast 

guardsmen and sailors because we have technologies that were developed for other reasons, but they come back to Earth. 

That is what we mean when we say we reach for the unknown. 

We do not have a clue what we are going to find when we explore. 

If we did, it is not exploring. We could decide, okay, there is no 

value there, I am not going there. We are not that smart yet. So 

we explore, and every time we explore, we discover something that 

we did not have a clue. 

When I took my flight on STS–60, I discovered a lot about me 

as a human being with other people. That is why we do it. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Mr. YODER. Yeah. I can see your passion for it and I appreciate 

it. And I think it is one of those things that inspires Americans to 

great heights and it is more than just being a consumer-driven society where we consume products on this planet. It is about finding 

our ultimate destiny. 

And so it is pretty amazing and I appreciate the fact that you 

are leading that effort. And thanks for sharing your vision in doing 

that. 

I want to ask you some micro questions now, just a few things 

that in reading some of the materials. We had the inspector general in some weeks ago and I was just reading through his report. 

And I am sure you have seen it. I just want to get some of your 

response to these things so we know how these things are being resolved. 

There was an issue, and one of the things we are trying to figure 

out in Washington in saving money is, is there unneeded property 

or unneeded land, buildings, things that we could sell, I think the 

President even spoke about this in the last few days, that we could 

sell to try to save the country money. 

And I noted here that it says NASA is the ninth largest Federal 

Government property holder, controlling a network of 5,400 buildings and structures, that the 2008 management plan shows that 10 

to 50 percent, that is a pretty big range, 10 to 50 percent and 30 

to 60 percent, 10 to 50 percent of warehouses and 30 to 60 percent 

of laboratories are underutilized. And it says that there is agencywide deferred maintenance. 

And I guess I would ask you just to comment on that. And are 

there things we can do to consolidate? 

I was in the state legislative process and appropriations process 

there and we found if we do a little auditing, we could take agencies that had multiple buildings and convince them that they could 

operate things under less buildings, save money, even though it 

was uncomfortable for the agency to do that. 

Are there some uncomfortable things that we are avoiding here? 

How do you resolve this? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, because of our system of government, there 

are always uncomfortable things that we avoid. However, we have 

a facilities master plan that is being developed where we are looking across the agency at all of our infrastructure and trying to determine what is excess, what is underutilized. We are trying to 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

look for partnerships within industry. We are looking for partnerships with other agencies so that we get the best of the facilities 

available and optimize their use. 

We have the first iteration of that facilities master plan that has 

been completed, but it is work ongoing. And it will go on forever 

probably. We will never be ideally sized, but we keep working on 

it. 

Mr. YODER. Well, do you think there are some buildings that can 

be sold in order to try to save money in order to fund some of these 

larger destiny functions we are trying to focus on so we are not 

wasting money? 

General BOLDEN. I am hoping that when the facilities master 

plan is completed, the first iteration of it, that I will know whether 

there are some facilities that can be closed. 

We have already taken one step, one small step. We had an ARC 

Jet Facility at the Ames Research Center and an ARC Jet Facility 

at the Johnson Space Center. An ARC Jet Facility for somebody 

who may not know generates a lot of heat. So, if we want to evaluate the effect of a hole on a tile on the Space Shuttle, we put in 

an ARC Jet Facility and simulate what it is going to be like during 

reentry, and we have had to use that in the last few years. 

We felt we did not need two ARC Jet Facilities. So we went in 

and did a study and we determined that, yes, that is true. So, I 

have directed that we close down the ARC Jet Facility at the Johnson Space Center, transfer those capabilities or those assets to the 

Ames Research Center out in Mountain View, California so NASA 

will have one ARC Jet Facility. That is an example. 

Mr. YODER. I appreciate that example. And for me, it shows me 

that you are interested in trying to find savings within the agency. 

And so I would encourage you to do things like that as I consider 

how I would vote on measures and where we would prioritize 

things. 

I want to spend money with agencies that are being very efficient 

with the resources we are already giving them and reward good behavior and good efficiency and not reward folks who are not. 

So as you go down that road, I think if you can find ways to show 

Congress that you are finding savings internally and becoming 

more efficient because I know you do not want to waste dollars either, you want folks on mission. 

COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES

And then, finally, and I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence to 

have some time this morning, the final question I had for you is 

something that I see a lot of reports we get and it is something 

that is really hard to explain back home. 

It is very frustrating, in fact, when we talk to folks at home 

about government spending. They assume that there is a lot of bureaucratic waste, that there is a lot of abuse, that there is a lot of 

opportunity for overruns and expenses. 

And one of the things I noted in the inspector general’s report, 

it says that NASA has historically struggled with establishing realistic cost and schedule estimates for its science and space exploration projects. And it shows an example of the Webb telescope. 

And it says that its estimated cost of $1.6 billion scheduled for 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

launch in August of this year. The plan launch date is now June 

2014. The estimated cost has exceeded now $5 billion. 

And the independent review of the program released in November 2010 cited problems with budgeting and program management 

rather than technical performance. And that sounds like a management failure from our own people in terms of how we are managing 

these programs. 

And so I would ask you just first are you concerned about that 

reputation? 

General BOLDEN. Sometimes I think there is a conspiracy to 

make me continually say how angry I was when I found out about 

James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). And I will repeat that: nobody was as angry as I was. However, that is, I cannot do anything 

about where we were when I found it. 

Mr. YODER. Absolutely. 

General BOLDEN. However you are absolutely right, and when we 

discovered the condition that JWST was in from a budget standpoint and a management standpoint we made some changes in the 

management structure. Not only did NASA make changes in the 

management but we got together with our prime contractor and 

they made changes in their management. Because it was agreed 

there were problems on both sides. 

We are doing a bottoms up review right now. James Webb was 

baselined just before NASA turned to something that we now call 

Joint Confidence Level (JCL) process, where we take a look, we 

have independent assessments on our cost and schedule. GRAIL 

and Juno are two satellites that we talked about a little bit earlier. 

GRAIL and Juno are coming in on cost and on schedule because 

they were subjected to the JCL process, where we had independent 

assessments as to what our real cost is going to be. 

We have a habit in NASA of falling in love with our plan and 

our estimate. We are finding that the worst person to ask that is 

the principal investigator or the program manager, and so we now 

go outside and we get independent assessments. I am confident 

that we are going to find that our track record on cost and schedule 

containment is going to rapidly improve as we see more and more 

projects fall under the JCL. 

Mr. YODER. Well I appreciate your focus on that. And certainly 

as we continue dialogue over the years and your service continues 

I hope that when we have a chance to do this again you will see 

good progress in this area. And it is just so frustrating to read 

things like this and try to explain those back home. And when an 

article comes out, you know, it appears that Congress is not doing 

its job on oversight. And so it is one of those things that I think 

really challenges the trust that this country has in that its tax dollars are being spent wisely. It makes—— 

General BOLDEN. If I can ask your indulgence for one, thirty seconds, what I do need for people to understand is the critical importance of the James Webb Space Telescope. I do not want to leave 

anyone with the impression that it is a bad project. It is, as all the 

independent assessments have said, technically it is very sound. 

We are taking actions now to contain cost and schedule so that we 

can launch James Webb. The promise that it has for the world, not 

just the nation, is absolutely incredible. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

If you look at what Hubble has done in terms of publications, 

changing textbooks, everything, the curve went like this. We 

project that JWST will just jerk it to the inside. It is going to be 

ten hundred times better than Hubble. 

Mr. YODER. Well and I, that is all good, and I appreciate that, 

and I am glad that project is moving forward. But the concern related to the actual management of our own people and our effect 

on causing things to be mismanaged and therefore costs raised, it 

is tough to explain outside of this building. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I understand. 

Mr. YODER. So keep doing, keep working hard on that. And your 

efforts to improve quality and management of the dollars we are 

giving is so critical to reinforcing support for your agency. And I 

appreciate your comments. And Chairman, I appreciate the time 

this morning. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

late, but like so many members I was at another hearing. Where 

I will just say that the EPA Administrator was not being treated 

with the same kind of respect—— 

General BOLDEN. She is a regulator. 

SHUTTLE TRANSITION

Mr. SERRANO. Exactly. Besides NASA, like NOAA, have a reputation of being agencies that people like and are excited about. 

And notwithstanding budget cuts and the needs for balancing 

budgets, we know the importance. 

Let me ask you a question. With the cancellation of the space 

shuttle program there will be folks unemployed, there will be folks 

moved to other areas, will those folks be absorbed? And Mr. Chairman, a reminder of something you and I, you know well because 

I have asked this question over the years. But one of our country’s 

best kept great secrets is the fact that every time one of our space 

flights go up, you know, there are a lot of folks on the ground who 

are recruited from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. And 

I single out Mayaguez because that is where I was born. You know, 

I have got to do a little shout out. So it is a two-pronged question. 

What happens to the folks that are there now? And secondly, what 

happens to that great recruiting program that you have had there 

for so many years which has really made an impact on how those 

folks view the federal government, NASA, their role within the 

United States. When you live within a territory, and I do not want 

to get into that issue, sometimes I think you ask, you know, where 

am I? Well the folks you recruited out of Mayaguez have always 

known where they are, and their families know where they are and 

what role they play in the greater good of our country. So what 

happens to folks in general? What happens going forward to the recruitment program? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the best news story on the shuttle is it was not cancelled. It was a close-out that was an orderly 

close-out that began in 2004 after the Columbia accident, the President decided that we should phase the shuttle out and move on to 

a next generation to access to space. So, we have had a very rigid 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

transition program in place for people to move from the space shuttle program into newer programs, or other programs. 

When you talk about young people from Puerto Rico I have had 

the privilege of meeting many of them. A lot of them come to the 

Goddard Space Flight Center. So, they are still as excited as they 

ever have been because a lot of them are in the Earth science 

arena. A lot are in our science and technology arena. Some of them 

are working for Dr. Bobby Braun. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

General BOLDEN. So they, they would push me to go faster than 

I am going in the development of commercial crew for access. They 

would push me to go faster than we are going in exploration, 

human exploration, but they are patient because they recognize 

that we are limited by budget. But they are incredible. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

General BOLDEN. Every time I meet them I have always asked 

them, why do I have so many young people from Puerto Rico here 

in this place? They said, ‘‘because we want to explore.’’ 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM)

Mr. SERRANO. It is interesting how sometimes recruitment, it reminds me of something Mr. Fattah and I have discussed on a totally different subject but one of my favorite subjects, baseball. 

There was a camp in Puerto Rico once, and some kid got up, this 

is the truth, thirty years ago. And said, ‘‘What is the quickest way 

to the major leagues?’’ And the coach says, ‘‘Do not ask that silly 

question.’’ And the American, the scout from the States said, 

‘‘Catching. Nobody wants to catch.’’ And then you have got Posada, 

and Pudge Rodriguez, and Benito Santiago, and it was on, and on, 

and on. And everybody became a catcher. 

In the States and in the territories NASA does a wonderful job 

in STEM education. And it is so important. I have seen it in the 

schools in the South Bronx, I have seen it in other areas, it is just 

wonderful. Not only the educational programs but the visits also 

from NASA are always so important to our community. With budget cuts in that area already seen, what is the future of those programs? What is the future of that involvement? Because it is really 

key. And I have been listening to Presidents, and Governors, and 

Speakers for 37 years of public life making statements at the beginning of the year. I have never heard a speech where one piece 

stuck to me so much as when the President said this year we need 

to continue to be innovative. We need to continue to invent. Americans do that well. And we know that NASA has played a major role 

in that. Where do you see that going? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I see us continuing to be as energetic about education as we always have been. And you know, 

the President makes an incredible point that the nation that outeducates wins. If you do not do that then you become second, third, 

fourth. I listened to something this morning, I think we are fifteenth in reading, seventeenth in science, and twenty-fifth in math. 

You know, not many of us would stand for our local baseball team 

being at that category, and yet we are willing to let our kids fall 

to those levels. NASA will continue to do what we do. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

I cannot say enough about my employees. We are so good in education because they give of their time and their talent, and they do 

not get paid for it. We are the biggest supporter of the FIRST Robotics program in the nation. No one does as much for FIRST Robotics as does NASA. We have, I will get the number wrong, but 

it is probably three hundred and some odd teams around the country. This is international competition. I mentioned the Marshall 

Space Flight Center sponsoring the World International Dune 

Buggy Competition. These are things that employees do out of their 

own pockets. 

So we have budgeted to a level that we believe will help sustain 

the President’s Educate to Innovate program, will help in the Race 

to the Top, will help in the First Lady’s program of education. Everything that we know we need to do for education NASA is going, 

we are going to be able to support with the budget that we have 

put forth. 

NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS

Mr. SERRANO. Let me for my last question bring you back to the 

Island of Enchantment, and that is with the Arecibo Observatory. 

As you know, in some cases it has almost been scheduled to close. 

And then you have folks who write about this issue who say it is 

a vital service, we need to continue to make sure that we study the 

possibilities of foreign bodies hitting Earth, and what that would 

mean at that moment or for the future of our planet. And so there 

seems to be a contradiction, whether with those folks who would 

want to close it down and those folks who claim that it is not just 

something you close down, it is something you grow because it is 

that important. 

Obviously to the folks there, not only the actual observatory, but 

the symbolism of it being there, has always been important. What 

is the state of the Arecibo Observatory, do you know? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, at the present time Arecibo is incredibly valuable in helping with our assessment of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) and threats to the planet. The future, I cannot tell 

you what it will be because people who are really serious about the 

threat from NEOs would tell me that our money might be better 

spent if we put something in orbit around the planet Venus and 

let it look back across Earth because we would pick up more NEOs 

that way. WISE, which we recently finished collecting data on 

found thousands of previously unknown Near Earth Objects. So 

Arecibo is an important part in that network of instruments that 

look for near Earth objects. So, you know, we continue to use it. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Well thank you for your honest answer. 

Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

COOPERATION WITH CHINA

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. We have a whole lot of questions going. But I wanted to address the China issue that came up. 

The CR that passed the House carries language that says, ‘‘none 

of the funds made available by this division may be used by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy to develop, design, plan, promulgate, 

implement or execute a policy, program, order, or contract of any 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate in any way with 

China or any Chinese owned company unless such activities are 

specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment 

of this division.’’ 

Some people say, ‘‘Well, you know, what are you talking about?’’ 

I just want people to know what I am talking about. I think there 

is an economic issue. There is a moral issue, because man does not 

live by bread alone. And there is a national defense issue. 

I quoted Simon and Garfunkel, ‘‘a man hears what he wants to 

hear and disregards the rest.’’ When you are getting sort of warm 

feelings about China, keep in mind the People’s Liberation Army 

has a program that will, for $55,000, execute someone in a prison 

and sell you a kidney. That is a reality. We have the pictures, we 

have the facts. If you are Catholic, there are about 30 Catholic 

bishops that are in jail or under house arrest. To me that is pretty 

significant, but maybe some people have different views. There are 

hundreds of Protestant pastors in jail, as well as house church 

leaders. I went to China two years ago before the Olympics. We 

had a dinner set up. Every house church leader who was scheduled 

to come was arrested that night except for one, and he was arrested the very next day, and pummeled, and beaten. 

Hu Jintao, who President Obama gave a state dinner for, is the 

one who put together the program for cracking down in Tibet. I 

have been to Tibet. We snuck in with a trekking crew years ago. 

They have destroyed the country, they have bulldozed the country. 

So as you get your warm feelings about China, keep in mind they 

have the Nobel Peace Prize winner in jail, and his wife cannot even 

get out of her apartment to move around town. 

In addition, there are cyber attacks. The IG testified a couple of 

weeks ago, and there are a number of cyber attacks attributed to 

China. For the record, could you furnish how many cyber attacks 

by China there have been against your computer system? 

[The information follows:] 

CHINESE CYBER ATTACKS

NASA does not specifically associate incidents on the basis of country of origin. 

Of the thousands of incidents tracked in 2010, a much smaller number of incidents 

(less than 100) involved cyber attacks specifically targeting sensitive NASA assets. 

Of those, roughly 15–20 included gross indicators suggesting a foreign China association. 

The NASA Office of Inspector General does seek prosecutions for general computer crimes and has worked in concert with other Federal agencies to bring cases 

to the attention of the foreign governments when they are able to be identified. 

NASA is implementing enhanced cyber security processes and tools to better identify and mitigate specific targeted cyber attacks against the Agency. We believe 

these efforts will not only improve our security posture but will assist in collaborating across government to defend against cyber attacks. 

Next there is Darfur. The President cares. The Congress has spoken out against the genocide in Darfur. I was the first member of 

Congress to go to Darfur with Sam Brownback and China has been 

the number one supporter of the genocidal government there. The 

Antonov bomber is funded by China. The Soviet HIND helicopter 

is funded by China. The weapons that the Janjaweed carry when 

they come into villages and kill the men, rape the women, take the 

kids away, come from China. China has the largest embassy in 

Khartoum. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

I love the Chinese people. The fact is, when most of the dissidents come into the country, they come through my office. I personally believe that this government in China is going to fall. I believe that what you are seeing taking place in Tunisia, and Algeria, 

and Egypt has so frightened China that they are blocking the Jasmine Revolution on the internet. They are so spooked in China that 

they are blocking Ambassador Huntsman’s name from showing up. 

They are frightened. Because they know they are running a dictatorial government, and they know that the Chinese people want 

freedom, and love freedom, and are going to rise up. In 1986 very 

few people thought that the Berlin Wall was going to fall. Ronald 

Reagan did. He said, ‘‘Tear down that wall,’’ and he did certain 

things. I think this government is going to fall. And I think in my 

lifetime we will see freedom and democracy for the Chinese people. 

Then, when we see that and the administration comes up and says, 

‘‘Let us have this exchange program with the democratic people of 

China,’’ I will be at the top of the list. I will say, ‘‘Let us get them 

on. Let us be involved.’’ 

But we cannot forget the kidney program, Catholic bishops, 

Protestant pastors, the plundering of Tibet, what they are doing to 

the Muslims and the Uighurs. What they are doing to the Uighurs 

in China is brutal. The leading Uighur dissident, Rebiya Kadeer, 

who lives out in northern Virginia, her two kids are in prison. No 

one says anything. 

And so that is why we have this language. And I will fight to 

the death for this language. We do not want these joint programs 

because I know what they are doing and they are spying against 

us. And so when we get all warm and fuzzy about China, remember how in Nazi Germany during the 1936 Olympics they took 

down the signs. They did not let people know the Holocaust was 

taking place, and not many people wanted to speak out about it. 

Bad things are happening in China now, too. 

Even if we are talking about jobs, I saw in the Wall Street Journal, that General Electric just signed a contract with the avionics 

operation in China to develop an avionics program that will put 

Boeing out of business in a few years. So that is why, as long as 

I have breath in me, I will speak on this issue of China. I think 

it is a moral issue, I think it is an economic issue, I think it is a 

national security issue. And I love the Chinese people. I am looking 

forward to, when the revolution begins, getting on an airplane and 

flying over there and being with them. Then China would be our 

friend as Germany is currently our friend, and Japan is currently 

our friend, and Russia is becoming our friend. But until we see 

China stopping the spying and cyber attacks, and the crack downs, 

and the torture of the Chinese people, we cannot participate. We 

can’t give their government that opportunity whereby they can 

compete with us and do some of the things that hurt their own people. 

So that is why this China issue is so important here. But, let me 

get to some of the other issues on the questions. 

MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE (MPCV)

The members of the contracting community who will develop and 

build the launch system and the crew vehicle have told us that the 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

program goals are achievable within the parameters set in the authorization. Have you looked at the data they are using to reach 

this conclusion? And if so, what assumptions are they using that 

differ from your own? 

General BOLDEN. Are you talking about the Orion conversion to 

MPCV? Congressman, we are actually working with the contractors 

even as we speak to help determine whether or not we can make 

the transition from the Orion contract to the MPCV, and then how 

do we make it affordable if that can be done? So we are working 

with them. Hopefully the data is the same because that is where 

we get it through our program office from the contractor. So I 

would hope that we are all citing the same data. 

CONSTELLATION SPENDING UNDER THE CR

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The NASA IG issued a letter in January stating that the provisions of the current CR are causing NASA to 

spend hundreds of millions of dollars on aspects of the Constellation program that might otherwise have been cancelled or scaled 

back. Many people have interpreted this letter to mean that NASA 

is wasting that money. NASA has not made the final architecture 

determinations yet for the new exploration program, so is it premature to say that any particular program element is definitely unnecessary? Could you please state for the record whether you agree 

with the characterization that the current CR is causing NASA to 

waste money? Do you agree or disagree with the IG? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I disagree that we are wasting 

money and I think we sent a letter to that effect. However, I do 

agree with the IG that the soonest possible relief from the restriction of terminating the Constellation program, then the better off 

we would be because it causes difficulty in managing how you control assets. 

Mr. WOLF. Now there is language that is in the CR, that is still 

pending, because it did not—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Prohibition, it is cancelling Constellation. 

Mr. WOLF. But does the fact that there is House-passed language 

to address this not give them any flexibility at all? Would there be, 

and I am just asking, a way of doing the language in the next CR 

extension that could give you the ability to do what you think is 

appropriate, even though it is not a final CR? I will talk to the 

staff. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Congressman, whenever the language 

is changed, and I am freed up to terminate the program, we will 

do so wisely and in an orderly manner. But right now, the money 

that we spend under the Constellation contracts are money that— 

it is the way that I directed, that we spend money on things that 

are useful for future programs. Programs that we see we will need 

for heavy-lift launch vehicle, for MPCV, for technology development. If they fit that category, then we have asked that we continue to spend the funds on that. But not spend it on something 

that we know has no use, and that is what we are trying to do to 

the greatest extent possible. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT, CONTINUED

Mr. WOLF. Okay, I have a number of questions on commercial 

crew, which we will submit for the record. One you have covered 

with regard to the $350 million requested over the authorized level. 

With the requested fiscal year 2012 money, NASA expects to fund 

a third round of proposals to advance potential commercial vehicles 

to the preliminary design review stage. While this is significant, it 

is still a long way from having a functional vehicle that can serve 

as our primary transport to the Space Station. When do you expect 

the first commercial crewed flight to take place? Will this require 

NASA to extend its current contracts with the Russians to provide 

interim transportation? And in addition, what is it costing us per 

flight with the Russians? What was the negotiated price? How did 

we reach that? I think you made a very good point earlier. If they 

are the only car dealer in town, you have got to buy your car from 

them. And so do you expect the cost to continue to escalate the 

longer it goes? Do you see any sign that they are moving to change 

that? Is it a fixed contract? Can you just sort of wrap all that into 

an answer? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I am not at liberty to talk about 

the specific dollar values because there is ongoing work right now 

to finalize the agreement that would take us out to 2016 to be able 

to buy seats on Soyuz if necessary. 

My belief, going back to your first question, the commercial entities have told us that three years from the date of signing a contract to produce a human, a commercial crew vehicle, then they 

would have the ability to deliver. So, that would mean if we are 

able to go on the schedule we are on right now, we are talking 

2015-ish before we have our first crew vehicle. That is about four 

years from now, four, five years if you go to the end of it, which 

is significantly less than where we were before. I am confident we 

can do that, provided we get the funds to keep a competitive process going. When I say I had to stay within the budget, and I want 

to keep my crews safe, and I want to live within the constraints, 

the major elements of the Authorization Act, I looked at what I 

needed to do to buy down risk on commercial crew, and that was 

invest some money over the amount that was in the Authorization 

Act. And that is where the $850 million estimate came from. That 

allows me to keep at least two contractors in the competition when 

we finally get to the end. 

Mr. WOLF. I do not want you to share your cards necessarily 

with regard to the Russians, but what is the cost of the first trip? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman the present, I think, let me take 

it for the record. Because I think, I know the present contract is 

in the neighborhood of $50-some-odd-billion a flight, a seat. But 

that includes training, facilities—— 

Mr. FATTAH. You mean $50 million a seat. 

General BOLDEN. What did I say? Did I say—— 

Mr. FATTAH. You said billion. 

General BOLDEN. Oh, no, no, no. Not billion. I am sorry. No, we 

do not, but I will take it for the record, sir. Because we need to 

let you know what it is that we are paying for. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

CONTRACT COST FOR SEATS ON SOYUZ

The most recent modification to NASA’s contract for Russian services, including 

crew transportation and rescue using the Soyuz spacecraft, was signed in March of 

2011. The modification had a value of $753M, and provides services through June 

30, 2016. The modification covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and crew rescue of long-duration missions for 12 individual space station crew members. The 

contract will provide for the launch of six people in calendar year 2014 and six more 

in 2015, as well as their return to Earth in the spring of 2016 after a six-month 

stay aboard the station. This results in an average cost of about $62.7M per seat, 

which also includes other associated services and some minimal cargo on Soyuz. 

Mr. WOLF. Do we have to pay luggage, like in the commercial 

airlines, less for carry on? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. But we do, but it does, there are costs 

that we have that we pay when we pay the Russians that we would 

not pay a commercial entity because we would be paying them for 

seats and some other services. The contract that we have with the 

Russians is for an extensive amount of support—— 

Mr. WOLF. But what about the second and third? How does that 

quite work out for the next time? 

General BOLDEN. We are still living under the agreed upon 

amount through—I need to get back to you, sir. I do not want to 

give you a date. It is like 2014 or so we are under—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. We are under an amount that is 

defined already. The contract that we are working on with the 

State Department, and if we get approval, will go through 2016. 

But I will get you—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, if you could have—— 

General BOLDEN. I will get you that information. 

[The information follows:] 

SEATS ON SOYUZ

The most recent modification to NASA’s contract for Russian services, including 

crew transportation and rescue using the Soyuz spacecraft, goes through June 2016. 

Mr. WOLF. If you could have your staff—— 

General BOLDEN. But we are not, I can tell you that unless something changes we will not be able to give you the negotiated 

amount right now because the contract has not been finalized. I am 

told that it is just not available. 

Mr. WOLF. Is this a positive thing for the Russians, too, though? 

Sometimes somebody in a business deal can become so greedy that 

they are holding out, and all of a sudden the other person walks 

away. Do they not also need this revenue to continue to do certain 

things that they are doing, too? Is there an equal benefit in some 

respects? 

General BOLDEN. The Russians are a valuable partner, and they 

have been a valuable partner throughout the life of the International Space Station. They have provided access to Low-Earth 

Orbit in the International Space Station when we had none, after 

the Columbia accident. So there is great value in remaining in this 

partnership, all of the partners, all five of the major partners. 

When you talk about the European Space Agency, fifteen growing 

to twenty-some-odd, everyone benefits from this partnership. EvVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

erybody wants to remain a member of the International Space Station partnership. So there is value in it for everyone. 

Mr. WOLF. Much of the flexibility in the development schedule 

for commercial cargo has been eroded over the past two years, and 

there is a strong likelihood that more problems and delays will 

arise as work continues. Given this likelihood, how confident are 

you that the remaining milestones will in fact be completed on 

time? And what are your contingency plans for a delay in the commercial resupply capability? How is this risk reflected in your 

budget? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the budget is good as it stands 

right now. We sized that budget so that we would be able to have 

available cargo delivery under the CRS system by early 2012. That 

does represent some delays along the way, but we are confident 

that we will have cargo availability from two carriers by early 

2012. 

Orbital still has to fly their first flight. But Orbital, I must remind everyone, is a very reputable, very experienced company. Has 

been around since the 1980s, 1990s, has flown 155 successful missions with satellites of all kinds. They have flown 100 percent successful missions for NASA, in the Minotaur vehicle which we hand 

to them for processing after we get it surplus from the Department 

of Defense. 

SpaceX has had one incredible flight when they launched Falcon 

9 and Dragon back in December. So everybody right now is marching along at a pace that makes me comfortable that we will have 

commercial capability to deliver cargo reliably to the International 

Space Station in the early 2012 timeframe. 

SPACE STATION SUPPORT

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Leading to the Space Station in the next question, the decision to continue supporting the Space Station through 

2020 costs about $3 billion a year. This is money which could otherwise be used to meet exploration goals, increase aeronautics research, or do other important activities. If we are going to sacrifice 

those opportunities in order to support the Station, we need to be 

sure that we are getting our money’s worth, and that means making sure that the Station is being fully used for its intended research purposes. What is the current research utilization rate of 

NASA’s share of the Space Station? And how do you expect that 

rate to change as we progress through fiscal year 2012? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I would have to go back to my 

opening statement and remind everybody of one thing. I think I 

used the term yesterday. The Station is the new Moon. The International Space Station is the anchor for all future exploration on 

the part of not just the United States but our international partners. So, if we lost the International Space Station we are dead in 

the water. We do not have a place in microgravity that is available 

for us to do the types of research and development that we need 

for new capabilities that enable an exploration program. So that is 

how valuable the International Space Station is. 

That was what caused me to change my mind about the size of 

distribution of funds. I have to have an exploration program. But 

if I do not have an International Space Station that is crewed and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

supplied, and by the commercial entities. Because that is the decision that was made, it was actually made in 2004. And I would 

have to say, I generally do not complain about the past because 

that is water under the bridge. The decision was made in 2004 to 

rely on commercial entities for access to Low-Earth Orbit and it 

was ignored. There was no money put toward it. My predecessor 

was, to my knowledge, was the first to really start putting money 

toward a commercial entity, but it was half-stepping. 

President Obama has said, ‘‘Look, we cannot get there unless we 

carry out what previous administrations decided was necessary.’’ 

So we are going to get there, and the commercial entities are going 

to be a vital part of that partnership that gets us there. But, if I 

lose the International Space Station that will set up exploration, 

any type of exploration, human exploration for decades. 

CREW TIME FOR RESEARCH

Mr. WOLF. Following up on that, astronauts on the Station have 

a variety of demands on their time, including daily operation and 

maintenance work and crew health sustaining activities. While 

these are clearly necessary, they reduce the amount of time available for actually conducting research. When we talk about reaching 

a goal of 100 percent research utilization, what does that actually 

mean in terms of the number of hours spent per day on research? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me take it for the record to 

give you the hours per day. But the balance of crew time, at least 

the last time I was talking to somebody about it, was two of the 

crew members are generally considered to be the ‘‘maids’’, if I can 

use that term. They will not like that, but they will rotate duty in 

maintaining the Station. The other four will be totally involved in 

research, and that is the way we will operate the Station. 

CREW TIME FOR RESEARCH

Background on how NASA tracks crew time for research 

Because the planning and execution of space missions is complex, crew activities 

are tracked in great detail, including their personal time and break time. A normal 

crew day includes 6.5 hours of scheduled work tasks, 1 hour for lunch, 2.5 hours 

for exercise and hygiene, 50 minutes for daily planning conferences, and 70 minutes 

for work and plan familiarization and procedure review, 2 hours of pre-sleep (including 1 hour for dinner), 8.5 hours of sleep, and 1.5 hours for post-sleep (including 

50 minutes for breakfast). When NASA reports ‘‘crew time for research,’’ this only 

counts those scheduled work tasks from the 6.5 hour block that is for research activities. Important research data collected during the exercise period, and much of 

the 70 minutes of work familiarization and 50 minutes of daily planning conferences, is also part of conducting research each day. 

Scheduled work tasks include research and facility work; assembly work; maintaining life support systems; vehicle traffic operations, such as docking, undocking, 

loading and off-loading; internal and external maintenance; medical operations; onboard training; and other routine activities such as news media interviews, equipment audits, computer maintenance, inventory management, tag-ups and communications system testing. Crews generally work five days a week, but on weekends 

they have many housekeeping duties, so they effectively receive only 3.25 hours of 

unscheduled time on Saturdays, and 7 hours of free time on Sundays. 

Crew time reporting is also split among the three NASA and international partner astronauts (called U.S. Operating Segment, or USOS, crew members), and the 

three Russian cosmonauts. NASA integrates and plans the time for the USOS crewmembers, though the entire crew works as a team in maintaining and operating the 

ISS. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

Amount of crew time for research 

The strategic target for research crew time during ‘‘full utilization’’ is an average 

of 35 hours per week for the three-person USOS crew, with a similar target for the 

Russian segment cosmonauts. As ISS shifts from assembly to the research mission 

through 2011, the Program is approaching this target and expects to reach it in 

2012. This is equivalent to 7 hours per day of a 5-day workweek for formally scheduled hands-on USOS research activities; the Russian segment has a similar target. 

Research activity in future years should continue to increase as ISS operations grow 

more efficient through activities funded within the ISS functionality budget, part of 

the FY 2012 President’s request. 

It also should be recognized that crew time is just one component of research, 

since much of the research is being accomplished by facilities working automatically 

being tele-operated from control centers around the globe. Experiments on the Station are designed specifically to minimize the amount of crew interaction required. 

For example, one recent physical sciences experiment used 9.5 hours of crew time 

for installation, but supported more than 6,000 hours of experiment operations. 

What will change in the near term, as soon as we are able to announce a non-governmental organization (NGO) that will assume 

responsibility for the evaluation and selection of research and experimentation to be flown on the Station, some time no later than 

this summer will be that NASA will get out of the business of evaluating and selecting the experiments that go on board. That will 

be handled by a nongovernmental organization. And at some point 

down the road—— 

Mr. WOLF. Who will that be? 

General BOLDEN. We do not know yet. It is a competition right 

now that is underway. And so someone will take that over. Ideally 

where we would like to get will be to the point where even NASA 

experimentation and research is folded into the evaluation—— 

Mr. WOLF. What is an example of that? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, what would be an example? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. For example, the salmonella vaccine that is 

under development right now is about to enter human test. That 

would have been, if we had a non-governmental organization, that 

research would have been selected by this non-governmental organization. 

Mr. WOLF. But when you say non-government, just give me an 

idea of—— 

General BOLDEN. Oh, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Space Telescope Science Institute is an NGO. It is, if you go up to the campus of Johns Hopkins there is the Space Telescope Science Institute, and they handle the scheduling, they handle everything for 

the Hubble Space Telescope. We have NASA astronomers who vie 

for time, but we do not physically run the operation of Hubble. 

That is a, I would classify that as an example of—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Sort of a non—— 

Mr. WOLF. Who is going to make that decision? 

General BOLDEN. Bill Gerstenmaier, who is the Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Operations, is the selecting official. 

Mr. WOLF. And when is that expected? 

General BOLDEN. I talked to him as late as yesterday and he told 

me probably early summer. 

Mr. WOLF. And who is competing for that? 

General BOLDEN. Who is competing? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

General BOLDEN. Sir, let me take that for the record. I do 

not—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Open solicitation, Mr. Chairman, right now. 

Mr. WOLF. It is? 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Online—— 

Mr. WOLF. How many have applied? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me get back to you. I do not 

have that information. 

[The information follows:] 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NOTICE (CAN)

NASA posted the Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for the ISS National Laboratory non-governmental entity on February 14, 2011. Due to the competitive nature of the selection process, NASA is not able to provide the names of respondents, 

but by March 4, when notifications of intent were due, the Agency had received 

eight responses. 

Mr. WOLF. If we could just know, if it is public record, who 

has—— 

General BOLDEN. Oh, it is a matter of public record now. Who 

the, I will get back to you because I do not know whether the bidders, you know, the competitors are known publicly. It is like any 

competition that we do. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

General BOLDEN. It is like any competition. But we will get that 

to you. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

The authorization act requires NASA to provide initial financial 

assistance to the nonprofit lab manager. Does your budget request 

include funds for that? 

General BOLDEN. The budget request for 2012 includes the funds 

to start the nonprofit—— 

Mr. WOLF. And how much is that? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me get back to you. I will 

take that for the record. I do not know exactly what that is. 

Mr. WOLF. And do all the entities competing know what that is? 

How do you make a bid if you do not know what the budget will 

be? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the way that contracts are generally handled is that we look at a reasonableness factor so that 

we let the bidders know what we think the range is for pricing. We 

give them that range. And I, you know, my guess is we have done 

the same thing here. So anybody that bids outside that range probably—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, the solicitation indicates about $15 

million a year would be available for an entity to manage this laboratory on—— 

Mr. WOLF. Now where did that $15 million come from? Or was 

that in just sort of a—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I will get back to you. I will get 

back to you on the specifics of that. That was developed in the Office of Space Operations Mission Directorate. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

NATIONAL LABORATORY

NASA is currently conducting a competitive acquisition for a cooperative agreement with a non-profit organization to manage the ISS national laboratory component of U.S ISS utilization. In accordance with statutory requirements under the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267), 50 percent of the U.S. share of ISS 

utilization capacity will be made available for use by organizations other than 

NASA under the National Laboratory initiative. The President’s FY 2011 and FY 

2012 budgets for ISS include $15M per year for this ISS National Lab non-profit 

organization. The $15M per year level was determined during development of a reference model for the organization. NASA believes this is an appropriate level to 

both operate a small non-profit organization and set aside approximately $3M of the 

$15M for strengthening of the basic research grants. It’s important to note that this 

was a reference model for cost-estimating and scope determination purposes. While 

the $15M per year remains the current funding allocation for the cooperative agreement, the proposals and final award will determine what portion remains available 

to strengthen the grants component. After the final award, NASA will assist to identify areas to reduce overhead costs as appropriate. In addition, NASA will encourage 

the non-profit organization to become a self-funded organization as it matures in future years. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well we have a number of other questions. Mr. 

Yoder asked about James Webb, and we have a number there, too. 

We will have a number of questions on the launch vehicle also. 

AERONAUTICS

On aeronautics, I looked at your chart here. Aeronautics is really 

almost an orphan. Has anyone ever thought you ought to change 

your name? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the reason that I have opted to 

put as much into aeronautics as we have, and it is not nearly 

enough, is because I want to return the big ‘‘A’’ to NASA. NASA 

is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I agree with you. Believe me, you have my total 

and complete support. The aeronautics program is not as highly 

visible as many of NASA’s other missions, but it has an outsized 

impact on the American economy and on the everyday air travel 

experiences of regular Americans. Have you done any economic impact studies to measure the return on investment provided by the 

aeronautics program to the American aviation industry? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I have, and one of the ones I attempted to cite for you, was our new airplane engine concept that 

we have been working with American industry. That is where we 

have found, and industry agrees, that there is potential to reduce 

about 40 percent of the fuel consumption in the engines that we 

are, engine technology that we are helping them develop. That is 

where I got my number. 

We looked at 19.6 billion gallons of jet fuel were used in 2008. If you take that at $3 a gallon that is $58.8 billion just for jet fuel 

in 2008. If I got back, so if they realize a 40 percent savings on 

that and you gave me 1 percent of it I could run my aeronautics 

budget right now at $588 million. 

Mr. WOLF. Well they are talking about $4 a gallon by the end 

of the—— 

General BOLDEN. Then that makes it even better, sir. But that 

is an example of the economic return on NASA’s minimal investment of taxpayer dollars. 

Mr. WOLF. Could we get more of that? Because I am a strong 

supporter of doing what we can. It would pain me to see GE sign 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

the contract with the Chinese to develop their avionics system, and 

to take jobs away from Boeing. In essence, they are selling the rope 

that they are going to use to hang Boeing. And yet, the President 

picked Immelt, head of GE, to be his big jobs man. This was a jobs 

program for China. So I want aeronautics to be here. I want it to 

be more American. 

Which leads to the next question. Where are the jobs? That is the 

mantra of everyone in both parties. Where are the jobs? Jobs give 

men and women dignity and money for their families, but also keep 

America number one economically. We seek no domination of 

power, we seek freedom and liberty. Ronald Reagan said the words 

in the Constitution were a covenant with the entire world. I want 

American to be number one for those reasons. Not for money, but 

for freedom and liberty and democracy. 

So when NASA develops new aeronautics technology, and matures it into the point that it can be transferred to the industry, 

how do you ensure that the benefits of that technology go first to 

American aviation companies? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, the best way we can do it is to 

continue our cooperation with U.S. industry the way that we do. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you ever thought about bringing all of the aviation industry people together for a conference to say, ‘‘Okay, where 

are you going? And where would you like to be? How can we participate to develop a partnership?’’ I know there are some in this 

Congress that say there can be no partnership between government 

and the private sector but other countries are doing it. Have you 

ever thought of bringing everyone together, or maybe you do, and 

saying, ‘‘Where are we today? What would you like to be doing? 

What should we be doing? Maybe we are going to plus this up. 

Maybe we are going to do more.’’ 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, that is the way we determine 

what our aviation portfolio is. Dr. Jaiwon Shin, who is my Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, goes to the industry and asks 

them what is it that NASA should do for you? That is how we 

know that they want us to work on engine technology. They do not, 

for example they do not want us to work on development of alternative fuels. They want us to work on the development of engines 

that can use anything. Water, junk—— 

Mr. WOLF. In the interest of time, I am going to go to Mr. 

Fattah. Could you have Dr. Shin come by? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. I do not know that we can do this. But I would like 

to almost write every avionics and aviation company and say, 

‘‘What is NASA doing that you like? And what is NASA not doing 

that you would like to see them do?’’ Because they technically are 

your customers, but they are also the people that pay taxes. And 

so you ought to be doing what puts America first. I want to know 

that there is a connectivity, and not because there was a congressman one day that pushed this or pushed that. So if he could come 

by and he could talk to me—— 

General BOLDEN. I will have him do that, sir. He can give you 

background on something, for example, like the continuous descent 

and arrival program that we developed that represents a cost savVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

ings of about $1.2 billion to the airline industry. We had Continental and United participate in tests at Denver—— 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think if I asked the people in the aviation industry they would say enough money is being spent to do what 

you—— 

General BOLDEN. Oh, they would tell you no way. I hope they 

would. If they tell you that enough money is being spent on aeronautics research then I would be very disappointed in the industry. 

I would hope that they would be my biggest proponent and my biggest cheerleader, saying that we need to spend more—— 

Mr. WOLF. You know, you might tell your friend at the White 

House, Dr. Holdren, that he ought to tell me what he was doing 

in China for twenty-one days. What do you do in China for twentyone days? Who is he meeting with? We do not want the Chinese 

aeronautics industry to surpass Boeing or EADS. So maybe we can 

informally ask a couple of trade associations, ‘‘what would you like 

to see NASA doing that it is not doing?’’ Therefore we are not just 

taking your person’s word. 

I saw the other day, did you see the story, that a Chinese company was going to bid to do Air Force One, the helicopter? 

General BOLDEN. The helicopter? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. Marine One? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah, Marine One. 

Did you see that, Mr. Fattah? 

Mr. FATTAH. No, I missed that, Mr. Chairman. I would be beside 

myself if we were going to have a situation where Air Force One, 

or Marine One, would be developed by anything other than an 

American company. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I tell you what we should do, then. Maybe the 

Committee ought to carry language prohibiting that. And I will tell 

you—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I would be in support of that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. I am on a resolution with another member from your 

side, which I will talk to you about later, to kind of prohibit that. 

The thought of Marine One being made by a Chinese company just 

would not be good. So I appreciate Mr. Fattah. We are both from 

Philadelphia, we were both raised in Philadelphia. What high 

school did you go—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Overbrook, the best in the world. 

Mr. WOLF. I went to Bartram. In fact, that was the big competition, Bartram and Overbrook. 

CONTRACTING PRACTICES

We have some other questions. Let me cover the contract issue. 

And I am going to go to you after this, Mr. Fattah. A review by 

GAO last year found that more than half of NASA’s biggest development projects had exceeded their baseline estimates. The average cost growth was 19 percent and the average schedule delay 

was fifteen months. You instituted a new cost-estimating policy in 

2009 that was intended to address NASA’s problem with inaccurate 

baselines. But due to the recentness of the policy change we have 

not seen evidence that it is working. Do you feel confident that this 

policy will noticeably increase the accuracy of your baselines? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

When will you have sufficient data to actually demonstrate that 

improvement? And one other question, so you can round it in— 

under the policy, projects need to be budgeted at a level that ensures a 70 percent chance they will be completed within budget 

and schedule parameters, but there is a provision allowing exemptions from this rule. In what circumstances would you make an exception to allow a project to move forward with less than 70 percent confidence in its budget and schedule? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we work under what is called a 

JCL, joint confidence level, that was instituted in 2009. I gave the 

example of Juno and GRAIL being two of the earliest projects that 

were run under that concept, and I am told, are coming in on cost 

and schedule. I am cautioned, however, by my experts that we need 

five, six, seven years to tell whether we really got what we said we 

were going to get. Because operating costs is a part of a contract 

and everything. 

So, but if you look at where we are in development and progress 

to launch for those two projects which came in under the JCL, it 

is working. 

Mr. WOLF. Well your contracting practices have been on GAO’s 

government-wide high risk list for more than twenty years. And 

so—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, you are absolutely correct. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I guess the question would be, as I go to Mr. 

Fattah, when do you think you will get off of it? Twenty years is 

pretty—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, may I, please do not misinterpret what I am about to say. My Deputy and my Chief Acquisition 

Officer, who is my Chief Financial Officer, look at this every single 

day because they have to talk to GAO. But we are probably never 

coming off the high risk list because we build one-of-a-kind things. 

Almost every time we build something, it is a new experience. 

What we hope to do with the JCL is prove that we can effectively 

and accurately project what cost and schedule are going to be. So, 

if that is successful, you will find us come off the—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. I hope that that would be sufficient for GAO 

to take us off the high risk list. But I am not sure how we get on 

there, to be quite honest. So, other than the fact that we do risky 

stuff. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, I have other questions on that. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah? 

Mr. FATTAH. All right, let me thank the Chairman. And when 

these questions of international human rights come up, it is a pretty lonely area because a lot of people want to focus on more important things, or more business. And I really want to make sure that 

the Chairman understands that the fact that he is unrelenting on 

this question of improving human rights in China is not lost on me, 

and is appreciated I am sure by many even if it is a lonely pursuit. 

So I want to thank you. 

And I am going to go out and visit the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

later on this month, and I am also going to go to the Dryden facility. I think it is important, I am a politician, so I really do not 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

know much about rocket science, you know? And I think that when 

we have to make these decisions it is helpful, it is helpful at least 

for me to try to get my arms around some of the challenges that 

the agency faces. But when I look at this just from a political 

standpoint and I see a little small country like Singapore, they are 

investing over $5 billion this year in their national science foundation. Now this is a country with less than five million people in it, 

in the total population. Here we are, we are a nation of 300 million 

people. We are trying to win a competition against countries, you 

know, China is, what, a couple of billion people? India with a billion people. And, you know, when we get to our science foundation 

we are going to be in the single digits, in terms of billions, in terms 

of the level of investment. 

I do not want to join in any of the pursuit around trying to round 

out the numbers, and the cost cutting here and there. I think that 

the argument we need to be making is that the country cannot afford to lose this race. That America cannot afford to concede space 

or science to others anywhere in the world even if it actually costs 

us money. That is, even if we have to pay to do it, that as American citizens we would have to pay taxes so that we do not position 

ourselves as a nation fifty years from now, and a lot of us will not 

be around, that the position, the curious situation for our children 

and our grandchildren, a situation where they are being victimized 

by these human rights abuses that the Chairman is talking about 

because we refuse to make the investments. 

Now we need to be clear about this. We have a situation within 

our schools in terms of earning doctoral degrees in the hard 

sciences, two-thirds of those who earn those degrees in our country 

will not be, they will not be American citizens and they will not be 

staying here. That is to say, they will not be applying for citizenship and hanging around. They are going to take these intellectual 

tools and they are taking them some other place. 

So I just want to say, I heard the comments from the gentleman 

from Georgia. I am not a Member here who has a NASA facility 

in their state, even though I think we have members on the panel 

from California where there are a number of NASA facilities. I 

know about the important work of the Glenn Center in Ohio, and 

in Texas, Johnson, and all this. My interest in this is, and even if 

I had a parochial interest, I think all of our interests have to be 

focused on the nation’s interest. I mean, investment in space is not 

a jobs program. This is a question of the survival of our country 

and prosperity of our country. 

So I just think that we have to get focused on what are the needed investments. We talk about estimates and, you know, when you 

looked at the estimates for the Capitol Visitors Center, what we 

priced to build something in brick and mortar that has now come 

in two or three times that amount, right? You know, we are not 

trying to put somebody on the moon. I mean, this is just a basic 

brick and mortar structure and we could not get close to what it 

would cost. And Vice President Cheney said that the Iraq War was 

going to pay for itself. 

So I think we ought to be mindful that as we go forward, and 

I think that the Chairman has talked about this in very important 

ways, that we need to be focused on, to the degree that we are foVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

cused on fiscal restraint we need to be focused on the areas of the 

budget where we are spending money. This is not an area where 

we are spending a great deal of money, even though it may sound 

like a lot of money. But in comparison, it is not. I just think that 

we have to think in longer terms about what we are doing, make 

the needed investments we need to make, and we need to get competent administration. And obviously you, and the President in his 

selection of you to lead this agency is, you know, is an extraordinary gift for the nation, given your background and your leadership policies. But we need to give you the tools so that you can 

function. 

And I am happy to hear that the Chairman says in the next CR 

we are going to try to work out the problem that we created between authorizing you to proceed past the Constellation, but at the 

same time requiring you to spend a couple of hundred million a 

month on Constellation. It puts you in a bind. And it does not help 

us make the investments that we need to make. So I want to thank 

you for your testimony. 

SPACE STATION

I have a couple of questions in particular about the Space Station. So now we have built this over the last ten years. We have 

had continuous human astronauts on the Space Station for ten 

years, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Over 200 people have been on the Space Station, 

rough number? 

General BOLDEN. I will get you the exact number. I am not—— 

[The information follows:] 

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

There have been 198 different visitors to the ISS, representing 15 countries. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. And now it is going to be a national lab? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. But it is also the kind of, you say it is the platform 

for our further efforts, and I am interested in that part of this. How 

we see the Space Station, which is about the size of a football stadium right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. About a hundred—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I tell you I am, you know, and now the Mars Rover 

was about this size, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Now Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) 

is going to be a lot bigger. 

Mr. FATTAH. The first one. 

General BOLDEN. But Spirit and Odyssey are, Spirit and Odyssey 

are little things. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right, I got you. And Spirit we have not heard from 

for a few months, but I bet NASA that it is still going to function. 

So I am in total agreement. So I am just saying in terms of perspective, we plan on using the Space Station as the base from 

which NASA would go in terms of its further efforts. If you could 

expound on that for a minute, that would be helpful. And I was figVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

uring out about the $3 billion that you want to spend. Now $3 billion sounds like a lot of money. We are spending that amount, we 

are spending that in an average week in Afghanistan. Just so we 

are clear as a nation about putting these things in some perspective. So if you could help us think about what you are trying to do 

on the Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me give you just three examples if I can. The first one would be one of the, the seventh crew 

member on Discovery, on STS–133 last week was Robonaut 2, a 

humanoid robot. And Robonaut 2 will—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Now that was done in partnership with GM? 

General BOLDEN. That was done in partnership, I was going to 

say, that was a Space Act agreement with General Motors that is 

ongoing. It is not over. And General Motors came to us and said, 

‘‘We have a need.’’ And NASA said, ‘‘We have a need.’’ And so we 

came together, collaborated with industry. I was telling Congressman Clark, who is from Detroit, yesterday, when he said, ‘‘I do not 

have a NASA center. I do not have anything that has anything to 

do with NASA.’’ I said, ‘‘Congressman, let me send you some stuff 

because you need to go back into Detroit and make people in Detroit proud that they are now on the International Space Station.’’ 

Because they are, in the presence of Robonaut 2. 

R2 is going to start working this spring to see how we can collaborate, how a robot, a humanoid robot, can collaborate with astronauts on board. At some point we are probably going to, you 

know, I do not know when, but we will probably put R2 outside 

and see how much R2 can do to alleviate putting astronauts at risk 

by having them do space walks. Eventually we would like to demonstrate the fact that we do not have to put a human on the surface of Mars to build the infrastructure. That by the time we send 

humans there the village will be built, because robots will have 

done that. 

I have got to be able to integrate science, aeronautics, human exploration, and technology into one big thing. That is what we are 

trying to do in NASA now. We are looking at an integrated picture. 

We are not doing things the way we used to. And that is the message I am not getting across to people very well. Because when you 

asked me why do I believe in my budget, and why do I think we 

can do what I say we can do, it may take us longer to do aspects 

of it. It may take me longer than 2016, for example, to have a 

heavy lift launch vehicle and an integrated crew exploration vehicle. I do not know that yet, it may, but we are going to get there. 

Because these are difficult fiscal times. And we have had to adjust 

the budget to fit within these difficult fiscal times. 

While, you know, my job, the President has asked me to lead the 

greatest civilian organization in the world, bar none. Keep astronauts safe: I am doing that. Explore: we are doing that. We do that 

every single day. We are going to launch another satellite called 

Glory on Friday and it is going to do great things. 

I get emotional about this because it is important. And it is important for me to be able to articulate how important we are to the 

nation, and how important it is for us to carry out the President’s 

plan for education. Because everybody on this committee has said 

this all day long, you know, we are so close. As I said in my openVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

ing statement, we are all in synch. Believe it or not. We may be 

different parties, or you all may be different parties because I am 

apolitical. But we all talk about the same things we want to do. 

It is just how we get there. And because these are very difficult 

times and we have to make very difficult choices I need your support when I make a hard choice. 

HUMAN-LIKE ROBOTS

Mr. FATTAH. So let me see if I can put this together. We do not 

have the technology yet to take a human being to Mars. We know 

we can take an object to Mars, right? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. We have done that a couple of times. 

General BOLDEN. We have done that. Right. Hard to do it, but 

we have done it. 

Mr. FATTAH. So when we take an R2 and put it on the Space Station in part we are thinking about a humanlike robot that at one 

point we may be able to put on Mars to build out an infrastructure 

so that when we deliver a human being there, there would be the 

protection of the infrastructure because—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I do not want a human to have to go 

build something. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. And plus the, once you get out into deep 

space there are the radiation challenges, the other challenges are 

much more significant. 

General BOLDEN. That is human physics. 

Mr. FATTAH. So you build, this is like a stepping stone—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. To where we are going. Now we do not 

have the technology yet, but four years ago we did not have the 

technology to go to the Moon, or do any of these other things, 

or—— 

General BOLDEN. Well we did at one time but we forgot about it. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yeah. Or to build a Space Station. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. It took some ingenuity, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

SUPERIORITY IN SPACE

Mr. FATTAH. That is why we know that we are an exceptional nation, because we have done exceptional things. So now the President has set a much deeper goal for you and we are trying to build 

to getting it done. I just want to conclude with a question that gets 

to the different programs. We have got earth science, we have got 

space exploration, we have got a lot of different pieces here. I want 

to focus a little bit more on the purpose of this, right? So I want 

to just conclude if you could help the Committee understand and 

the country understand what it will mean if we forfeit or concede 

this race for superiority in space to others who have untoward interests to our own as a nation? What the costs will be to our country? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we are fifteenth, seventeenth, 

and twenty-fifth in reading, science, at math. And I may have the 

numbers not precise. We will fall further behind. We, right now 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

every nation looks to us for leadership when I go to the International Space Station. Whenever I go to a meeting of my international partners, the heads of agency, everybody says, ‘‘We need 

for you to lead.’’ If we give that up they will turn to somebody else 

and it may not be somebody we like. 

So, you know, my job is to lead this agency. As I said, make sure 

we do what you and the President tell us to do through appropriations and authorizations and that is what we are doing. Stay within budget, which is something that people, you know, do not think 

we are serious about but we are really serious about it. And make 

difficult choices. And we have made some difficult choices but there 

will be much more difficult choices. When you talk about infrastructure, these kinds of things, and then everybody is going to run 

away from me. I do not want you to do that. I want you to help 

me stand up to the scrutiny and, the way you all always do. But 

I, you know, we have got difficult choices ahead. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well I want to thank you again. When we finish 

voting today, I am going out to visit a couple of our national labs. 

And I think that this whole area of the country’s work is vitally 

important. You cannot disconnect it from educating our children, or 

making sure that we have the agricultural capability to feed our 

population. Running the greatest country on Earth costs money. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. I know we have some very well-meaning people in 

the Congress and in the country who want us to cut costs. You 

know, we need to be wise about what we are doing here. Because 

we do not want to cut costs that end up creating a circumstance 

for our nation in which we have cut off our nose to spite our face. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, may I say one thing? And it is 

just because I have been, I have cut one partner out, and that has 

been industry. We have not had an opportunity to talk to them a 

lot, and I know some of them are here, some of them will hear this. 

I have the best partners in the world in American industry, and 

I have faith in them. And I need to have, I need to have other people in positions of leadership have faith in them. They once, several 

of their leaders told me, and I wrote it down, a piece of something 

is better than all of nothing. 

Industry is coming together now. And companies that in the past 

in terms of our contracts would not even think about talking to 

each other, they understand—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me just say this, because I know we have 

to wrap up. I am for us working with American industry. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. There are cross currents here, though. We have to 

be very careful. And we are going to have to be a little different 

than we have been. Because all this open source information, if we 

are taking American taxpayers’ money and we are developing technology, I do not necessarily think that that technology should then 

be made available to people who have not invested around the 

world, and then used against American industry in competing 

against us and going after an opportunity to build Marine One. I 

think we do not want to work against our own purposes as a nation 

at the end of the day. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

So we need to have American industry. We also need to have 

some proprietary control over the technology that American taxpayers are investing in, in ways that do not put our own country 

at a disadvantage at the end of the day. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson? 

LONG TERM PLANNING

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not agree 

with you more strongly, Mr. Fattah, and I will absolutely be working with you arm in arm on that. I wanted to, we are apparently 

going to have votes here in a few minutes. And Administrator, I 

really appreciate you being so patient and staying here with us. We 

are really devoted to you, and really want to find ways to help you 

in every way we can to get you the money you need to do your job 

better and also give you some longer term support. I was just talking to Chairman Wolf about perhaps us getting together to do sort 

of a joint hearing after we get through the appropriations process 

to talk about the long term. How do we make sure, we for example, 

I know and my dear good friend Mike Coats, the Director of Johnson Space Center tells me, and that you all are dear good friends. 

And you may be able to tell me more precisely, Administrator. But 

in the time that you have been an astronaut, worked with NASA, 

Mike tells me, because I think your careers are very similar, and 

the time that you have been together—— 

General BOLDEN. We have been together for forty, more than 

forty years. We came together in the summer of 1964. 

Mr. CULBERSON. 1964? 

General BOLDEN. In the Class of 1968 at the Naval Academy. 

Mr. CULBERSON. At the Naval Academy? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you were both in, both then saw service in 

Vietnam? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And then joined the space program, and the 

time that you have been with the space program, did Mike tell me 

that you all have seen the Congress create and then cancel over 

twenty different, major—— 

General BOLDEN. My deputy right now is looking at a study that 

we asked for on programs that were started and stopped and it is 

more than twenty-some-odd. But I would say if you want to look 

at one thing that we did to the end, it is important for the American people to note that their investment in the International 

Space Station came to fruition day before yesterday. Because we 

have completed construction of the American elements of the International Space Station. So if somebody says we cannot do something and finish it, we have completed construction of the U.S. element of the International Space Station. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And we are immensely proud of that achievement. I want to make sure that Mr. Fattah catches that. I was just 

getting for the record, Mr. Fattah, that the, NASA, could you be 

sure that you repeat that—— 

General BOLDEN. The space walk that we did day before yesterday—— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, before that. 

General BOLDEN. Oh, before that? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, how many programs, how many—— 

General BOLDEN. Oh, there is some twenty-plus programs. When 

we finish the study we can make it available. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The point is that NASA—— 

General BOLDEN. We are trying to find out why we did it. You 

know, how does it happen? 

Mr. CULBERSON. We did it to you. Congress did it to you. 

General BOLDEN. Well, I am not pointing fingers. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, I know you are not, I know. But these wonderful people that devote their lives to, what is it Captain Kirk 

says? To explore brave new worlds? To explore new worlds and go 

where no one has gone before. We have over the years, Mr. Fattah, 

created and then canceled over twenty—— 

General BOLDEN. Twenty-some-odd programs. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Major rocket programs, space exploration programs. Well no wonder you all have had so much difficulty over the years, and then inadequate funding. Plus they get 

their hopes up, boom, get their hopes up, boom, work on a program, 

boom. That has got to stop. And you are absolutely right about 

thinking in the longer term. And I want to work with you and the 

chairman after we get through our appropriations process. Let us 

think about having a joint hearing in great detail to talk about how 

we get NASA on a predictable, stable funding and planning path 

that does not subject these wonderful people to this up and down. 

It would really, I think, help them immensely. Would it not? 

Mr. FATTAH. Sure, that would be great. That would be a worthy 

thing for us to spend some time doing. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It really would, after we get through all the appropriations cycle. 

General BOLDEN. That would be an incredible gift to the nation. 

I tell everybody what we want to do is something that is affordable, 

sustainable, and realistic. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Bingo, we are there. 

General BOLDEN. And if we can do that— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well we will help you with that. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Administrator, what I want to do is beat everybody else. All right? I want to make sure that America is Number 

One. Even if we have to spend beyond what we might feel comfortable at a particular moment. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. I still like to be in the lead. I think the view is always better from the top, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Absolutely. And I will certainly help you with 

that. National Journal just ranked me as the tenth most conservative member of Congress. I am still trying to figure out what I did 

to screw up and only get number ten, but I am with you on this. 

I mean, I voted against the RSC budget for that reason, because 

it severely cut NASA. Law enforcement, Chairman Wolf, you and 

the staff protected NASA in the proposal that was submitted. The 

amendment, there was only one adopted that really cut, was Mr. 

Weiner’s that shifted I think cross agency money, $300 million over 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

to the COPS program. And we are going to work to help make sure 

to protect that in the CR. 

ORION PROGRAM

Let me ask you a couple of specific questions and then some 

broader ones. Will the Orion program, sir, be canceled or transferred into the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle? Just simply renamed 

into the Multi-Purpose—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, what we are looking at is trying 

to find if we can transition the contracts for Orion into the MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And so—— 

General BOLDEN. And we will know that and we will know, we 

will have an assessment as to whether it is affordable by the summer when we give—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Our next report to you guys. 

Mr. CULBERSON. With this up and down in mind I do not want 

to lose that talented workforce, those wonderful people that have 

put their heart and soul into building the next manned space capsule. You are going to keep all those folks? You are not talking 

about any layoffs, or—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I wish I could say that. I do not 

control, and I have told my center directors, do not get involved in 

the business of our contractors. I do not make those decisions. 

CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND THE

AUTHORIZATION, CONTINUED

Mr. CULBERSON. And the thing that is fouling you up is of course 

you cannot, you have this language, one of these things that is fouling you up is the language and the statutory requirements. You 

cannot cancel Constellation, which of course includes Orion. And 

that was signed before the December 10th CR. The CR language 

that Mr. Mollohan did that predates the authorization. The statutory language in our appropriations bill from last year that Mr. 

Mollohan put together with all our support that says you cannot 

cancel Constellation, that is statute, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And then after that in December there was a 

continuing resolution signed in December that was silent. Oh excuse me, the authorization was then signed in October which says 

you are going to build a heavy lift rocket and a manned capsule. 

And the old rule, the statutory interpretation is the last statute 

signed controls. I think this is where you all wrapped around the 

capsule. So we have got to get you some clarification pretty quickly. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the chairman, I am delighted we are going 

to work on that with the help of Mr. Fattah, all of us together, to 

get you some clarification. What you need is clarity so you can follow the authorization, right? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. That would really help you a lot? Immensely? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it would. The authorization act postured us 

very well. The President’s proposed budget for 2012 postures us 

very well. So—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you need to follow that authorization. It is 

hard for me as a lawyer to explain how it works. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I mean, it got me tangled up. 

General BOLDEN. If I can get relief from the restriction on terminating Constellation, that will help. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And all of those, all that research, all that work 

that you are doing on Constellation to develop a heavy rocket, to 

develop a manned capsule, that all transitions very easily into the 

authorization language to develop a heavy lift rocket and a manned 

capsule, does it not? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They are pretty much—— 

General BOLDEN. I am not able to say that. That is what I am, 

I do not want to be boxed into a corner. I am still looking at the 

contracts for Orion and the contracts for the rest of Constellation 

to see if we can legally and within procurement regulations move 

them. If that is the case, then they have to be affordable. So—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Maybe we could clear this up. I think it would be 

safe to say that you see it as being desirable to have the least disruption to this workforce—— 

General BOLDEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CULBERSON. There you go. 

General BOLDEN. That is so vitally important as humanly possible, but you have to operate within the law. 

I have to operate within the law. 

Mr. FATTAH. And with what budget is available. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And we need to give him some statutory clarification as soon as possible. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

NASA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF DECADAL SURVEYS

Mr. CULBERSON. That would be great. Okay. The decadal survey 

is about to come out, very soon. We are about—— 

General BOLDEN. That is correct. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Throughout the history of NASA, the United 

States being the leader, and number one, we have throughout history until very recently always flown the top priority mission in the 

decadal survey in each one of the categories. I think, and it is my 

recollection as an avid student of the space program and history, 

I think that is an accurate statement. Until recently NASA—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me get back to you on that. 

I do not know because when I left NASA in 1994 I did not know 

what a decadal survey was. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 66828A.010
78 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 66828A.011
79 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 66828A.012
80 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 66828A.013
81 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 66828A.014
82 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 66828A.015
83 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 66828A.016
84 

Mr. CULBERSON. I have researched it personally and I can tell 

you that we have—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I am just, you asked me for an answer 

and I cannot give it to you. Right? I do not know. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. I can tell the committee I have researched 

it personally. This is near and dear to my heart that we—— 

Mr. FATTAH. That could almost qualify you to be a member of 

Congress—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. And it is, the reason I am bringing it up, 

sir, is that I am concerned that, I want to make sure that you have 

got the funding that you need to pursue those top priority missions 

in each one of those categories. Are you satisfied that the funding 

level that the President has recommended, that you have in front 

of you, is sufficient for you to fund and fly each of those top priority 

missions in each one of those categories? 

General BOLDEN. Are you talking about—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Just the number one missions. 

General BOLDEN. You mean the one that is coming out—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, since I do not know what the 

decadal survey is going to give me I cannot say that. I do not know. 

The FY 2012 budget was put together without any knowledge of 

the decadal survey. So they, provided they come out without something that is reasonable, and they use the FY 2012 budget in their 

prioritization, then I would be able to say yes. But I have no idea 

whether they took the the 2011 budget. It used to be that the 

decadal surveys did not pay any attention to the budget, and they 

did what the science community wanted and expected us to eat it. 

At least nowadays, I am told that the decadal surveys, the teams 

are generally pretty judicious about looking at where they think 

the budget is going to be. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mm-hmm. 

General BOLDEN. Now since this one was convened when the 

President, I think it was convened maybe even before the 2011 

budget. But I will get back to you on when it convenes. 

[The information follows:] 

NASA requested the NRC conduct the new Planetary Science decadal survey in 

a letter to the NRC dated December 5, 2008. The Survey steering committee held 

its first meeting in July 2009 and its final meeting August 2010. The President’s 

2011 budget request with its outyear funding projections through FY 2015 was the 

information on budget availability the NRC had in hand when planning its approach. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But what I am driving towards, Mr. Administrator, is for the committee, for Mr. Fattah, and Chairman Wolf, 

that for all of us to recognize that we are entering an age of austerity unlike anything we have seen before. We have got to protect 

NASA’s ability to make sure that America has the world’s premiere, number one, manned space program and unmanned programs. We are all committed to that. I want to make sure that we 

are, as a Nation at least funding the top priority missions of the 

decadal survey. The best source for us to look to if we are going 

to try to prioritize planetary missions, missions like Hubble looking 

beyond the solar system, it would be the decadal survey, would it 

not? I mean that is really—— 

General BOLDEN. That is the voice of the community. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Mr. CULBERSON. Absolutely. 

General BOLDEN. Whether it is astrophysics, planetary, or whatever, we put a lot of stock into the voice of the community. What 

the community may not know is where NASA sits budgetarily. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mm-hmm. 

General BOLDEN. So, that is where we have to prioritize. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So if we as a committee wanted to build a firewall around, of course, only the manned program to make sure that 

we protect it, whether it be Mr. Weiner, or Mr. Jordan, our friends 

on both sides trying to come after NASA. If we wanted to build a 

firewall, the committee, this subcommittee wanted to build a firewall around NASA’s manned spaceflight capability and your unmanned capability, talking about the unmanned missions first and 

robotics. Would not a good firewall be to say that NASA needs to, 

we need to make sure this committee preserves the ability of NASA 

to fund and fly the top priority mission designated by the decadal 

survey in each one of the categories? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Would that make sense? 

General BOLDEN. It makes sense. But if you wanted to build a 

firewall—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is what I am looking for. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. I would say empower the NASA 

Administrator to work with the Congress and the White House 

each year once the budget is established so that we can reestablish 

priorities or readjust priorities—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, I understand. 

General BOLDEN. [continuing]. In accordance with fiscal constraints. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It makes sense. 

General BOLDEN. If you put a firewall around the results of the 

decadal survey today and the Congress changes everything next 

year, then I am back where I am—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, I understand. We would protect you statutorily as well. I am talking about protecting you for the long term. 

And we really are going to dive into this, and I am going to do my 

best to work with this subcommittee and the authorizing subcommittee so we can flesh this out with NASA’s input and guidance to figure out a long term glide path that is predictable, stable, 

consistent. You do not have to worry about these year to year 

struggles and you can actually, all of you magnificent people that 

work in the space program, can predict with some certainty that 

you can pay the mortgage, send the kids to school, and still go 

where no man has gone before and discover brave new worlds and 

new civilizations. 

EUROPA

Okay, the Europa mission in particular is a big flagship mission. 

It was in the last decadal survey. It is probably going to—almost 

certainly going to—be the top priority of the decadal survey in this 

mission, in this decadal survey. And I mention it to you because 

I have also found out, you know, Europa first of all has more saltwater than the Earth, liquid saltwater. They have confirmed that. 

It has got tidal flexing, like when you bend a credit card, that 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

means there is a lot of heat down there in the bottom of that ocean 

where the pressure is equivalent to the deep ocean on Earth where 

we have already shown that the plate boundaries have got incredible colonies of life. So Europa is almost certainly going to have life. 

If you are going to find life anywhere it is going to be on Europa. 

So the decadal survey has made it a top priority—there is the vote. 

I want to be sure to point out to Mr. Fattah and Mr. Wolf, and you 

may not be aware of this either, sir, that apparently in a very recent study that I read in Science—or I forget, maybe the journal 

of Nature—discovered that the water ice on Europa being 

bombarded by the radiation from Jupiter all these billions of years, 

the radiation strips away the hydrogen and leaves the oxygen. And 

then the oxygen is churned back down into the liquid saltwater 

ocean. So the saltwater ocean of Europa not only has heat but it 

has been oxygenated for billions of years. Which makes it an even 

higher priority. 

That is going to be an expensive mission. It is a flagship mission. 

And I wanted to ask you about it. Are you guys planning for that, 

to make sure that we are flying that flagship mission to Europa 

that needs to include a landing—— 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for one quick second? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. 

Mr. FATTAH. Because you just announced within the last two 

months, right, that you found a number, five or so, Earth-like planets—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, beyond the solar system—— 

Mr. FATTAH. You might want to just respond in general to this 

point and—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But it would start with Europa. 

General BOLDEN. Well Congressman I was just going to say that 

the decadal survey when it comes out 

Mr. FATTAH. Is that in Texas? 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, and it is not even flown out of Texas. 

General BOLDEN. When the decadal results are announced next 

Monday then we will take a look at what they said and we will 

look at how we prioritize it based on where we are in our planetary 

budget. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But the Europa mission is built in, is it not? 

Have you built in—— 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. You know—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. It was in the last decadal, it is going to be in 

this one. 

General BOLDEN. Let me get back to you. Because you are asking 

me to verify that we are flying—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are upsetting me, dodging that. That is a 

big one. We are really going to be short of money. And we are going 

to need to build a firewall, Mr. Chairman, around these decadal 

survey missions. We cannot cede either the manned program leadership to China or anybody else, and we certainly cannot cede the 

leadership in flying these big missions, whether it be to the sun, 

or Mercury. We are about to go into orbit around Mercury any day 

now, right? Is it Messenger? 

General BOLDEN. Messenger? Yes, Messenger is due to get to 

Mercury—— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Mr. CULBERSON. In the next couple of weeks. 

General BOLDEN. It is. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I think, it is going to go into orbit around Mercury. And of course the Webb is, I am glad you got those cost overruns, and Mr. Fattah when you visit the Jet Propulsion Laboratory—— 

General BOLDEN. We are not there yet, sir. I do not want you to 

overstate what I said. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, right, right. But—— 

General BOLDEN. We are trying. We are going to get them. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are doing your best. But it is an extraordinarily important mission. And when you go to JPL you will meet 

Charles Elachi, who is another national treasure. They do great 

work out there. But one of the problems they have had over the 

years is they will give, they think by giving, over the years giving 

us low estimates at the beginning of a big mission that maybe we 

are going to fund it. And then the estimates, boom, the reality 

comes in higher. Dr. Elachi has told me that they are working hard 

from their end, and I know you are on your end, to give this subcommittee more realistic estimates of what these big missions are 

actually going to cost on the front end. 

General BOLDEN. That is the joint confidence level process that 

I—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. That I talked about a little bit—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is critical. That is where a lot of these cost 

overruns come from. I know we are in the middle of this vote. I can 

submit a lot of these for the record because we are short of time. 

And you have been very generous, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Administrator, with your time, sir. Thank you. 

ASTRONAUT CORPS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. We have a number of questions we will 

submit for the record. I just wanted you to make one comment on 

one issue. How are you adjusting the size of the astronaut corps, 

and the programs that support the corps, to reflect reduced flight 

opportunities between the end of the Shuttle and the first flight of 

the new exploration program? And the missions being contemplated under the new exploration program are significantly different than the missions executed by Shuttle astronauts. How will 

the requirements of future members of the astronaut corps differ 

from the requirements of the current members? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we have a study that was instituted through the National Research Council that we expect to get 

back within months that is going to help us answer that question. 

So I do not have, the study is not complete yet. We are looking at 

what should be the size of the astronaut office, what type of support apparatus, whether it is airplanes or other things. We are 

looking at what we need to have to support the astronaut office of 

the future. And I do not have that—— 

Mr. WOLF. And when will that be ready? 

General BOLDEN. Let me get back to you, sir. I am, it just escapes my mind right now. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

[The information follows:] 

ASTRONAUT CORPS

The National Research Council (NRC) study on the future of the Astronaut Corps 

is due to be delivered in August 2011. 

General BOLDEN. But I would remind everybody, we just named 

three, the crews for three more increments to the International 

Space Station. So, we are continuing to assign astronauts to go to 

the International Space Station for six month increments for the 

next ten years. So, we still have astronauts who are going back and 

forth to Russia to train and spending these two years of their lives 

investing in getting ready to go to the International Space Station. 

And we just named three new crew increments. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Can I do one more, real short? 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Sure. 

ALPHA MAGNETIC SPECTROMETER

Mr. CULBERSON. Just real short. I want to ask about the final 

shuttle flight. Administrator Griffin had put on the manifest that 

it was a high energy observatory—— 

General BOLDEN. That is the next flight is AMS—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that will be flown? 

General BOLDEN. That is STS–134. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that will be flown? 

General BOLDEN. And that is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. 

It is now mated in the VAB. I think we did that yesterday. So we 

will launch AMS on the Shuttle Endeavour, let me make sure I 

have got the right one. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that the last flight? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. The last flight will be on Atlantis in 

June. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WOLF. Go ahead. 

EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

Mr. FATTAH. Just to conclude, and I want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. We have to go vote. You are relieved of duty. But when 

you led the first Marine Expeditionary Unit into Kuwait, you know, 

there were Kuwaiti kids who were here at American universities 

when Kuwait was overrun by Iraq. And they were here studying. 

You know, the Kuwaiti government provides unlimited educational 

support. These kids can go, if they want to get a doctoral degree 

in nuclear physics, or aeronautics, or whatever. So they were here 

studying. And our young people, you were leading them in—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman you, I do not want to get in trouble with General Boomer. I was not there. 

Mr. FATTAH. No, no, you were there. 

General BOLDEN. No, I was not there then. 

Mr. FATTAH. But you were leading the First Expeditionary? 

General BOLDEN. I led the First Marine Expeditionary Force forward in 1997. But that was, that was between wars. I was—— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Mr. FATTAH. I got you. My point is that these kids from Kuwait—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. The country our young people were protecting—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Have a benefit, and had a benefit, an 

educational benefit that allowed them to pursue their God 

given—— 

General BOLDEN. That is correct. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Intellectual talents. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. That is not a benefit we provide to our young people 

in this country. And I just want us to be clear, we need to get our 

priorities in order as a nation about what we need to be doing to 

prepare ourselves to compete in this world. And it is an unfortunate paradox that we could provide the resources to protect their 

country with our young people while they provide their resources 

to educate their children. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, thank you so very much. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 66828A.017
91 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 66828A.018
92 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 66828A.019
93 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 66828A.020
94 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 66828A.021
95 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 66828A.022
96 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 66828A.023
97 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 66828A.024
98 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 66828A.025
99 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 66828A.026
100 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 66828A.027
101 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 66828A.028
102 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 66828A.029
103 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 66828A.030
104 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 66828A.031
105 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 66828A.032
106 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 66828A.033
107 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 66828A.034
108 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 66828A.035
109 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 66828A.036
110 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 66828A.037
111 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 66828A.038
112 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 66828A.039
113 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 66828A.040
114 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 66828A.041
115 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 66828A.042
116 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 66828A.043
117 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 66828A.044
118 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 66828A.045
119 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 66828A.046
120 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 66828A.047
121 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 66828A.048
122 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 66828A.049
123 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 66828A.050
124 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 66828A.051
125 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 66828A.052
126 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 66828A.053
127 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 66828A.054
128 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 66828A.055
129 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 66828A.056
130 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 66828A.057
131 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 66828A.058
132 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 66828A.059
133 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 66828A.060
134 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 66828A.061
135 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 66828A.062
136 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 66828A.063
137 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 66828A.064
138 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 66828A.065
139 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 66828A.066
140 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 66828A.067
141 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252/300 here 66828A.068

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(143) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

DR. SUBRA SURESH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF VICE CHAIRMAN BONNER AND RANKING

MEMBER FATTAH

Mr. BONNER. Good morning. Chairman Wolf is testifying at another hearing and we expect him here in just a few minutes. In the 

meantime, he asked us to go ahead and get started. 

I had the pleasure of introducing myself to the witness earlier. 

My name is Jo Bonner. I am from Mobile, Alabama, and I am 

pleased to serve as vice chairman of the Subcommittee. 

I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today on the fiscal year 2012 budget request of the National Science Foundation. 

Our witness is Dr. Subra Suresh, the Director of NSF. 

Sir, thank you so much for being here with us today. 

Dr. Suresh, you are sitting before a subcommittee which I hope 

you know is very supportive of your agency and its mission to advance the country’s scientific research and educational enterprises. 

Our national struggles in these areas have been well documented, most notably in the 2007 report entitled ‘‘Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm.’’ 

Unfortunately, in spite of the increased visibility of the problem, 

it appears we have made very little lasting progress in reversing 

some of the trends that were outlined in that report. In fact, an update of ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ issued just last year concluded that our 

situation has only gotten worse. 

We have an enormous challenge ahead of us. We are facing unrelenting competition from other countries that are highly motivated 

to overtake our position as the global leader in this global economy. 

And we have to face that competition while we are still dealing 

with a very slowly recovering economy, one we hope continues to 

recover, but I think by all accounts is the worst recession since the 

Great Depression. 

It is clear to Members on both sides of the aisle that NSF will 

play a key role in meeting that challenge and helping to push the 

United States back to the forefront of technical innovation. 

Your ability to play that role obviously depends on the size of the 

budget at your disposal, and that is what we are here to discuss 

today. 

The NSF budget request for the fiscal year 2012 is $7.8 billion. 

It represents, as you know, a 13 percent increase over your last enacted appropriation. That is a significant new investment, particularly given the constraints on the larger federal budget. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

Just as a quick aside, I came to Capitol Hill in 1985 as a young 

staffer for my predecessor in Congress. At that time, the deficit was 

$1.8 trillion. Now it is over $14 trillion. 

And as we all know, just the other day, it was reported that the 

deficit for February was $223 billion. So our Nation truly is struggling with serious financial challenges in front of us. 

But as I said earlier, the NSF is so important to our mission as 

a Nation. 

Within your total request, you have a number of significant new 

program proposals as well as some suggestions for where NSF can 

or should scale back its involvement. 

I know I will have some questions for you, as will the Ranking 

Member and others who will be coming. There are several committee hearings taking place at this time, so please do not take offense at Members coming and going throughout the morning. 

In a moment, Dr. Suresh, we will have you give a summary of 

your written testimony and then we will proceed with the questions. 

But before we do that, I would like to turn to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and our Ranking Member, Mr. Fattah, 

for any opening remarks he would like to make. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

And I want to thank the chairman. And it is a pleasure to see 

him in the chair even though this is not his formal role on this 

committee, but our chairman will be here momentarily. I was 

watching him testify before a hearing in the Homeland Security 

Committee. 

But let me welcome you. It is good to see you again. 

I agree with the chairman that the national debt is a very important priority. In fact, next week, I am going to be offering legislation to address the national debt in the most forceful way that 

would have been suggested to this point. 

So I do not minimize it, but I do not see the glass as half empty. 

I see it as mostly full. That is to say, we are the wealthiest country 

in the world. We have well over $900 trillion in transactions, 

money moving around in our economy every single year. 

The notion that we cannot afford to pay our bills I think is a 

faulty one. Whether we cut one and a half percent of the budget 

this year or something a little less than that, which is the debate 

between the $41 billion and the $61 billion between the two parties, is not going to address our debt. It is not going to address our 

deficit. It is really a distraction. We spend a lot of time being distracted here in Washington. 

I want to focus on the question of the country’s future. I think 

we have this kind of sense that we are a declining power, we are 

broke, we cannot afford to do the things that we need to do to prosper as a Nation, that is to educate our children or to invest in 

science and innovation. I do not believe that about our country. 

Now, I spent the weekend with some of my Republican colleagues. We went out to visit a couple of our national labs. I was 

at Sandia. I was at one of the other nuclear weapons laboratories, 

at Los Alamos. I saw how exceptional our Nation truly is. I mean, 

I saw in the work of these scientists what is really being done. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

And when you look through the great work of the National 

Science Foundation, whether it is the over 1,200 scientists you 

have at the South Pole or all of the other investments and building 

blocks, as you call them, in our country’s future, I think that we 

should be inspired as a Nation. Now, I think that is a paltry sum, that is this $7.8 billion, even 

though it is a 12 percent increase, 13 percent increase. 

When you look at a country like Singapore with less than 5 mil- lion people, 4.8 million people investing $5 billion in their National 

Research Foundation, making a commitment as a nation that takes 

three percent of their gross domestic product and have it in scientific research, it should suggest to a Nation like our own that we 

risk being pushed aside on this kind of innovation highway if we 

are not careful. 

First of all, we cannot be a superpower on the cheap. We cannot 

fight two wars, not pay for it, add it to the debt, give away tax 

breaks to people and not account for it in any way, and grow the 

domestic side of the budget all at the same time, which is what we 

have done over the last ten years and then be intellectually surprised that we have a debt or a deficit. I mean, it is just that the 

two do not add up. 

But at the same time, we cannot afford not to make the investments in science for our national security, for our economy. And I 

think that the Congress, whoever is in the majority, and the other 

team is in the majority at the moment, we owe it to our country 

to make these investments because as we compete with much larger countries like China or India, the only way a country of 300 million people is going to be able to position itself is through the same 

decision that Singapore made. 

It is a very rational decision that if you are going to have a 

smaller population, then, you have to innovate more. You have to 

educate more. You have to do these things. 

And so I am looking forward to your testimony and I hope that 

as we go through this that we will not try to apply an unscientific 

approach to protecting our country’s security economically and in 

other ways, that in some notion that we can somehow dumb down 

our population, do less research, less investment, and somehow still 

stay ahead. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Dr. Suresh, your written statement will be made a part of the 

record and now you may proceed with the summary of your remarks. 

DIRECTOR SURESH’S INTRODUCTION TO THE FY 2012 REQUEST

Mr. SURESH. Thank you. 

Chairman Bonner, Ranking Member Fattah, soon to come Members of the committee, it is my privilege to be here with you today 

to discuss the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

My name is Subra Suresh and I am director of the National 

Science Foundation. 

I came to the United States as a young engineering student because it was the world’s beacon of excellence in science and eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

cation. The mission of NSF is to sustain that excellence as we continue to lead the way for the important discoveries and cuttingedge technologies that will help keep our Nation globally competitive, prosperous, and secure. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for NSF, as the chairman said in his statement, is $7.8 billion, an increase of 13 percent or 

$895 million over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

NSF’s request is consistent with the President’s Plan for Science 

and Innovation and with the America COMPETES Reauthorization 

Act of 2010. 

America’s economic prosperity and global competitiveness depend 

on innovation that comes from new knowledge, new technologies, 

and a highly-skilled and inclusive workforce. NSF has an unparalleled track record in supporting the best ideas and the most talented people for over 60 years. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget builds on these past accomplishments and provides a direction for future success. NSF will 

strengthen support for basic research in education, the building 

blocks of future innovation while strengthening our disciplinary excellence. 

A new NSF-wide investment of $117 million will accelerate the 

progress of science and engineering through the deployment of 

comprehensive cyberinfrastructure. Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering will explore ways 

to handle the vast quantities of data generated by today’s cuttingedge observational and computational tools, broaden access to 

cyberinfrastructure, and support community research networks. 

Research at the Interface of the Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences, a new $76 million investment, will explore nature’s ability to network, communicate, and adapt and apply this 

understanding to engineer new technologies. 

This program aims to discover new bio-inspired materials and 

sensors and support the advanced manufacturing of bio-inspired 

devices. 

Today’s most challenging research problems often bring together 

insights from across computer science, mathematics, and the physical life and social sciences. INSPIRE, new to the NSF portfolio, is 

a $12 million investment to encourage investigators to undertake 

the interdisciplinary research that is the hallmark of much of contemporary science and engineering. 

Because NSF supports research across all disciplines, we are positioned to catalyze the new fields and new research paradigms 

that emerge from this cross-fertilization. 

Many NSF activities provide incentives for investigators to undertake use-inspired research that translates basic discoveries into 

applications for the benefit of society and the economy. 

A $15 million investment in Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum will pursue innovative ways to use the radio spectrum more 

efficiently, enabling more applications and services used by individuals and businesses to occupy the limited amount of available spectrum. 

Over the next five years, NSF will receive $1 billion from the 

Wireless Innovation Fund or WIN established with receipts from 

spectrum auctions. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

NSF’s support of advanced economics research led to the FCC’s 

current system of spectrum auctions that have netted over $45 billion for the Federal Government since 1994. 

The Wireless Innovation Fund is expected to provide $150 million to NSF in fiscal year 2012 for research on cyber-physical systems such as smart sensors for buildings, roads, and bridges. Many 

fields are on the threshold of discoveries that can establish U.S. 

leadership in next generation technologies. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, NSF’s support of mathematical and 

process innovations led directly to rapid prototyping and revolutionized how products are designed and manufactured. The budget 

includes $190 million for a new advanced manufacturing initiative 

to pursue innovations in sensor- and model-based smart manufacturing and nanomanufacturing. 

Another investment of $30 million in the new interagency national robotics initiative will focus on robots that will work cooperatively with people in areas such as manufacturing, space and undersea exploration, healthcare, surveillance and security, and education and training. 

NSF will continue to play a lead role in the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative with an investment of $456 million, $117 million of which will explore signature initiatives in 

nanoelectronics, solar energy collection and conversion, and sustainable nanomanufacturing. 

NSF’s support for nanotechnology research is already producing 

returns. Over the past decade, NSF nanotechnology centers and 

networks created 175 startups and developed collaborations with 

over 1,200 companies. 

U.S. leadership in science and engineering requires the most 

knowledgeable and skilled science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics or STEM workers in the world. Three new programs 

in STEM education, each funded at $20 million, will improve teacher preparation, strengthen undergraduate STEM education, and 

broaden participation of under-represented groups in the science 

and engineering workforce. 

People and their ideas form the core of a robust science and engineering enterprise, but leading-edge tools are also needed to advance the frontiers and train students for the workplace. 

The budget sustains investments in major recruitment and facilities projects that are already underway. 

To conclude, One NSF characterizes my vision for NSF as a 

model agency. NSF will work seamlessly across organizational and 

disciplinary boundaries to create new knowledge, stimulate discovery, address complex societal problems, and promote national 

prosperity. 

Robust NSF investments in fundamental science and engineering 

have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives and livelihoods 

of generations of Americans. The Fiscal Year 2012 NSF Budget Request will carry this success into the future. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my testimony. I thank you for your leadership. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 66828B.001
149 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 66828B.002
150 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 66828B.003
151 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 66828B.004
152 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 66828B.005
153 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 66828B.006
154 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 66828B.007
155 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 66828B.008
156 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 66828B.009
157 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you very much for that testimony. 

We have been joined by our colleague, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama, who also has the pleasure of chairing the Homeland Security 

Subcommittee. And I think he indicated that he actually has to go 

out and prepare for a hearing that is coming up, but he may have 

some questions to submit for the record, as will other Members. 

Let’s go into a few questions. And I think the first one probably 

should be the fact that we are operating under a Continuing Resolution at the present time. We are on a short-term two-week extension. We will see where that goes in terms of whether we will have 

to do another one. Hopefully, though, Democrats, Republicans, Congress, the White House will be able to come to an agreement in the 

next few weeks so that we can have some certainty to finish fiscal 

year 2011. 

IMPACT OF CONTINUING RESOLUTION

How is the CR impacting the work of the NSF at the present 

time? 

Mr. SURESH. I think we are continuing with plans to honor commitments. We are spending wisely and carefully. We are very 

mindful of the need for continued workforce development. But it is 

constraining our ability, so there are two aspects to this. 

One is the real impact of it, but equally importantly and perhaps 

more importantly the psychological impact of it on students, faculty, and researchers in the country. 

And I would say that we wish we did not have a Continuing Resolution. We are working very hard to assure the community that 

we are doing everything possible within our constraints to make 

sure that their activities will continue to be supported by NSF 

while we are looking to the future at the very cutting edge in both 

research work and instrumentation for the community. 

Mr. BONNER. You know, it is interesting. I think Mr. Fattah 

would agree. I do not know any Member of Congress that likes the 

CR either. It is one of the hands that sometimes we are dealt. 

There may be some additional questions about the balance of fiscal year 2011. 

INCREASED FUNDING FOR GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP

PROGRAM

Let me shift, however, to the fact that your budget request proposes an increase in funding for the Graduate Research Fellowship 

Program and within that program, an increase in the educational 

allowance and stipend levels. 

My sister is the provost at the University of Alabama so I know 

how important this work is as it relates to graduate students 

throughout the country, at great universities like Penn State and 

Alabama and Brown and others. 

Higher allowances and stipends will certainly make the awards 

more useful to the individual recipients, but increasing the per 

award cost will reduce the total number of awards that can be 

made. 

Why in your view is this increase in the value of each award 

worth the loss of additional fellowship opportunities? 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you for that question. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

I think the Graduate Research Fellowships are an important 

part of what NSF does. Since 1962, NSF has supported 46,000 

graduate research fellows. I have had the honor and privilege of supervising more than ten students in two different institutions who 

have received NSF graduate fellowships. 

We have maintained a commitment to keep the increase that was 

introduced in 2010 for Graduate Research Fellowships. So in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget, we will have 2,000 graduate research fellows. But at the same time, the cost of education allowance has not 

kept up with the increasing cost of education over the past many 

years. So in the fiscal year 2012 budget, we will be increasing it 

from $10,500 to $12,000. 

Also, the cost of living has gone up quite a bit and graduate students already live in many places under substandard conditions. So 

we want to make sure that in the not-too-distant future, we also 

increase the stipend for graduate students so that we can address 

that as well. 

Because all three are important, I think if we do not support the 

students adequately, then their ability to go into graduate education is going to be reduced. At the same time, to improve the 

workforce, we have to support enough numbers and increasing 

numbers of graduate students. 

If you look at our budget, we have made some very difficult 

choices. It is not that we are asking for increases. There are also 

six programs that are going to be terminated. There are some programs that are being reduced which will impact graduate students. 

And I think this is a mechanism that we are trying to find. 

The other mechanism we are looking at, and it is also in the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, is that the graduate research funds will be supported through a combination of funds allocated to EHR and also to the Research and Related Activities category of the budget. 

PROGRAM TERMINATIONS

Mr. BONNER. I am going to have some additional questions, and 

I would like to yield to Mr. Fattah, but could you tell us about the 

six programs that you are proposing to eliminate? 

Mr. SURESH. Sure. So of the six programs, the major program 

that will be eliminated will be DUSEL, Deep Underground Science 

and Engineering Lab. The National Science Board, which is the 

oversight body for the National Science Foundation, in its meeting 

in December unanimously and very clearly articulated that the 

model that was proposed for stewardship of DUSEL was inconsistent with the mission of NSF and was not acceptable. 

In light of that, the Administration has proposed to terminate 

the fiscal year 2012 budget for DUSEL. So that will be one of the 

programs. 

The other program is the Graduate STEM Fellows in K through 

12 Education or GK–12. GK–12 is a program that was initiated in 

1999. This program has had a rich and successful history. We have 

had some very good outcomes out of this, but NSF always funds 

good things, learns from the experience, gets community feedback, 

and funds for a long period of time. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

But we have to move to new directions as well. So as a result 

of this, we will incorporate the best practices of GK–12 into other 

programs as we move forward. We will honor existing commitments for GK–12 in 2012, but there is no new funding for GK–12. 

The third program is called National STEM Distributed Learning 

program or NSDL and, again, with increasing emphasis on 

cyberlearning and other activities across NSF in different portfolios, including in EHR and some of the new programs that will 

come into existence, it was decided that we take the best practices 

of this and terminate this program for fiscal year 2012. 

The fourth program is Research Initiation Grants to Broaden 

Participation in Biology. Broadening participation is at the core of 

NSF. It is in every activity that we do. And since joining NSF, I 

have made a very firm commitment to broadening participation in 

everything we do. 

So one of the things we decided to do was to take in this program 

and fold it into other activities. And one of the new programs that 

will be initiated in EHR will address aspects of this program as 

well. 

The next one is the Science of Learning Centers. These have provided useful input. Now, we have had extensive reviews of the successes of these programs and some will continue and terminate 

over time. And those that have served their useful purpose, we 

take the input and then we will wind them down over the coming 

years. 

And the last one is a Synchrotron Radiation Center at the University of Wisconsin. This is a 30-year-old center and just refurbishing it will not keep us at the forefront of this field. So, therefore, it was decided to terminate it. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me work from the general for a minute here and 

we will get to some specifics. 

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

The National Science Foundation has invested in the research of 

a couple hundred thousand scientists and a whole range of areas 

that statutorily you have been instructed to do basic research in. 

And this is the only entity of the Federal Government that has this 

singular responsibility in terms of basic scientific research. 

You are involved with the National Academies both here and in 

other countries, Germany and the like. I wonder if you could share 

with the subcommittee your perspective on this kind of international race in terms of science. 

Let me give you a for instance. The computer was obviously developed here, and I would have the chairman note, at the University of Pennsylvania in my district. But today if we are looking for 

the fastest supercomputers, they would not be in the United States 

of America. They would be in China. 

And so when you go to talk about simulations, we do not have 

the world’s fastest or the greatest computers anymore. And you 

could go over all kinds of areas where we see competition successfully challenging America on this front. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

So I was wondering if you could, given your perspective, give us 

a sense about what you think it means to our Nation if we allow 

others to move substantially ahead of us in these areas of scientific 

discovery. 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

As you mentioned, I have been fortunate and very privileged to 

have had the opportunity for a number of international experiences. I received my first degree in engineering from Indian Institute of Technology and came to the United States. 

I am quite active in a number of academies, the German National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering 

in the U.S., and the Engineering and Science Academies in India, 

and the Science Academy in Spain. 

And you mentioned in your opening remarks about the investments that the government of Singapore makes. The Singapore 

government created the National Research Foundation on January 

1, 2006. In fact, I know the existence of that particular entity since 

the day it was founded. And I had interacted quite a bit with that 

foundation through my activities as dean of engineering at MIT. 

And one of the things that is happening now as we face the biggest budget constraint since the Great Depression and the biggest 

financial crisis since the Great Depression, we are also facing unprecedented competition from the international arena, from countries large and small. 

I met with a number of colleagues from China who tell me that 

over an already increasing base for research funding over the last 

two decades or so, over the next five to six years, there is discussion that China will increase its research funding including basic 

research funding by 50 percent from already a high level. 

Singapore, as you indicated, a tiny country of 4.6 million people, 

invests billions and billions of U.S. dollars into research. And I 

have seen the infrastructure go up in front of my eyes over the last 

two decades or so. 

And the concern that I have both from personal experience and 

these observations is that unlike the time in 1977 when I came to 

the U.S., at that time, there was no question in my mind where 

I wanted to go. There was only one place to go and that was here. 

And to some extent, some would argue this is still the same. But 

there are growing indications that this may not be the same ten 

years from now if we are not careful. Let me give you a few data 

points. 

Germany, Japan, South Korea spend more money on research as 

a fraction of GDP, non-defense research spending compared to the 

U.S. and they also passed us in 2000. For ten years, we have been 

lagging behind those three countries and they have become major 

forces in science and engineering discovery and translation. 

Smaller Scandinavian countries have also surpassed us like Finland, for example, and other Scandinavian countries. Singapore is 

on a path to significantly increase research funding. So that is one 

problem. 

The second problem is that we have—let me give you one piece 

of anecdotal information. This is not yet a trend, but this is the 

most compelling data that I have seen. In my graduating class in 

engineering, all branches of engineering from an elite national inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

stitution in India, there were 250 of us in 1977. More than 200 of 

us had an opportunity to come to the U.S. to pursue graduate education. All 200 of us came and all 200 of us stayed here. Pretty 

much all of us became American citizens and we joined academia, 

industry startups, created jobs. 

Fast forward 32 years. The most recent year for which we have 

data which is 2009, the same campus, still 250 people, only 16 percent of those students chose to come here. Eighty percent could 

have if they tried. 

And one of the remarkable things about the American scientific 

enterprise as a Nation is that this has been the unquestioned destination for many, many decades, for more than half a century or 

even longer. And if we lose that, I think we are going to have a 

problem. 

Mr. FATTAH. The chairman in his opening statement referred to 

this report that kind of benchmarked what we needed to do to stem 

the tide. We have not done much of that. 

And your sister is a provost. And to talk about graduate school, 

we look at the students who pursue degrees in the hard science. 

Less than a third of them are American students and it is decreasing and decreasing whether at the great University of Pennsylvania or at the University of Auburn. And this is a real challenge. 

Mr. BONNER. University of Alabama. 

Mr. FATTAH. Alabama. 

Mr. BONNER. Auburn is that other university. 

Mr. FATTAH. So this is a great concern because if we are not 

growing our own or if others are not coming and staying, it just positions our country in a very bad way. 

When I went out to visit these labs, I was struck by the fact that 

way back in the 1940s and for every year since, our country has 

made a very significant investment in research. And the labs I was 

visiting had to do with our nuclear weapons. And obviously some 

of the issues were classified. 

But what was fascinating about this was that, in one discussion 

about a much smaller country and what they were doing in this regard, I asked how they could afford to do this. The response of the 

person giving the briefing was that, and quoting the briefer, their 

position was they would eat grass if necessary in order to pursue 

this research. 

Now, this was in a much more defense-related posture, but the 

point here is that the question becomes what is our resolve as a 

Nation to make sure that we position ourselves at the very front, 

to win and win consistently. And if we want to do that, we cannot 

afford to abandon our investments in this regard. 

Now, a 12 percent increase in this budget, given the financial climate, I guess we can say, is a step forward. But when a football 

team from the University of Alabama and Penn State line up, it 

is compared to what. It is not just what are you doing compared 

to what you did last year. It is what you are doing compared to the 

other teams that you are lining up against. 

So we are competing economically with countries that seem to 

have decided that winning is important. And the question becomes, 

since we have historically been winning, whether or not we have 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 

decided that we no longer want to win and that what we would 

rather do is to do something less than our best. 

And I just think that rather than just the details of the budget, 

that what is important—because we have heard the Patent Office 

in this room say that for the first time in the year 2000, the same 

year that you mentioned, we crossed over a rubicon in which the 

majority of the patents being sought in our country are sought by 

people who are not Americans or not American entities, right? 

So, you know, so goes research, so goes to innovation, so goes intellectual property, and we know what follows from there because 

then it is taking those products, to the market, manufacturing 

them, and they are going to go other places. 

So we have to really think about how we are going to go forward 

and even in our rush to cut, we need to think that we do not want 

to create a situation where, unlike those who made these investments in the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s, that somehow we 

want to be the generation of leaders who decided to diminish America’s place in the world. 

And I think that where the rubber meets the road is at this point 

of innovation. It has nothing to do with party or partisanship. If 

four percent of our population are scientists and engineers, we need 

to make sure that they have the very best opportunities to succeed 

here. 

Mr. BONNER. So that I do not get in trouble with my home State, 

we also have a great university in Auburn. We are the only State 

that I know of that has won back to back national championships 

and has back to back Heisman Trophy winners. And we are proud 

of that. 

But Mr. Fattah raises a good point. In this Nation, we have 

spent a lot of time, probably an inordinate amount of time focusing 

on the achievements on the gridiron or the football field and do not 

put near the emphasis that we should as a Nation on the achievements of our scientists and our biologists and our engineers. And 

that is something that I think we can all agree is one of the reasons that we are in the position that we are in today. 

POTENTIAL DUPLICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Last week, the GAO issued a report identifying areas of potential 

duplication between government programs. You just previously 

identified six programs that you are proposing to eliminate. 

One of the report’s major findings is that the government has 82 

distinct programs whose purpose is to improve the quality of American teachers. Those programs are divided among ten different federal agencies, including both NASA and NSF. 

Do you believe that your teacher quality programs are duplicative of those offered by other agencies. Then a follow-up question 

to that is, what kind of government-wide coordination takes place 

to ensure that these programs are effectively and efficiently 

aligned? 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you for that question. 

Mr. BONNER. The real chairman is here now. 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you for the question, Mr. Bonner. 

The GAO report is something that I have looked at. In response 

to your point, NSF’s goal in the education arena whether it is K 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
163 

through 12 or undergraduate, postgraduate, and higher education 

is that we develop models and practices through scientific research, 

test them out, validate them, and they are taken up by other agencies for large-scale implementation. 

And as you saw in the six programs that we terminated, we continually look at things that are effective, that are not effective, so 

we work very closely with the Department of Education. 

There are three new programs that I mentioned in my opening 

remarks that have been articulated for the fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. And those are intended to look at what we have done well, 

how to take them and then how to expand them. 

One of the new programs is WIDER and this is essentially 

geared at large-scale implementation for undergraduate education. 

And as part of that, we look at all the existing things including 

things that could potentially be duplicate activities and remove 

them or try to eliminate them. 

I have charged the head of our EHR, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, who is 

sitting behind me, with looking at how EHR can work with all the 

directors within NSF to bring education to everything that we do, 

not just in one particular unit, but across NSF. Conversely how do 

we take the best practices in education across all the different activities and then bring them back to EHR. 

So we are very aware of this and we are looking at this. And, 

you know, one of the unique things about what NSF does is across 

the spectrum of fields and from a scientific perspective creating 

models rather than large-scale implementation. 

Mr. BONNER. It may just be pennies on the dollar, but whatever 

you can save in eliminating duplicative programs can be invested 

in other areas of the important work that you are doing. 

One of the things, just as an aside, going back to Mr. Fattah’s 

comments, I have advocated for years with NASA is that they need 

to do a better job of letting the American taxpayer know where 

their work is making a difference in our everyday lives. 

COMMUNICATING RESULTS OF NSF INVESTMENTS

You know, when we passed the stimulus bill, some of us voted 

for it, some of us voted against, but all of a sudden, you see these 

road signs all across the country with the emblem that this is a 

project of the stimulus bill. 

I do not know whether NSF is able to brand itself on the work 

that you are doing. I know the good work you are doing is paying 

dividends not just in this country but around the world. 

But I really think that might be something that if the American 

taxpayer is in the grocery store and they are picking up a bottle 

of detergent or whatever and they see your work helped lead to the 

discovery of that ingredient, it just might bring a better understanding of your important work. And that way, we would not be 

arguing over whether NSF should have a 13 percent increase or 

whether it should be a 25 percent increase. The fact is people could 

have a better grasp of the impact you are making on their daily 

lives. Just a thought. 

Mr. SURESH. You are right on, Mr. Bonner. In fact, these very 

comments resonate very well with the first retreat that I held since 

arriving at NSF. How can we make the work that NSF does be 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

available or at least accessible so people can understand what NSF 

does, not just the scientists and engineers, but a much broader population. 

So let me mention a few of the specific things that I have started 

in the last few months. First and foremost is improving all channels of communication. So I have actually set up a task force that 

within NSF will look at how we communicate the outcomes of what 

we do to The Hill, to K through 12, to middle school students, and 

so forth. This is very important and it is increasingly important. 

The second thing is to update the technology that we use to do 

that. And it is not conventional technology anymore. There are a 

variety of media, especially that are appealing to younger people 

increasingly so. How do we tap into that? 

The third one is not only gathering data but making the data accessible to a broader cross-section of people, both public information but also scientific information. 

So we have a variety of programs that are underway. STAR 

Metrics is a program that we are working on right now in collaboration with some other agencies as well like NIH. And this is something that during the course of this year I hope will be a very 

strong medium through which the impact of NSF’s work is broadly 

recognized. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for just one second because the chairman is going to jump in here. 

I totally agree with you. I mean, I think one of the problems is 

when we look at NASA, we look at National Science Foundation. 

Even though there are literally tens of thousands of very important 

discoveries that have contributed to our country and to the world, 

the public has no concept that this was through these investments 

or through these entities. 

We know when we go after a great football coach or a player, we 

are all rooting for our team no matter what the price. Sign the guy, 

sign him because we want to win. And that is the same kind of attitude we have to bring in this area of innovation, that we want 

to win. We want to know what it costs to win and then we want 

to pay the cost because we really do not want to pay the cost to 

come in second to some of these other nations in our world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BONNER. If I might, this will be my last question and then 

I am going to go to another hearing. I really have enjoyed being 

with you and I appreciate the chairman allowing me to be in his 

chair for a few minutes. 

Yesterday the prime minister of Australia was here and twice, at 

the beginning of her speech and at the end of it, she cited as a 

young girl, and I could relate, as we are approximately the same 

age, how all the way down under, she was able to look to the 

United States and the world leadership we were providing by putting a man on the moon. And then when she closed with that, basically it was a challenge for America to always continue to lead. 

And, you know, sometimes it is refreshing to hear from outside 

the role that we play and that we should continue to play. 

Thank you, Chairman Wolf. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

Mr. WOLF [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. I want to thank 

you for chairing the hearing. I was at another hearing testifying, 

so I appreciate it very much. 

And I agree with what both Mr. Bonner and Mr. Fattah said. 

K–12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT

This is a question based on my disappointment in NSF and in 

Dr. Bement. Back in 2009, I asked the NSF to pull together a team 

of experts to identify the best practices in K–12 STEM education 

and make recommendations on how these practices could be replicated across the country. Despite all the time, two years that has 

gone by since then, that team of experts has yet to meet. And the 

earliest we can get the recommendations would be early summer. 

We have actually lost a couple of young kids from pursuing STEM 

subject because of the failure of NSF to respond. 

When is the NSF going to fulfill this directive, and what is the 

justification for this unnecessarily long delay? We did the same 

thing on prison reform. Mr. Mollohan to his credit, and I want to 

make sure he always gets the credit, had the very best hearing on 

prisons and prison reform. 

We asked the Pew Foundation and the Council of State Governments to do an in-depth review, bringing the best minds. They finished their report. They published it. They have gone out to all the 

governors and you all have not even responded. Two years have 

gone by. 

So when you say that you are really that excited about education, I do not see the results. So what is the justification for this 

unnecessarily long delay, and when are you going to fulfill the directive? Why the delay first? 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. But I 

also want to thank you for your interest in STEM and your leadership in this area. 

Let me respond to that. As you know, I arrived at NSF on October 18th last year, about four months ago. As soon as I found out 

about the need for this report, I had charged the head of our EHR 

unit, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, who is here, to give me an update on this, 

but also to look into how quickly we can have this report submitted. 

There are three parallel activities that are going on—— 

Mr. WOLF. Why did it take so long to do it, two years? 

Mr. SURESH. I think that there are three reasons for this. One 

is to identify the best practices in STEM education. There was an 

NRC Committee that was set up with experts from around the 

country. And they are submitting written material ahead of a 

meeting that is going to be held in May of this year, on May 11th 

and 12th. 

And, in fact, I very much hope that you will be available to kick 

off that meeting. There was an invitation that was sent to your office about two weeks ago or so. And we very much hope that that 

event will take place. And that event will be a culmination of all 

the background work that has gone on. So that was one factor. 

The second factor is that NSF has also charged the Urban Institute to look at two states where we can take the best practices and 

use them in the report with enough careful scientific data. This is 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

a very important topic and NSF is extremely grateful to you for the 

leadership you have shown in this. This has galvanized us actually 

to do a scientific study that typically the way NSF does and to give 

you a report that is complete and comprehensive and that addresses the issue. 

The third reason for this, NSF has also engaged the COSMOS 

Corporation to look into the best practices of the American Science 

Program and to incorporate the findings with respect to STEM education into the report. And they are also charged to get that. 

So I asked the head of EHR to give me an interim report on 

where things stand with specific deadlines. That report was given 

to me about a little more than a week ago and that report has been 

forwarded to your office as well. 

And the symposium will take place in May and the preliminary 

report will be done in June of this year. And the final report will 

be submitted by mid July of this year. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, just the thought of two years is so long, and I 

am really disappointed in the former director. He left town. How 

hard you work on the last day is as important as how hard you 

work on the first day, and on the last day, he did not finish this. 

He specifically sat there and promised that it would be done. 

I am concerned that NSF’s actions in response to this directive 

may be too narrow and will result primarily in a report to this committee. It is interesting and this committee will look at it. But 

what are you going to do to make policymakers, school officials, 

teachers, and other interested parties aware of the findings so that 

they can actually put it to use? 

The purpose is to make sure the superintendent of schools in 

Fairfax County and the city of Philadelphia and Harrisburg and 

Richmond get this thing quickly. And as you know, school years 

begin, curriculum is set up. 

How are you getting it out to the real people that matter, not to 

this committee? It really does not matter what you tell this committee. What are you going to tell the superintendents and the 

guidance counselors and the science teachers around the country, 

and how will you get it into their hands so that it can be implemented? 

K–12 STEM EDUCATION COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

Mr. SURESH. So if I could quickly answer that question. One of 

the things I have also charged not only Dr. Ferrini-Mundy but our 

communications folks is a communications strategy for these kinds 

of very important reports. That also goes back to Mr. Bonner’s earlier question which is very relevant to this particular issue. 

I fully agree with your sentiment on making this available as 

broadly as possible and so we are looking into that strategy right 

now to get it to as wide an audience as possible. 

Mr. FATTAH. If I could suggest to the chairman, we would love 

for your second favorite city, Philadelphia, to host a roll-out of the 

study for all the school superintendents from around the country 

and—— 

Mr. WOLF. You going to go? 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. We could tie them in by web if they 

cannot travel. We could do it at the great Constitution Center and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

NSF could roll this out in a very large media market that would 

get a lot of exposure. And the chairman and I could be there to 

help open up the discussion. So we will be glad to work with you. 

Mr. WOLF. I would be open to do it. We could go down to Pat’s 

Steaks and get a steak. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am paying for the steak. All right? So I think we 

have a bipartisan agreement that we should roll this study out in 

Philadelphia. 

Mr. WOLF. You want to do that? You want to work out something? 

Mr. FATTAH. I want to work with NSF on that regard. 

Mr. SURESH. Mr. Chairman, I also want to assure you we definitely want to do as the National Science Foundation better than 

the Department of Prisons, so we will do everything possible. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the prisons people turned it around. Pew Foundation and Council of State Governments did it very, very fast. It 

was quite a report. I was going to bring it today, but I did not want 

to embarrass you. It is very impressive. 

MAINTAINING STUDENT INTEREST IN STEM

At what age do you think you lose a young person? First, second, 

third, fourth, fifth grade? Very few people go to college and major 

in business and then transfer into sciences or physics or chemistry. 

When I go into the schools, I have my own perception. But what 

grade do you think you begin to lose somebody? If you lost them, 

I cannot say you never get them back, but it is very tough. Fifth 

grade, sixth grade, seventh grade, first grade? What is your answer? 

Mr. SURESH. Well, it depends on a number of circumstances, but 

I would say it is very early. I think one can always energize them 

with the right mentoring at different stages, but the earlier we excite somebody about the importance and the impact of science and 

engineering, the better it is. 

There are some constituencies where we lose certain segments of 

our scientific workforce at a much later stage. For example, in the 

case of women in science and engineering, 40 percent of the postgraduates in the country in science and engineering are women, 

but in the workforce, they are only 26 percent. We lose them in 

their early career stage after they have been trained, after they 

have made the initial impact for a variety of reasons. 

But in terms of capturing the attention of young minds, the earlier, the better. 

Mr. WOLF. There must be an age. There has got to be a point 

when the line crosses, and I am trying to get when that is. 

Mr. SURESH. Well, I mean, obviously the earlier, the better, but 

I can only give some response. I have two daughters. Both are into 

science and engineering and one got interested in science at fourth 

grade. And fourth grade according to data is what studies suggest. 

But there are also, you know, differing circumstances. But if you 

are asking about based on scientific studies on average, it is about 

fourth grade. 

Mr. WOLF. So whatever we do with limited resources, we have 

to put the emphasis on kindergarten, first grade, second grade, 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

third grade, fourth grade and fifth grade to keep these kids active 

and interested in science. 

Well, that is what we are looking to find out and what schools 

have done—— 

Mr. SURESH. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Not just in two states but around the 

country to bring that about. 

NSF INTERNATIONAL OFFICES

NSF has permanent offices located in Beijing. Can you describe 

what this office does and why it is necessary? 

Mr. SURESH. So, Mr. Chairman, before you came here, we had a 

lively conversation about international engagement and growing 

competition and so forth. NSF, as you know, has three overseas offices, one in Tokyo, one in Beijing, and one in Paris. We also have 

operations in Antarctica where we use Christchurch, New Zealand 

as a focal point if not an official office for our Antarctic program. 

As we discussed earlier here, the U.S. has been the unquestioned 

destination for decades, for nearly a century for scientists and engineers to come from all over the world. And I am a living example 

of that population. 

We have also been the generators of ideas, innovative ideas. We 

have been a very open society not just in science but as a society. 

And as a result, it has benefitted what we do enormously and it 

has benefitted the scientific enterprise around the world. 

Now, as other countries grow, other countries invest a lot of 

money and it is very important that agencies like NSF not only 

find out what our competition is, not only try to understand how 

we ensure that we remain at the very cutting edge of it, but equally important, we make sure that we give our scientists and engineers and our students an opportunity to any technologies that 

may evolve over there. 

So one of the purposes of the Beijing office would be to, A, find 

out what goes on in China in science and engineering education 

and research—— 

Mr. WOLF. And do they give you a weekly or a daily or monthly 

report? 

Mr. SURESH. There is a monthly report that comes to our international office. 

Mr. WOLF. How many people are in Beijing? 

Mr. SURESH. I think it is an office with just one or two and they 

interface with the State Department. 

Mr. WOLF. Are they located in the embassy? 

Mr. SURESH. I do not think so. I will be visiting them later this 

year. I have not visited them. 

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. WOLF. Let me ask you this. How many cyber attacks have 

there been against NSF? 

Mr. SURESH. Recently there was one last fall, but, you know, we 

take the cyber attacks very, very seriously. And, in fact, in the 

2012 budget request, we have $155 million for cybersecurity research which is a 20 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level. 

And this is something that is a major part of the emphasis for us. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

Mr. WOLF. Last month, your Inspector General testified that a 

significant cybersecurity incident recently occurred at NSF and the 

computers involved had been wiped clean before investigators from 

the IG’s office had an opportunity to examine them. 

Have you made changes to your security breach procedures to ensure these circumstances do not repeat? 

Mr. SURESH. Yes. We have increased firewalls. We have increased cybersecurity software and also made the system much 

more secure following that attack. 

In addition to that, we have a fairly high-level committee that 

has been set up since that time at NSF looking into all of our practices and interfacing with the different parts of NSF. 

Mr. WOLF. Following on that, portable IT devices like BlackBerries and laptops are common targets of foreign intelligence services in countries like China where NSF employees travel frequently 

on official business. I was concerned to hear that NSF has no formal policy on protection of IT devices during official travel. 

Mr. SURESH. Actually, we now have. We have a policy. 

Mr. WOLF. As of when? Monday, or as of when? 

Mr. SURESH. No, no. As of about a month and a half ago. 

Mr. WOLF. What is the policy with regard to BlackBerries and 

laptops taken to China? 

Mr. SURESH. So initially they have to go through a check at NSF. 

It goes through our cybersecurity folks first to make sure that appropriate filters are put in for these devices. 

Mr. WOLF. But they tell me that you can never really take a 

BlackBerry or a computer to China and have it clean. 

Mr. SURESH. I am not familiar with that, but my understanding 

is that this is very much on the radar screen of our IT folks. And 

we have this committee that is looking into ensuring that there is 

no proprietary or sensitive information from NSF or any information from NSF that is compromised when people travel overseas 

anywhere including in China. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, say by Monday, maybe you can have somebody 

come up to sit down with the staff to tell us specifically what you 

are doing about BlackBerries and laptops going to any single country, and how you clean them. Many of the security agencies are 

giving new ones to take over there and then they turn them back 

in when they get back. 

Mr. SURESH. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. If they compromise your BlackBerry or laptop, they 

can come through to your computer. So if somebody can come up 

next week and sit down with the staff to let us know what you are 

doing and how quickly. Not just for travel to China, but—— 

Mr. SURESH. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. To Syria, and to any country so we have 

some sense. 

Mr. SURESH. I will be very happy to do that, have somebody meet 

with your staff and update them on—— 

NSF SPACE LEASE

Mr. WOLF. I am going to go to Mr. Serrano in a minute. But the 

lease for your current headquarters expires in 2013. GSA has already begun looking at replacement options. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

Is remaining in your current facility still a possibility? What 

would need to be done to those buildings in order to make them 

consistent with GSA requirements and NSF’s ongoing space needs? 

And I can recall Senator Robb, Chuck Robb, moved NSF to Virginia. NSF fought it tooth and nail. They wanted to be downtown 

close to the White House. Now they seem to be happy. At least Mr. 

Bement said they were happy. 

Many employees have moved there now. They live around there. 

And I do not want to see you guys pick up and head off to Timbuktu when people have bought homes and made an impact. 

So what needs to be done to these buildings? Where are you 

going to go, and what are you doing with regard to office space? 

Mr. SURESH. So, you know, this as a former renter, I know that 

there is never a good time for the lease to come up for renewal. 

And as you mentioned, our lease is coming up for renewal in 2013. 

The process to address what happens in 2013 started in 2009 

and in consultation with GSA. And based on these discussions over 

the past two years or so, nearly two years, GSA has determined 

that there is sufficient competition for a new site and also sufficient opportunities for infrastructure and access to critical infrastructure for NSF in the northern Virginia area. Of course, this is 

subject to Congressional approval and this is a discussion that they 

have been having. 

With respect to your question—— 

Mr. WOLF. Just for the record, that is not my congressional district. I just want the record to—— 

Mr. SURESH. No. I—— 

Mr. WOLF. It is Congressman Jim Moran’s district. 

Mr. SURESH. Yes. So that is what GSA has determined over the 

last year or so. With respect to the existing building, the existing 

building could be one possibility. But NSF moved into the existing 

building in 1993. And NSF’s operations have grown significantly 

since 1993, so there are critical infrastructure improvements from 

transformers to elevators to panel rooms to IT infrastructure to cybersecurity and so forth that need to be done in the existing building should NSF or should GSA and Congress decide that we stay 

in the current location. And that will require significant improvements to the current location. That is also one of the possibilities. 

We do not know how this will evolve over the next few months or 

so. 

Mr. WOLF. The GSA prospectus for the project establishes location criteria for any potential future NSF headquarters. What are 

the criteria, and how does the application of those criteria limit the 

geographic area in which GSA can look? 

Mr. SURESH. The criteria, you know, broadly would be a variety 

of them that include access to critical infrastructure, access to 

places like hotels and things like this because last year, we engaged something on the order of 290,000 referees in the communities. Not all of them came. About 19,000 people or so came into 

the NSF area. We also hold meetings. 

And so the criteria are still evolving. They are not finalized, but 

broadly there are criteria. So I can tell you that the infrastructure 

that I mentioned, airports, Metrorail, interstate trains, easy to 

reach from different airports, that is one criterion. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

Last year, as I mentioned, we had 20,000 merit review panelists 

who visited the NSF site or nearby hotels. So access to that is very 

important. 

Specific criterion would be that hotel accommodations deliver a 

minimum of 1,500 room nights per week. And so—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. SURESH. [continuing]. Hotel infrastructure has to be—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I would ask you to stay in touch with the committee and also Congressman Moran, Senator Mark Warner and 

Senator Webb on this issues. 

You know, it is interesting. We had to offer an amendment to 

beat NSF back. They fought to stay on Constitution Avenue. There 

is no rail on Constitution Avenue. There are no restaurants on 

Constitution Avenue. There are no hotels or motels on Constitution 

Avenue. And you all fought to stay there. 

So I want you to be faithful to the criteria and I would ask that 

you keep Mr. Moran informed. Because what I am afraid of is there 

is going to be somebody in the middle of the night try to move this 

agency somewhere, and your employees are going to be left high 

and dry. They have got mortgages on their house. They have investments that they have made. They have moved their families. 

Their kids are invested. 

And, again, the record must show NSF is not in my congressional 

district and never will be in my congressional district. 

But you start doing this, and you hurt people. So I am going to 

ask you to keep the committee informed and keep Mr. Moran and 

Mr. Warner and Mr. Webb also informed. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. WOLF. Excuse me. 

Mr. FATTAH. It is definitely not in my congressional district. But 

let me just say that on behalf of this side of the team, I am fully 

in support of what the chairman is saying. I believe that the stability of the employee base is critically important. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I think that NSF and GSA should figure out 

what the requirements are that they need. But I am not opposed 

to using the appropriations bill to help them focus in a way that 

will not have them wasting their energy looking for places to go 

other than in the general vicinity in which they are in. 

Mr. WOLF. I appreciate Mr. Fattah’s comment. That is what we 

went through the last time. Actually, Dr. Bement used to live in 

Maryland and moved over, if some may recall. I have talked to 

some of the employees. They said they have made these investments, and now they are hearing word that there may be this effort to move. 

I have never tried to take any federal agency and put it in my 

congressional district. And this is not in my district. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am willing to support language, prohibitions or 

other language that could be instructive in this matter. 

Mr. WOLF. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SURESH. If I could just add to your comments. One of the 

things I have done since joining NSF about nearly five months ago 

was to meet with each and every office and directorate at NSF in 

my first two months. And that has been extremely beneficial to me 

not only for the scientific work that NSF does or the education 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

work that NSF does, it also gave me an opportunity to feel the 

pulse of the staff. 

And I am very much committed to making sure that the staff are 

very happy. And we would not want to do anything that significantly disrupts their lives and is a blow to their morale. 

Mr. WOLF. Where do you live? 

Mr. SURESH. I live in Washington. I recently moved here and— 

Mr. WOLF. Buy or rent? 

Mr. SURESH. Mine is a six-year appointment, so it was too long 

a time to rent. Even though it was too short a time probably to 

buy, I decided to buy it. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano. 

ARECIBO OBSERVATORY

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

One of my subjects of interest, Doctor, is the Arecibo Observatory 

in Puerto Rico. Now, it serves the purpose that it does scientifically 

and otherwise. It is also very symbolic for the Federal Government 

and NSF and NASA to have chosen one of the territories for such 

an important project so long ago. 

And so you can see that by my comments that we both pay attention to the significance of it in terms of what it accomplishes and 

what it has accomplished and why it is needed and also the importance of having it in a territory and how the people feel about that. 

So for a while, it looked like it was going to close down. Now it 

seems like that is not the case. New reports came out about the 

near earth objects. I am always amazed by that comment. That is 

kind of a scary comment, you know. I think we have some near 

earth people in here, but objects are something of great interest to 

me. 

So what is the status? I mean, is it going to close down? Is it 

going to stay open? Have you rediscovered an importance for the 

Arecibo Observatory? 

Mr. SURESH. So the facility in Puerto Rico—— 

Mr. SERRANO. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, NSF is not in 

my district. But as a disclaimer, Puerto Rico is the territory where 

I was born, although I represent the Bronx, just for the record. 

Mr. SURESH. Mr. Serrano—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Is there a record of your birth? 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I know for sure I cannot be President. 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you, Mr. Serrano, for the question. 

I will be happy to answer that just for the record and for full disclosure, I have to say until five months ago, I held a job for an institution whose official mascot is a beaver. And I had a beaver ring 

on my finger until recently. 

The facility in Puerto Rico has multiple benefits. And, in fact, I 

am not an astronomer or astrophysicist, but the facility is the largest single antenna facility in the world. It not only serves in scientific discoveries in the astrophysics arena, it has also been beneficial for educational purposes. 

The decision that was made in 2006 was based on the senior review that was done where it was felt that cost sharing should be 

done from sources outside of NSF because it is also of interest to 

NASA and it is also of interest to not only the Astronomy Division 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate but also the 

Atmospheric and Geospace Division of the Geosciences Directorate 

at NSF. 

And based on that, attempts were made and now we have an ongoing management competition underway with a new five-year cooperative agreement to be awarded in fiscal year 2012. That is the 

current status. And there are still attempts being made to ensure 

in response to the senior review that we will get matching support 

from other sources. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the facility will be $8.7 million. 

Mr. SERRANO. So based on that statement, one would say that an 

immediate plan to close it is not in the works and that, in fact, if 

things go well, we know the observatory will be around at least 

until 2017? 

Mr. SURESH. Well, that is correct. I think it depends on the outcome of this management competition, but we are going through 

the process and a decision will be made in fiscal year 2012. 

Mr. SERRANO. I also appreciate and thank you for being probably 

one of the first folks to come before this committee, I have been on 

this committee for many years and took a hiatus, forced by circumstances, and glad to be back, the first one to mention the educational value of the observatory. So since there are no secrets in 

politics or in public hearings, I am sure there are a lot of folks who 

will be happy at your comments. And I thank you for that. 

Mr. SURESH. If I could just add one comment to that just to put 

some numbers to that, the Angel Ramos Foundation Visitors Center attracts roughly 100,000 visitors per year at the facility. And 

so there is also not only a research component and an education 

component, there is also a public outreach component to excite people about it. 

Mr. SERRANO. It is also featured in a James Bond movie. Did 

they get paid for that? I mean, what happens? I have always wondered when they use a facility like that, do we get paid for it? 

Mr. SURESH. I have to look into that. I am not—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Yeah. And do they get like a piece of the action 

every time it is shown on the James Bond marathon, you know? 

BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN THE STEM WORKFORCE

Mr. SURESH. Maybe that will convince a lot of young people to 

go into science. 

Mr. SERRANO. It does. It does. 

And staying on the issue that Chairman Wolf had brought up, 

I had always heard also that fourth grade is the key. In fact, prior 

to my State Assembly days where I was chairman of the Education 

Committee, I worked for the local school district and there were 

many people who sadly stated that if a child was not into school 

in terms of feeling good about going to school every day by the 

fourth grade that it was a serious problem. And it seems like it is 

so early. But by the fourth grade, if that child was not feeling good 

about going to school and learning and being excited by teachers 

and parents and the community that that child could be lost as 

early as the fourth grade. 

There has been a lot of talk throughout the years and a lot of 

efforts by your folks to invite more African Americans and Latinos 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

into the math and science fields. And I know you have done a lot 

of work with that. 

What is the ongoing issue there, and is there an interest first by 

government to invite those folks into the field and, secondly, is 

there a response from the communities? 

Mr. SURESH. So there are a number of programs that NSF has 

under the broad category of broadening participation. And one of 

the critical things that we are going to face as a country will be 

the workforce issue for the future. We address one aspect of it. 

And as I see it, there are three critical components to that workforce issue. The first component is going to be the representation 

of women in the future science and engineering workforce of this 

country. So that is about 50 percent of the population. They represent 40 percent in terms of early career scientists and engineers, 

but then from that point until a few years later, their representation in the workforce drops to about 26 percent. 2006 is the most 

recent year for which we have the data. Until we fix that, I think 

that component of the workforce is going to remain a problem. 

I want to come back to the Hispanics and underrepresented minority issue, but I want to contrast that with the data that we have 

for women scientists and engineers. 

In 2009, 72 percent of high school valedictorians in American 

high schools were girls, 72 percent, and that fraction is increasing. 

In 2009, 20 percent more women graduated from college than 

men did and that difference is increasing. 

In the last ten years in the U.S., we have seen a 10 percent increase in the number of Ph.D.s given in science and engineering 

across all fields. That entire 10 percent increase was due to women 

getting Ph.D.s in science and engineering. They represent about 40 

percent now. 

So all of this is very good news. So the good news is that women 

are increasingly coming into the science and engineering workforce. 

The problem is that they are leaving before their training and their 

expertise and wisdom could be tapped into for the country’s benefit 

and for their careers because of a number of issues, complicating 

issues. One of the key issues is family issues. 

So with respect to that segment of the population, we have excellent news with respect to entry into the science and engineering 

workforce, but not so good news with respect to retention. 

MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS

When we go to African Americans or underrepresented minority 

populations in the country, Hispanics and Native Americans and so 

forth, we significantly lag both in the entry with respect to the representation in the population and also in the retention issue. 

So I can give you some data from the last eleven years. It is not 

just one-year data. In the last eleven years, NSF support for minority-serving institutions has grown at double the rate of NSF support for all the institutions in the country. 

The second data point that I can give is that in the same time 

period of eleven years, in dollar value, NSF support for minorityserving institutions has increased by 200 percent. So we are starting to do the right thing, but there is still a very long way to go. 

There are a number of activities that we can engage to do this. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS

Just last week, I met with the president of Florida International 

University, which is the largest Hispanic-serving institution in the 

country. Two days later I met with the president of Texas A&M 

University, which is the second largest Hispanic-serving institution 

in the country. And they have a 90 percent Hispanic population in 

their community. 

So we talked about ways in which those large institutions, which 

are Hispanic-serving institutions which receive NSF support, can 

engage the local community, the community colleges and what are 

the effective ways in which to do this. In fact, they are organizing 

a major event that will involve 80,000 people at Texas A&M University in September of this year which I will participate in. 

So we are looking at different ways in which we can do this. We 

have $100 million allocated in fiscal year 2012 for community colleges and we can tap segments of those resources to minority-serving institutions and Hispanic-serving institutions. 

We have a new program in the fiscal year 2012 budget for $20 

million called Transforming Broadening Participation through 

STEM Education. And there are opportunities there also to target 

underrepresented minority groups and Hispanic-serving institutions. 

Mr. SERRANO. Do I have time for one more? 

Let me preface my comment by saying that, and I know Mr. 

Fattah shares this feeling with me, we have the utmost respect for 

our chairman. Our chairman is a fiscal conservative, but he is a fiscal conservative with a conscience and heart. 

EFFECTS OF REDUCED STEM INVESTMENTS

There is a movement afoot this year, however, and I suspect for 

a couple of years to cut, cut, cut, cut. Having said that, I have been 

to 21 State of the Union addresses. And as a person from the south 

Bronx representing a poor district, born in Puerto Rico, I look for 

certain things. What is the President going to say about housing, 

social services. 

This time, what stuck with me was not in any of those areas, but 

it is in your area. When President Obama said, yes, we have to balance the budget, we have to do this, but we have to invest in inventing things and creating scientists. And he said we Americans 

are good at inventing things. 

And so without getting you on one of those cable channels tonight being, you know, insulted because you asked for more money 

or something, are we in danger here of taking many steps back if 

in the process of cutting, we do not give agencies like you the opportunity to create the next set of scientists or to create the next 

set of inventions or, you know, not just you but NASA and all those 

places that create? Where is the danger? 

And, again, you are in front of a chairman who is not—you know, 

this man, he knows I mean this, has a great heart and he is truly 

a great American. But there are a couple of guys around here including some on my side who would cut everything to nothing, 

zero. If we keep going with these CRs, the last one we will have 

is zero as our number, you know. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

What are we in danger of because, like I said, I always look for 

all these social issues? This time, the thing that stuck with me is 

he said we have got to invent. We can go back to being the leaders 

in inventing things and creating things. 

Mr. SURESH. Well, thank you. Thank you for asking that question and for the opportunity to address it. 

But before I start with that, I also want to express not only my 

personal appreciation but also the appreciation of the National 

Science Foundation for Chairman Wolf’s strong support of science 

over the years and your commitment to science and STEM education. 

In response to your question, I think one of the things that NSF 

has done right from the beginning, starting with Dr. Vannevar 

Bush’s ‘‘Science, the Endless Frontier’’ report that led to the creation of the National Science Foundation, is to keep a focus on 

basic science as the engine of innovation for the country with a 

long-term focus. 

And one of the things that we are particularly in danger of losing 

sight of in this economic climate is we have severe budget constraints, financial constraints, a nine percent unemployment rate, 

just below nine percent unemployment rate. But NSF investments 

are long-term. 

If we take a short-term view and cut, I think five years from 

now, ten years from now when we address all the current problems, we will not be in a position to address what is needed for the 

country with respect to scientific leadership, with respect to economic leadership, with respect to military leadership. 

I mentioned in my opening remarks that even in the short term, 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative started in 1999. NSF 

played a leading role in not only creating the National Nanotechnology Initiative but supporting it. 

In just ten years, NSF funded nanotechnology centers have led 

to 175 startups involving 1,200 companies in the country. As recently as the mid to late 1990s, NSF supported two young students 

at Stanford whose work, purely mathematical work, led to the creation of Google. 

So it is not just very long term. Sometimes it is very short term. 

In terms of long-term things, we supported GPS in the 1960s and 

the GPS research that NSF funded in the 1960s is now used in 

everybody’s mobile phone for a variety of purposes. 

So I think if we lose sight of the long-term focus as we react to 

the short-term needs of the country, I think it will come back to 

hurt us. So that is very much in resonance with what you said in 

your comments. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your service. 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you Mr. Serrano. 

DEFICIT REDUCTION

I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, then I have a whole lot of questions. But I do want to comment. I appreciate the gentlemen’s comments and your comments, and I agree. I think there is another 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

thing that I feel strongly about that I want to put on the record, 

because silence indicates just total acquiescence in everything. 

There is another group that will be hurt, and it will be the poor. 

The poor will be hurt. It says in Proverbs 19, ‘‘when you give to 

the poor, you give to God.’’ But there is another end to the story, 

and this is for those of you who are writing in the press out there. 

Until we deal with the issue of entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, this will continue. I think the President 

and this administration have been AWOL, they have been absent. 

I agree with Mr. Serrano on the sciences, and I think I had one 

question which we will submit for the record about China. The Chinese government has been increasing scientific R&D investing as 

a fraction of GDP at an annual rate of more than 5 percent, which 

verifies what Mr. Serrano said. While they are starting from a 

smaller base, this level of commitment is enormous and we are cutting. We are really going to have to come together in a bipartisan 

way, and there is just no other way. 

In fact, Mark Warner and Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin have 

put together a group in the Senate that is moving ahead. Some on 

the left are criticizing them for going after entitlements, and some 

on the right are going after them for raising taxes, but they are 

moving ahead. So I really think unless we deal with the fundamental issue of getting control of the entitlements, what Mr. 

Serrano said will be true. So I think I would rather see us get control. I made a speech on the floor of the House saying if the Simpson–Bowles package comes up, while there are some things I would 

attempt to change in the process as we go forward, I would vote 

for it. If Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin—both good people—can 

come together, then I would hope we can, too. 

So we are waiting for the administration, we are waiting for the 

President. Until the President provides that leadership, I think 

both sides up here are going to continue to kind of clash. 

You know, we have 50 million people that are on food stamps 

now. Our food banks are fundamentally empty, and as you go after 

these programs you are really taking food away from poor people. 

There is just no other way about it. Other people can adjust their 

budgets, but you have got to go where the money is. Willie Sutton 

said he robbed banks because that is where the money was, and 

entitlements are where the money is. So I want to see us plus up 

math and science and physics and chemistry and biology, and also 

the food banks and things, but I think we are going to have to 

come to agreement. We are reaching a tipping point, and Moody’s 

said we will lose our triple A bond rating in perhaps 2012. 

Following along on that, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ 

stated that improving the nation’s K through 12 educational system was the highest priority step we could take to improve scientific and technical competitiveness. 

But I said I was going to go to Mr. Fattah. Let me go to Mr. 

Fattah first, and then I will go to this subject. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now let us see, in the 1890s, in the midst of the 

conclusion thereabouts of the Civil War, we invested in land grant 

colleges in this country, Penn State and all of the other great land 

grant colleges. The Morrill Act, it kind of set a benchmark about 

the kind of nation we were going to be. Even in the midst of chalVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

lenges we kind of knew that education and investment in education 

was critically important. 

So yeah, I think that there is a consensus that with innovation 

in scientific research we are going to have to do more than we are 

doing. I agree with the chairman totally that we need a comprehensive resolution on the fiscal front, I am for voting for one. In fact 

there are five different ones, including the present debt commission 

and at different variations of revenue raising and spending cuts. I 

would vote for all of them. I think we need to get this to the side, 

get this resolved, because I actually believe it is a distraction. 

First of all, I do not believe that we are not in a position as a 

country to pay our bills or that we have to be the largest debtor 

nation in the world. You know, there is a report today about billionaires holding trillions of dollars. There was a story last week 

about how a quarter of a million dollars was too little money to secure people to serve on boards of directors as a part-time job in our 

country. 

I mean the notion that we as the world’s wealthiest country cannot pay our bills, it really is defied by the facts. It is just that we 

for, whatever reason, have bought in as a generation that somehow 

we can have this on the cheap, that we can be in two wars, we can 

do all this other stuff and we do not have to pay for it. 

And one of the largest hedge funds decided to remove from its 

portfolio all the U.S. debt, and that was reported this morning, and 

I think as we approach a crisis we will obviously react to it. The 

question is what damage are we doing in the meantime? And especially as we see our competitors. And they are not just economic 

competitors. Some of these other countries are not just economic 

competitors. We have to think about our national security and this 

is—you know, we cannot afford to be short sighted in these matters. 

NEUROSCIENCE

But I want to go back to the point that the chairman was talking 

about, about what age young people—at what point is the concrete 

not yet hardened in which we can still have an impact on them? 

Because this whole area of neuroscience is something that the 

Foundation has spent some time on. It is the area that I have the 

greatest interest in, and I think that we have arrived at a tipping 

point in this whole area of understanding on the cognitive side. I 

mean you have the majority of a child’s brain being developed in 

the third trimester, you have billions of neurons. We know that the 

brain is not being fully utilized, and I think that the Foundation 

has worked in this area. 

First of all it has been extraordinary, but I know that we are 

going to do more working together in this area, because I think 

that this is an area on which we can have a very significant impact, looking at cognitive ability, and it ties into some of the other 

things that the chairman has said. We know that when we have 

people who are nutrition challenged and who are going to at some 

point deliver babies, that the size of the brain will be impacted. 

And you know, the size of the brain has a impact on ability long 

term. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

So I also know that you have done some work looking at soldiers 

on the brain injury side. These are two separate subjects, but obviously they tie together. I think this work, if I am not mistaken, is 

really the largest amount of research looking at brain injury. And 

obviously we had our own colleague who was shot through the 

brain and we are watching her and praying for her full recovery. 

So if you could talk a little about where we are in neuroscience, 

and this is my softball question. I am going to come back with a 

much more challenging one, but I know that you will be able to 

handle it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SURESH. First of all I am delighted to answer that because 

as you know when we met last time this is a topic of a lot of interest to me. The interesting thing about neuroscience is we are at a 

point where we have the opportunity to understand the functioning 

of the human brain from so many different perspectives. From the 

biology perspective, the tissue level, at the cell level, at the molecular level. And NSF-funded work is about to look at all of those 

levels in new and interesting ways. 

You know, we can take a single molecule and we can model it, 

pull it, push it, stretch it, twist it to forces of much, much smaller, 

a thousand times smaller than a nano level force, and those tools 

and technologies have come into existence very recently. This is 

why the National Academy of Engineering at the beginning of this 

century, when they released fourteen grand challenges for the 21st 

Century, one of the grand challenges for the community is reverse 

engineering the human brain. And the unique thing about NSF 

work is that we not only look at the biology of the human brain, 

we also study the psychology and the cognitive aspects of the 

human mind. And the combination of the two is absolutely necessary to address this issue. 

So you mentioned traumatic brain injury. More than a quarter 

of the soldiers returning from the first Iraq war, the second Iraq 

war, and Afghanistan have some symptom of traumatic brain injury, plus we have sports injuries, automobile crashes, and that is 

an area that is a perfect example of a scientific field that brings 

together separated communities. For example, you take the war 

and improvised explosive devices. When there is an improvised explosive device, say some distance from a tank, and the device explodes and the stress wave created from the device hits a human 

head, that is an engineering problem. This is what our Engineering 

Directorate has funded since the 1960s and 1970s, engineers know 

how to do this. Once the stress wave hits the human brain what 

happens to the tissue and cell, that is the biology, and how being 

in that situation in the war zone being exposed to this and experiencing trauma is in the realm of cognition. And NSF is uniquely 

positioned to do this because we have done this for a long time. 

And the U.S. Army Research Office, until recently I was part of 

a research grant that was funded by the U.S. Army Research Office, looked specifically at returning soldiers from our recent wars 

to see how we can put together medical doctors from Walter Reed 

with engineers and with clinicians in various hospitals in the Boston area and with psychologists and psychiatrists so that we can 

come together with the latest tools and technologies. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

So on multiple fronts there is a challenge. In a completely different field there is even exciting opportunity. Computer science 

has progressed to such a point. As you know Watson from IBM won 

the Jeopardy championship not too long ago, and how do you take 

information storage and try to mimic that with respect to human 

cognition and human intelligence? And this is an area of great interest as well. 

So I think these are all areas from multiple angles that we address at NSF with the exception of the medical part of it which 

NIH does. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, if you could—let me make this request formally. I am very interested, and I know the chairman is, in how 

we can make a non-incremental leap forward, and so if you have 

thoughts and if the Foundation can help us think through where 

there may be significant opportunities to penetrate in this area, 

that would be welcomed. 

[The information follows:] 

To make significant, transformative advances in our fundamental understanding 

of the brain we need to explore its many facets, including how the brain develops 

and adapts during the lifespan, how neuroanatomy relates to brain function, and 

how different brain areas and systems interact. However, progress toward realizing 

these advances requires 1) enhanced infrastructure and tools to better understand 

the working of the brain and 2) greater interdisciplinarity and large-scale efforts in 

order to gain a meaningful understanding of the brain within the broader physical 

and social contexts that would have real implications for learning, development, and 

health and recovery. Enhancing these will be necessary for accelerating the advancement of cognitive and developmental neuroscience. 

Current technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 

electroencephalography (EEG), and genomics, have led to transformational discoveries, but remain limited. For example, fMRI provides relatively high spatial resolution of brain structures but is inherently limited in its temporal resolution, which 

is needed to understand how the various brain structures communicate with each 

other. EEG provides high temporal resolution but does not provide detailed information about the location of cortical generators of neural activity. However, EEG has 

the advantage of allowing the subject to move relatively freely and thus can be used 

to explore brain-behavior relations in young infants. For instance, using EEG, NSFfunded researchers have identified patterns of activity in the infant motor cortex 

that are produced when an infant watches a video of someone performing a particular behavior. These results suggest that infants use some of the same brain regions both to perceive actions of others and to perform these actions themselves, a 

possible neurological link for learning new behaviors. The current technologies in 

neuroscience have already led to important scientific discoveries about the brain; 

however, there is much more to explore. 

The limitations in current technologies and approaches are especially relevant to 

brain development studies. This is because some technologies, such as fMRI, require 

the subject to be still; thus it is very difficult to study children and infants. NSF 

has also invested in the development and use of noninvasive pediatric 

magnetoencephalography (MEG). This new technology has the potential to provide 

information about brain function and development with both the high spatial and 

temporal resolution that are needed, even with very young children and infants. Scientists at the Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE) Center at the 

University of Washington, Seattle are using MEG technology to monitor brain 

changes as pre-verbal babies are exposed to language. Intriguingly, it seems that 

more learning and organized brain activity takes place when human teachers are 

in the same room, versus video displays of the same instructors: MEG provides a 

promising new avenue, but currently there are less than a handful of such facilities 

in the United States. Neuroscientists must look further into the future at what remains unexplored, unknown, and undiscovered, and identify the tools that will lead 

to advancements. New analytical and computational methods for visualizing how 

brain activation data interact with behavioral and environmental data will also be 

necessary in this area. Research is also needed to evaluate the neural dynamics and 

connections within normally and abnormally developing brains; to follow patterns 

of plasticity and development; to map out strategies for developmental and eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

cational interventions; and to monitor and assess brain activity remotely, while a 

person actively moves and interacts with the surrounding environment. 

In addition to improved measurement technologies, scientists need access to better data and data infrastructure—including longitudinal data—to better understand 

brain development, learning, and plasticity. While many aspects of brain development are complete by the end of the first few years of life, we have learned that 

important physical aspects of brain development—especially frontal lobe development—continue through adolescence and into adulthood. The frontal lobes have long 

been associated with ‘‘impulse control,’’ something that adolescents exhibit less of 

than older adults. Understanding how the brain continues to develop and adapt beyond adolescence is particularly important for dealing with traumatic brain injury 

(TBI), especially as it affects U.S. war fighters who are in young adulthood. In order 

to understand the brain in more detail, much finer grained analyses are needed, on 

how particular regions of the brain develop, as well as how the connections and 

interactions between these areas emerge over the lifespan. Vast data archives such 

as collections of brain images are needed to fully understand brain functioning and 

links to cognition and behavior. Innovations in data infrastructure for shared access, 

interoperability, and data mining techniques will greatly contribute to developmental and brain science. 

Neuroimaging technology, no matter how advanced, will not be sufficient to understand how the brain functions within the context of our complex, demanding, social world. Brain science must be fundamentally interdisciplinary, integrating 

knowledge, methods and technologies from behavioral and cognitive science, neuroscience, engineering, computer science, mathematics, and physics. The next big 

steps in understanding the brain will require teams of scientists who explore the 

human mind from many different perspectives. Understanding how the brain develops and adapts over the course of a life is particularly complicated because of inherent interactions between physical, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional changes. 

Thus, fundamental research on human cognition, perception, social interaction, development, learning, decision-making, and language is needed to support the goal 

of understanding the brain. Mechanisms such as NSF’s Research Coordination Networks have great potential to bring disparate groups of scientists together as a coherent team to tackle important issues. 

With advanced knowledge and technologies, enhanced data and data infrastructure, and the collective expertise of newly-formed interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers, the U.S. can take advantage of fast-emerging, ground-breaking work in areas such as brain plasticity and brain-computer interface, to make 

significant advances in our understanding of neuroscience and development. 

SCIENTIFIC DATA DISSEMINATION

And finally let me get to my last question for the day. Holding 

two opposing views at once is what I think the president of Morehouse says is what a first-rate mind is all about, so let me pose two 

very different viewpoints to you. 

One is we have this intellectual curiosity and we also have this 

kind of notion in which we have this openness in which not only 

are we doing research, but through NSF this information is then 

made public after eighteen months in most of your grants, is made 

public and is available for the entire world to see. I am a little 

more parochial, at least as it relates to information that is important for our economic prosperity or our national security or cyber 

security. The idea is that as taxpayers we make an investment of 

significant sums, and I believe hopefully many more significant 

sums as we go forward. But how do we reconcile this need to get 

this information, our own national interest in manipulating and 

utilizing the information, with this notion of scientists who want to 

share it freely with the world. 

So I am trying to figure how you reconcile that, and it would be 

helpful for me to hear you respond to that. 

Mr. SURESH. I think you raise a very important issue, in fact aspects of this were very much on my mind, all very much on my 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

mind now in my current job, but also a big part of the things I had 

to do in my previous job. 

You mentioned earlier, when you had the testimony from the 

Patent Office, the critical need to change patent policies and IP 

rights and so forth. I think that is a very critical step. Increasingly 

many universities are filing for intellectual property and having an 

efficient process that enables innovation to go to the marketplace 

through filing for patents. Efficient processing of these patent applications and protections that they provide is very critical. 

But at the same time science on a global scale has always been 

an open entity. And the reason it is open is because we have people 

come up with ideas, it is peer reviewed in the community, and if 

it is accepted for publication it is not immediately accepted until 

somebody else can duplicate it. Increasingly that somebody else 

may not be within the U.S. boundary, it could be a scientist from 

a different part of the world as more and more other countries increasingly invest in science and engineering. 

So given broadening of participation on a global scale into the 

science and engineering research enterprise, I think your question 

puts the finger on how do you keep science as open as possible as 

we have done, which is very good for knowledge creation on a global scale, but how do you keep the boundaries tight? 

So I think there are a number of things we can do. One could 

be addressing the issues of intellectual property processes and 

making them as efficient as possible so that we give scientists the 

opportunity to protect their intellectual property without being secretive about it, so that the scientific process can move on. That 

could be one part of it. 

The other part of it, equally important part, could be that as 

other countries, especially developing countries, start to invest 

more and more in science and engineering, we have been the beacon for science and engineering for so long it is very important that 

we do everything possible to convince our international partners to 

come up with the minimum level of scientific integrity, ethics, and 

openness that is necessary for science and engineering. There are 

things that NSF can and should do to do that. We have done the 

merit review process for the last 60 years and the people around 

the world, my counterparts in Europe and Asia, they feel that the 

NSF system is sort of the gold standard. It is important for us to 

insure that other countries, especially rapidly developing countries, 

develop a level of merit review and set of standards for selecting 

scientific proposals, funding scientific proposals, insuring the integrity of the process—they come up to speed. I think it is very important. 

So we have started some very preliminary conversations with 

counterparts in other countries. So there are many things we can 

do. There is no one particular solution. 

How we deal with issues of cybersecurity is very critical. At the 

same time in the spirit of an open government when we spend taxpayer money, how do we make our research output accessible definitely to all Americans, and most probably to the broader scientific 

community. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

So I think these are all issues that we need to address in tandem 

to make sure that we address the conflicting issues that you raise 

in your question. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, it is going to be a challenge as we go forward, 

and I will not belabor the point. We have another agency under the 

jurisdiction of the committee, which is the International Trade 

Commission, and they spend a lot of time litigating issues around 

IP violations for products coming into the country. The notion before was if you built a mousetrap, I think it was said, you could 

make your home in the woods and the world would make a path 

to your door. The problem now is if you make a better mousetrap 

and put it up online people are going to make it before you can 

make it, and make money off of it. 

And so we are in an economic battle. We have national security 

issues. Basis scientific research is at one level of our ammunition 

in this kind of a battle that we are in and we have to think about— 

and I do not know how we reconcile it. I think it is just a very important issue obviously because again science by its nature is not 

science unless you can replicate it, and you have to publish it. And 

so it gets to some very important issues, but we do want to protect 

the public’s investment, and American taxpayers are investing to 

make sure that America wins and we have to figure how, under 

these circumstances, we go forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. I have a number of questions, 

but I do want to follow up. 

USE OF HYPERBARIC TECHNOLOGIES

I would appreciate it if you could have your staff put together 

within a week any information you have on hyperbaric treatments. 

I went to a conference a while back with regard to hyperbaric 

treatments for returning vets. Some doctors I have talked to about 

hyperbaric treatments for a brain injury are not even sure what I 

am talking about. I think it is kind of a voodoo, others say it has 

been so successful. So if you could give us the information. I am 

not asking you to go out and do new research, but perhaps everything you have with regard to hyperbaric applications on brain injuries, on multiple sclerosis, on all the different treatments. Just so 

we can process it. 

[The information follows:] 

NSF reviewed its awards made over the past 25 years and identified only one that 

merits attention to the Chairman’s direct question. This three-year award totaling 

$418,000 was made in 1999 to the University of Southern California to ‘‘increase 

understanding of the basic mechanisms involved in communication between nerve 

cells in the brain.’’ A link to the award data and abstract follows: http://nsf.gov/ 

awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber-9818422 

PROTECTING SCIENTIFIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Secondly, if you would work with the committee to do what Mr. 

Fattah asked. You really cannot be Pollyannish about the whole 

thing. You could not trust Hitler, you could not trust Stalin, you 

could not trust Mao, and you cannot trust Hu Jintao. It is just a 

fact. The Chinese are going to take this information. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

So if you have some ideas within two weeks, send up information 

that sort of follows along the lines of your exchange with Mr. 

Fattah. Then we can begin to look at the PTO and changes. Maybe 

it will be Mr. Fattah and I fighting off the Republicans on the floor, 

but on this issue I think we are together. I want to create jobs and 

protect the national security. 

I had a person come to my office the other day showing me once 

Permanent Normal Trade Relations passed to China, the trade imbalance just collapsed, the job loss collapsed. There is a picture of 

me with Bill Clinton speaking at a joint session opposing giving 

Most Favored Nation Status to China. I got up and applauded, and 

my Republican colleagues are looking at me like I am crazy. Then 

the President flipped, and now China is stealing from us. 

So if you can give us some ideas before we mark up the bill along 

the lines of what Mr. Fattah said, I would appreciate it, because 

I completely agree with him. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 66828B.010
186 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 66828B.011
187 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 66828B.012
188 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 66828B.013
189 

SUPPORT FOR K–12 STEM EDUCATION

I am going to go about maybe ten minutes, and then we will go 

to Mr. Culberson. We have a series we have to cover here. ‘‘Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm’’ stated that improving the nation’s K 

through 12 educational systems was the highest priority step we 

could take to improve our scientific and technical competitiveness. 

Your budget request, however, de-emphasizes the development of K 

through 12 capabilities. In fact, the budget proposes to decrease K 

through 12 programs by 15 percent from 2010. Do you believe that 

a request at this level reflects a significant focus on K through 12 

STEM education as envisioned by ‘‘Gathering Storm’’? Why are you 

making cuts in virtually every one of the K through 12 programs? 

Mr. SURESH. Well, let me offer a couple of points related to that. 

Increasingly NSF’s participation in education activities, especially 

STEM activities, are not just confined to EHR. They are part and 

parcel of every part of every directorate, every office across NSF, 

including K through 12. 

For example, the Directorate for Engineering funds a program 

called UTeachEngineering in Texas, and that program has been 

very successful for K through 12 students in exciting them about 

the opportunities in engineering at a very early stage. There is the 

GEO Teach program that does similar things in our Directorate for 

Geosciences. So there are various activities that we can engage in. 

A number of directorates participate in activities beyond it. 

So the budget numbers just for one or two directorates do not 

necessarily mean that our commitment to K through 12—— 

Mr. WOLF. But the budget is the budget, and it proposes to decrease K through 12 programs by 15 percent from the 2010 level. 

Mr. SURESH. So one of the things we are looking at is the following: There are three new programs that are going to be put in 

place for this year. We have a new program, Teacher Learning for 

the Future, and what it tries to do is to take the best practices for 

some of the programs like GK–12, programs like Math and Science 

Partnership program and also the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program and so forth, bring them together in a much more cohesive 

way so that we can look at what new opportunities we can provide 

in concert with other offices and directorates across NSF. 

So the numbers just in those program buckets may not fully reflect—— 

Mr. WOLF. They do not look good. They do not look good. 

Mr. SURESH. No, but this does not indicate any wavering commitment on our part for K through 12. 

Mr. WOLF. Someone once said ‘‘if you really want to find what 

a person is committed to, look at their checkbook.’’ Words can be 

one thing, but who they write their check to and what they are 

spending money on are something else. 

I want you to develop it a little bit more. The President’s Council 

of Advisors on Science and Technology released a report last year 

on K through 12 STEM education. One of its finding was that the 

NSF K through 12 portfolio is not optimally balanced between programs that support basic education research and those that support the development and implementation of scalable practical education solutions. How do you respond to that criticism? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

NSF AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COLLABORATION

Mr. SURESH. So as you know the PCAST report also referred to 

ways in which NSF and the Department of Education can work together better. 

Mr. WOLF. That was the next question. 

Mr. SURESH. Yeah. And also with other agencies. 

So the first thing I have done is I am co-chairing an NSTC committee on STEM education along with the OSTP deputy director. 

And this committee met last week and we are looking into ways 

in which NSF can play a critical role in STEM education. In fact 

we will be looking at ways in which we can respond to the PCAST 

report and also to the America COMPETES Authorization Act language. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, they recommend the creation of an advanced 

education research agency to be headed either by NSF or the Department of Education. Is that something that you are looking at? 

Do you support that recommendation? 

Mr. SURESH. We will work very closely with them when it is approved and comes into existence. There are a number of activities 

that we are already engaged in with the Department of Education 

that will position us very well for this new activity. 

For example, I mentioned the NSTC subcommittee that was just 

set up. 

Mr. WOLF. But do you support that recommendation? 

Mr. SURESH. I think anything we can do to work with other 

agencies—— 

Mr. WOLF. Pretty good, you can duck these issues sometimes. 

The question is, do you support it? It’s ok if you want to think 

about it, but we would like to know if you support that or not. 

Mr. SURESH. I think the spirit of this is very good and I would 

want to make sure that it is supported with the right resources so 

that it can be successful. 

GAO STUDY ON TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. WOLF. Well, of course. How did you fall out in the GAO 

study on teacher training that came out last week about duplications between NSF and others? What are your comments about 

that? Have you read that? 

Mr. SURESH. Yes, and in fact Mr. Bonner asked that question. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if he did for the record, then we won’t. 

Mr. SURESH. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And your comments about it? 

Mr. SURESH. So I have looked at it. In fact there are various programs. NSF has been engaged in this as you know very well for 

the last several decades and we are continually looking at programs that could be duplicative and try to see what we can do to 

improve that. In fact there are a number of realignments of programs within EHR currently, specifically with the objective of looking at what is new and what may be done by somebody else so we 

do not duplicate those things. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, we have to do that. I just lost a little confidence 

in the fact that NSF could not do a basic study on best practices 

on education. Then I hear about studies and meetings, just meeting 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

and meeting and meeting. And what happens? Zero. Two years go 

by. 

You are a good witness, and you explain what you are doing, but 

we want to see more action because this nation is slipping. What 

are we in math now? Where do we fall in math? What number are 

we in math for the world? 

Mr. SURESH. I think it depends on fourth grade level or eighth 

grade level, and by some studies we are number twenty and some 

studies among developed countries—— 

Mr. WOLF. So what do we do to deal with that issue? And what 

best practice was working in Philadelphia, was working in Richmond, or working in some other place? The teachers are over 

worked and they cannot gather all that information. That is your 

job. So the fact that it took two years and we are still in the process of finding the answer is troubling. You are new, so I do not 

think you should feel too defensive about it because you have only 

been on there for four months. But we want to see, not just the verbiage and the rhetoric, but the actual reality of what is going to 

be done. 

Mr. SURESH. So I very much not only appreciate your question, 

but also your commitment to this topic. So as I mentioned earlier—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, we are getting ready to go into decline. The nation is ready. 

Mr. SURESH. Absolutely, if you are not careful. 

Mr. WOLF. The 20th Century was the American century, and we 

want the 21st Century to be the American century, not the Chinese 

century. That is what we are dealing with, and time is critical. 

AWARD OVERSIGHT

NSF is increasing the number of grants it makes each year without making corresponding increases in the programs responsible for 

monitoring grantee compliance. This has caused reductions in basic 

oversight activities like site visits and increases the likelihood that 

grantee waste, fraud, or abuse will go undetected. 

This year’s budget request again proposed an increase of more 

than 2,000 research grants, but with no apparent increase for 

award oversight. How will you ensure that each of these new 

grants receives the appropriate level of monitoring and scrutiny 

with a static grants management budget? 

Mr. SURESH. So one of the reasons for the decrease in last year 

with respect to site visits was when NSF received $3 billion in the 

stimulus package funding without any increase in staff, it really 

strained the system, and now that we are moving away from the 

impact of the stimulus funding it is our intention in every way to 

make sure that this oversight is maintained. 

The second thing that I have already launched a pilot program 

for this coming year, where we will look at employing new technology so that site visits can be done using a variety of ways while 

insuring confidentiality of the process. 

For example, we do not necessarily have to fly across the country 

for a site visit, and there are ways of engaging technology that we 

could do much more than we have done on the past. 

Mr. WOLF. Teleconferencing. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

Mr. SURESH. Videoconferencing, but engaging multiple communities. And so we are launching several pilot projects this year for 

different types of reviews, and our hope is that it will not only lead 

to better efficiency internally for NSF, it will also lead to engaging 

the best referees from the community. 

Mr. WOLF. Are there some grants that you have looked at afterward and you say, ‘‘wow, that was a waste of money. Boy, we really 

got taken.’’ 

Mr. SURESH. Well, actually without spending a lot of money we 

can do a lot more. For example, we have a Cisco system on loan 

that we are going to try and see how it works before we spend any 

tax dollars to buy it or acquire it. There are other things we can 

do, and hopefully in the future NSF will have the latest technology. 

Mr. WOLF. Are there some grants that your staff has come in and 

said, ‘‘Doctor, look at this. We put all this money out and we got 

garbage back,’’ and you say, ‘‘oh my goodness gracious.’’ Are there 

many like that? 

Mr. SURESH. Fortunately because of the merit process we do not 

have that, but if by human error or some other factor if we have 

one of these we have mechanisms in place for periodic review. So 

even a five-year grant is not given without any conditions attached 

to it. 

Mr. WOLF. How many have you pulled back? 

Mr. SURESH. I do not have the exact number, but I can get that 

to you. 

MECHANISMS OF AWARD OVERSIGHT

Mr. WOLF. If you would. What kind of evaluations do you conduct 

on the work of your grantees to ensure that they are not just executing the grants in compliance with financial terms and conditions 

but also achieving probably the most important thing—significant 

program outcomes? 

Mr. SURESH. So we have annual grantee conferences in most of 

the areas where they not only report to the program officer or program director, they report to the peer community. In fact these 

grantee conferences are tracked, hundreds, in some cases many 

hundreds of scientists, so a scientist has to stand up and defend 

their NSF funded work in front of other scientists, and if the quality of the science is not good enough they will get shot down in 

public. So that is one mechanism. The other mechanism is peer reviews. The other mechanism is site visits, reverse site visits. 

So we have a number of mechanisms in place. An annual reporting requirement and so forth. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think they have all been successful? Are you 

about where you think you should be? 

Mr. SURESH. Well, if they are not successful, if they are not 

meeting a particular goal, they will be terminated. 

Mr. WOLF. So you are going to give a list of who has been terminated and under what conditions? 

Mr. SURESH. I will get that data for you. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 66828B.014
194 

ICEBREAKING SERVICES

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The 2012 budget discontinues the annual 

transfer of funds from the NSF to the Coast Guard for the operation of Coast Guard icebreakers. While this does relieve pressure 

on the NSF budget, the DHS Inspector General has suggested that 

the Coast Guard may be less willing to task its ships for NSF use 

if NSF is not holding the purse strings. Are you concerned about 

this? 

Mr. SURESH. So obviously the Polar program is a very important 

part of NSF’s activities, so we have three Coast Guard ships, icebreakers that we have had access to. Healy in the Arctic Ocean, 

and then we had Polar Sea and Polar Star in the Antarctic sites. 

Now as you may know one of the two has been retired, decommissioned, and the other one needs refurbishment before too long. 

So what we have done is we have engaged the Swedish icebreaker Oden to make up for any gaps that may arise. We are continuously working with the Coast Guard on this, and also if necessary we will renegotiate a continuing agreement with our Swedish counterparts for the Oden while we are looking into the longterm implications of this. 

Fortunately the lack of availability of either Polar Sea or Polar 

Star has not had any detrimental effect on our Antarctic operations. 

Mr. WOLF. But if you are not paying for it—— 

Mr. SURESH. No, we will reimburse the Coast Guard for costs involved, and we have been in continuous conversation with the 

Coast Guard on our needs and their requirements as well. So far 

it has not been an issue. The director of our Office of Polar Programs, Karl Erb has been in constant touch with them. In fact just 

last month he was in Sweden to discuss this, he has been in touch 

with the Coast Guard, and this is something we will continuously 

monitor. 

Mr. WOLF. So basically the U.S. domestic icebreaking capabilities 

are in decline. If we cannot break ice with our ships, that is decline. Now we have to rent a ship or lease it. We love Sweden, for 

the record. They are wonderful people. But we have to rent from 

Sweden? We are a maritime nation, look at the map. Yet we have 

to rent it out from Sweden? Just for the record, we are not blaming 

you. Is that what we do? Are we renting this out from Sweden? 

Mr. SURESH. So this is only a temporary measure, this is not the 

long-term solution to this issue. So we are looking at what needs 

to be done to refurbish—— 

Mr. WOLF. How long will that take? 

Mr. SURESH. They are continuing to look at our needs. Probably 

within a year we will have an idea. 

Mr. WOLF. An idea. So we will be using the Swedes for how long, 

honestly? You are not under oath. 

Mr. SURESH. My estimation is that for the coming year we will 

be relying on the Swedish. 

Mr. WOLF. So next year you will not need Sweden? 

Mr. SURESH. We do not know that yet, but this is what is being 

accessed right with respect to the refurbishment of one of the Polar 

icebreakers. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

Mr. WOLF. I think that goes into what we were talking about. I 

mean, I think it is a—— 

Mr. SURESH. So we also commissioned another vessel for which 

the keel laying ceremony will be held in April, but that is a shallow 

depth icebreaker, so it can go only up to three feet or so, not the 

twenty feet or so that we need, so that is more of a research vessel 

than the icebreaker capability for the Antarctica. 

NSF TRAVEL FUNDS

Mr. WOLF. Okay, we have a number of questions on the icebreaker that we are going to ask you for the record. I have a few 

more on contracting, then we will go to Mr. Culberson. 

NSF funds travel, meetings and incidental expenses for thousands of technical experts each year. Can you tell us your travel 

budget for the last three or four years, and then based on the new 

technology that you were talking about, teleconferencing and 

videoconferencing, what you think it will be in 2012? If you can 

show us trends in 2009 this was it, 2010 this was it, 2011. Now 

in 2012 we are doing these dramatic things, teleconferencing, video 

conferencing. What do you think the budget will be so we can actually see that there is an honest savings. 

And with that, can you provide how many trips were taken both 

by NSF people and contract people in 2009–2012 so we can see 

again if there has been an honest drop or there has not. 

Mr. SURESH. We will get that information to you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 66828B.015
197 

NSF CONTRACTING

Mr. WOLF. GAO has questioned whether NSF is overly reliant on 

cost reimbursement contracts, which are risky and costly to administer, and suggested that NSF could transition some of its current 

contracts to firmer pricing terms. Do you agree that NSF could conduct more contract work under fixed price vehicles? 

Mr. SURESH. Obviously the fixed price gives us upfront knowledge of what the commitments are. As you know NSF instituted a 

no cost overrun policy three years ago for all of our major research 

equipment and facilities contracts, but the nature of the work for 

different projects is so very different. Sometimes design changes 

need to be made during the process for scientific and technical reasons and that has led to some adjustments that are being made. 

I am aware of this issue and in fact we have started an internal 

conversation on how we can address this, keeping in mind that we 

want the best technology and the best capability to emerge within 

the confines of our constraints and our policies. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I am going to Mr. Fattah to see if he has any 

last questions. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am good. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, fine. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson. 

K–12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT, CONTINUED

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for 

running so far behind, I have got everything happening all at the 

same time here this morning. 

We are all, as the chairman and I know Mr. Fattah has told you, 

committed to support the NSF and your role is so critical in preserving our leadership as a nation in years to come, you are as an 

important strategic investment as we have, and Chairman Wolf is 

exactly right about the importance particularly of science and engineering education. 

You really do not have to go very far Mr. Chairman or Mr. 

Fattah, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Math is 

about eight miles away from your headquarters. You all are in 

downtown Arlington, right? Everyone, every study, every analysis 

that I have seen done of public high schools in America uniformly 

ranks the Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Math number 

one in the nation. There is your best practice model. 

And I have to tell you I am really disappointed and profoundly 

disturbed that you were floundering around trying to answer the 

chairman’s very simple question of where is best practice and how 

do you find it. It is eight miles away. I do not understand, I mean 

there it is. 

Mr. SURESH. Well, we will include all the right models in the report that we will give you and the community, including best practices from anywhere. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you been out there? 

Mr. SURESH. I met with the principal of Thomas Jefferson 

School. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, meeting with them is one thing. You 

know, we are devoted to you guys. I have to tell you that your testimony and the report of the Inspector General kind of alarms me. 

We’re concerned about making sure that the NSF—that you almost 

have to be like Caesar’s wife—and the responsibilities that you 

have to insure that, as Mr. Fattah and the chairman quite correctly 

point out, that you are protecting the vitally important national security information for economic reasons and for the nation’s security. I am confident the chairman asked you before I came in about 

Chinese nationals. 

Mr. SURESH. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I hope you are going to respond promptly and 

thoroughly to his request, because that is really, really disturbing. 

The report I have you, Mr. Chairman, that General Mattis prepared, pointed out that there are more People’s Liberation Army 

graduate students in U.S. graduate schools than I think from any 

other nation. That is a real concern, and to the extent that we 

want to make sure NSF is protecting vital information from the 

Chinese, but obviously, in your response to the chairman’s questions, you are not focused on STEM education, you are creating all 

kinds of new programs and initiatives in your testimony, but dropping a couple. You are on page seven recommending terminating 

or reducing the graduate STEM fellows and the national STEM 

distributing learning program. 

I recall a couple years ago that there was a bill that President 

Bush pushed that I think actually passed in some form that I remember it. When it came through, Mr. Chairman, several years 

ago, I see some heads nodding. The bill transferred responsibility 

for STEM education from NSF to the Department of Education. 

Does anybody remember that? Wasn’t there some statutory change 

that shifted this responsibility? 

Well, who has primary responsibility for developing, establishing, 

and identifying a best practice, which is clearly Thomas Jefferson 

High School, you do not need to go but eight miles down the road. 

I cannot get my Wi-Fi to work or I would have given you an exact 

number and map. Who has primary responsibility? Is it NSF or the 

Department of Education for identifying best practices for science, 

technology, and engineering programs in our public schools? Is it 

you or the Department of Education? It should be you I would 

think. 

Mr. SURESH. We do research into models and we develop models 

and test them and validate them, but the implementation, especially a large scale implementation of this, the Department of Education does of course, we interact with them. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, they are the ones that can roll it out, but 

I have to tell you it really shakes me up that you could not answer 

the chairman’s question about what is the best practices or model 

and it is eight miles down the road at Thomas Jefferson High 

School. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for one second. I agree 

with your passion on the point, but the earlier time when it was 

answered in full was that what they had done with the chairman’s 

request is to take it very serious and they have done an empirical 

scientific based study with control groups and others looking at all 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

the practices and so on so that a full report, and we are going to 

have a roll out. We are going to have a roll out. They have already 

submitted to the chairman the interim report. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. FATTAH. We are going to have a roll out in Philadelphia. I 

am going to get you a cheesesteak. At the Constitution Center we 

are going to have educators come in and hear this. Because what 

the chairman has gotten them to do is going to be historically important to teaching STEM. 

So you know, Thomas Jefferson is a great school, but aberrations 

or anecdotal circumstances are not enough to make a scientific 

judgment on. 

So we are going to have a great report. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In the report that Mr. Fattah is talking about 

you have looked at schools all over the United States and you have 

identified what appear to be the best practices and model programs, and you are going to roll this out as he says at the Constitution Center? 

Mr. FATTAH. In Philadelphia, I’ll get you a cheesesteak. 

Mr. SURESH. So, Mr. Culberson, I thank you for the question. Let 

me repeat some of the aspects. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Forgive me for running late if I missed you earlier. 

Mr. SURESH. No, no, no, no problem at all. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But I was just so disturbed when you could not 

answer Mr. Wolf’s very simple question. 

Mr. SURESH. No, no, I answered it earlier, so I did not want to 

repeat myself. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. Okay. 

Mr. SURESH. So let me reiterate some of the points I made. 

We have set up a National Research Council committee involving 

the best teachers in the country and educators in the country to 

provide us input on various best practices. That is step number 

one. On May 10th and May 11th there will be a symposium, which 

we have invited the chairman to kick off this year. 

The second thing we have done is to engage the Urban Institute, 

one of the centers of the Urban Institute, to pick two states, and 

it may well be Virginia and Thomas Jefferson, but we did not want 

to do it, we wanted an independent organization to do this professionally with all the details, and they will provide input on best 

practices from two states based on input they have received from 

a larger sampling from across the country. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Who is the Urban Institute? 

Mr. SURESH. There is the name of a center call—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Why wouldn’t you do this? 

Mr. SURESH. Because they have been engaged in a number of 

studies related to this in the past and we wanted an independent 

study. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Educrats do not give me a lot of confidence, that 

just is the reason I ask. I do not want to dwell on this, since you 

answered earlier, and you were very gracious. You know we are devoted to you, and I do not want to dwell on it, but you are going 

to give a detailed report to the chairman and the Committee? 

Mr. SURESH. Absolutely. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are going to roll out what you believe are 

the best practices and identify the schools that are really doing it 

right. 

Mr. SURESH. That is correct. And one other point that we discussed was not just a report to this committee, but also on ways 

in which we can roll it out to the community at large so that the 

best practices that are identified are disseminated to the school districts and others in the most efficient way. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, and the Department of Education will be 

responsible for that? 

Mr. SURESH. But we could make it available to them through the 

media that we have. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Well, that is something I really want to 

help the chairman and Mr. Fattah follow up on. We are in an environment where we are facing—it is an age of austerity unlike anything the nation has ever faced and all of us are going to be working hard to protect NSF and firewalling off core functions. We are, 

I think, going to be entering an era where we are going to have 

to retrench as a nation and focus on core missions, and this is 

clearly one of your core missions, to identify and then help disseminate best practices in science and technology and engineering education, because it is just vital. I know the Chairman pointed out 

the Chinese are graduating ten times more engineers than we are. 

I also noticed that the Inspector General’s report pointed out that 

you have had real problems with confirming whether or not grant 

recipients are actually performing and completing the work that 

ensures effective oversight throughout the life cycle of an award. 

You mentioned to the Chairman that you were doing site visits and 

inspections, but the Inspector General says you have actually performed 20 percent fewer site visits than you had originally 

planned, so you are doing fewer site visits. All of us want to be 

sure that you are following the Inspector General’s recommendations. Are you aggressively doing everything you can? 

Mr. SURESH. Absolutely. In fact we are looking at every means 

possible to increase the site visit methods, and one example of that 

is what I mentioned with respect to engaging the latest technology 

to do the site visits. There are other things that we can do with 

respect to frequency of grantee conferences and so forth. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The IG mentioned Second Life which is the—— 

MERIT REVIEW PANEL PILOT PROJECT

Mr. SURESH. Second Life is a virtual site visit process and there 

are a number of ways in which we can do that. We already have 

a pilot project under way to look at what the best practices are. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Does that allow you to see virtually somebody 

pick up this glass of water and look at it and examine it? 

Mr. SURESH. Absolutely. The technology—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is it secure? 

Mr. SURESH. That is why we are doing a pilot program. 

Mr. CULBERSON. To keep anybody else in the cloud from diving 

in from Peking to Beijing, I guess they call it, and looking at what 

you are doing. 

Mr. SURESH. That is exactly why we are doing the pilot project 

to make sure. It is absolutely critical that we insure the confidenVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

tiality of the review process, so we want to make sure that whatever systems we use—just to go a little bit further, just three days 

ago I met with the senior research officers of the AAU, American 

Association of Universities, to talk about ways in which universities can help us with regional hubs so that we can engage reviewers without having them fly into Arlington, Virginia. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. Just make sure it is secure, please. 

Mr. SURESH. Absolutely. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Year before last, I had been using iGoogle’s map 

service. I just temporarily played around with the thing that allowed my staff to see where I was. Then I woke up one morning, 

Mr. Chairman, and my location was in downtown Beijing. It was 

because they had hacked the Google site, and then hacked all of 

the Google accounts. I immediately terminated it. 

I mean the Chairman is right, there is a very aggressive and hostile cyber warfare going on from the Chinese. 

Let me also just wrap up and mention, I am also concerned, Mr. 

Chairman, that you are not spreading yourselves too thin. You received a lot of money from the Stimulus Package, and looks to me 

that you are spreading that pretty thin. 

I mean, you are cancelling a lot of important work that you have 

been doing on education. It looks like you started building a telescope, an Alaska region research vessel, an ocean observation initiative, and an advanced technology solar telescope. All noble efforts, but we are in an area where you are going to have to really 

focus on your core mission. I suspect those are tremendously expensive projects, and you just made a down payment on all of them 

and they are going to go over their life cycle cost by a lot. 

And by the way, Mr. Chairman, and I will just wrap up on this, 

the icebreakers are going to cost upwards of a billion dollars to 

completely rebuild them, won’t they? 

Mr. SURESH. I do not know the exact price of this, but—— 

FOCUSING ON NSF’S MISSION

Mr. CULBERSON. I have looked at it, it is about a billion dollars 

if you were to rebuild those Coast Guard ships, Mr. Chairman, and 

you do not have the money. When Mr. Wolf was Chairman last 

time, this was something I worked on with Frank LoBiondo, to get 

the Coast Guard to transfer responsibility for the icebreakers. 

President Bush has shifted them over to you, and you did not have 

the money. You do not have the money to refurbish those ships, it 

was about a billion dollars. They are finally back in the hands of 

the Coast Guard. They are ancient ships, are in very back shape. 

It may actually be more cost effective at this point to rent, as aggravating as it would be, from the Swedish. You are doing all these 

other new things. 

I just worry, do not get yourself spread too thin. The IG says you 

do not have good safeguards in place to monitor these major investments while you are doing in these big capital construction 

projects. 

There is a lot or worry here, Mr. Chairman, that this is going 

to require a lot of oversight from us. You do not necessarily need 

to get into all this right now, but I think everything I have said 

is essentially accurate, right? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

Mr. SURESH. Well, let me—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. I have not misstated anything have I or misstated anything? 

Mr. SURESH. Let me add a couple of points to that. 

So along with new commitments that have been made, there are 

also things that have been terminated. 

For example, one of the projects that has been terminated is 

DUSEL. The potential cost of DUSEL would have been over a billion dollars over many years. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. SURESH. They were for underground science research. This 

is in high energy and particle physics underground. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, okay. So you cancelled that. I am just concerned, I know the Committee is. I do not want to dwell on it, because I have got to get to my Texas lunch as well, and the Chairman is very gracious to let me come in so late and ask questions, 

but please do not get spread too thin. 

Mr. SURESH. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a real source of concern. 

Mr. SURESH. Right. If I could just add one point to your question 

on the telescopes. The reason for supporting these telescopes, every 

ten years there is a survey that involves the top scientists in the 

country on what needs to be done, and the telescope work is very 

carefully done so that the planning process and the implementation 

process takes about ten years with a lot of community input. So 

this is not an NSF decision to do something, but—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure, I understand. 

Mr. SURESH. And this is to keep the U.S. at the forefront of the 

astrophysics research that no single institution in the country is capable of funding. 

So what you say is absolutely true, we cannot spread ourselves 

too thin, especially at tight financial times, but I want to assure 

you that we will do everything possible to make sure that dollars 

are spent wisely and for the right purposes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. 

ROLL OUT OF K–12 STEM EDUCATION REPORT

Before I end, I want to second what Mr. Culberson said about the 

STEM report conference. Mr. Fattah, I hope we can do it. Maybe 

we can look at the schedule for July and maybe pick a Friday to 

do it. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am going to work it in a way in which we can get 

you in there for the July 4th holiday. So we are going to do it right. 

You can be there for the fireworks and the whole bit and 

cheesesteaks. And we want to bring our colleague from Texas along 

with us. 

Mr. WOLF. Now does Geno’s or Pat’s, have the best cheesesteak 

anyway? 

Mr. FATTAH. There is no doubt, this is a scientific fact, all right, 

quantified, qualified, empirical: Pat’s is the best in Philadelphia. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. That is who I have gone to. I used to play football at that field directly across the street from Pat’s. So I want to 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

pick a time that we can do that, hopefully a Friday, and we can 

tie it in. 

I think what Mr. Culberson has said was accurate. The Urban 

Institute, they are good, but I’m kind of worried that the Department of Education now is going to be involved. And I am worried 

that you are going to have two states, being looked at. Maybe the 

best school is in North Dakota. So rather than looking at two 

states, maybe you should look at the top 50 schools. ‘‘U.S. News 

and World Report’’ publishes the top 50 schools. One may be in 

Pennsylvania, one may be in New York, one might be here. 

So I think he makes a legitimate point. Here we are going to get 

the Urban Institute to have a grant and then they are going to look 

at two states. Maybe they are going to be the wrong two states. I 

think Thomas Jefferson does an incredible job, but maybe they 

should be looking at schools rather than states. 

And lastly, once we bring the Department of Education in, and 

I guess they are going to have to be brought in, but then you got 

a new agency involved. 

I think we should do the rollout in Philadelphia, certainly by the 

end of July so it can at least be processed. Although that will be 

late for the next school year. I think curriculum is set pretty much. 

But it ought to be just whatever is working, wherever it is working. 

That knowledge ought not to be hoarded, it ought to be shared. Ben 

Franklin’s house is two blocks from that center—you could call it 

the Ben Franklin whatever. But I want to do it. And I do not want 

you to do it because we asked you to do it. I do not want to speak 

to your conference, because I do not want to look like I am lobbying 

or you gave me something. I just want you to do it because it is 

good for the country. 

My wife and I have 5 kids, 15 grandkids. I am worried that this 

Nation is getting ready to go into decline. If you find one idea that 

impacts one student at Overbrook and one student at Vienna High 

School and one student in Houston, Texas, it electrifies. So that is 

what we want to do is do. You have got to be working with—what 

is the association of school administrators? They ought to be part 

of it. I think Ed Hatrick is the head of that. When you come out 

with, whatever you are going to come out with, it should be so profound that it really makes the difference. When we look back, this 

could be the one thing that literally gave us the opportunity to 

make America continue. 

So we are going to really make an effort to work it out, but I do 

agree with what Mr. Culberson said. I would feel more comfortable 

if you were doing it without other groups involved, but you should 

do it however you think it is best. 

I worry, too, that is has taken NSF so long that it is almost 

scary. 

And frankly, if it could not be in July—and I want to do it with 

Mr. Fattah—I would rather do it in September or do it so that it 

really has a maximum impact for the following year. I do not know 

when curriculum is established. I have a daughter that is a teacher, but when do they begin in the City of Philadelphia, when do 

they begin looking at the next year? So maybe you should do it in 

September or October. Do not feel rushed. We are going to do it in 

Philadelphia. Do it right. Do not feel like ‘‘we have got to get this 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

thing done in July,’’ because maybe that would rush it and make 

it not so great. One of the greatest Presidents we have ever had, 

Ronald Reagan, said the words in the Constitution adopted in 

Philadelphia in 1787 were a covenant with the rest of the world. 

Maybe this could be another covenant. Mr. Fattah is going to be 

one of the leading deciders, but think about when you can really 

do it and do it well. Take into consideration Mr. Culberson’s comments. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, they have been 

working on this since I was placed on this Committee in 2003. I 

asked for this subcommittee so I could work with Chairman Wolf 

on protecting the National Science Foundation and NASA. 

Mr. FATTAH. I thought you wanted to work with me? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, of course, you too my friend. 

But I mean, this is where I wanted to be, to help with the 

sciences and NASA, and you all have been talking about this and 

NSF has been working on this literally, Mr. Chairman, since 2003. 

This should not be that complicated. You should be ready to go. 

Mr. SURESH. Well, we will get you the best outcome of things. 

Mr. WOLF. And we are not going to hold you to the July deadline. 

Mr. SURESH. I appreciate that. You know the spirit of setting up 

this process to begin with was to do the right thing. 

Mr. WOLF. I understand, I understand, we do not have to go back 

and do that. 

Mr. Fattah do you have any other questions? 

Mr. FATTAH. No, I want to thank you for your testimony, and you 

said you were out at Texas A&M, you met with doctor—is it Garcia? It is a great university and I participated in that program last 

year and I am glad that you are working in Texas. My colleague 

did not hear that, but you are working in Texas. Thank you. Thank 

you for your testimony. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Dr. Suresh, thank you very much. 

Mr. SURESH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Fattah. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 66828B.016
206 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 66828B.017
207 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 66828B.018
208 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 66828B.019
209 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 66828B.020
210 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 66828B.021
211 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 66828B.022
212 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 66828B.023
213 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 66828B.024
214 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 66828B.025
215 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 66828B.026
216 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 66828B.027
217 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 66828B.028
218 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 66828B.029
219 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 66828B.030
220 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 66828B.031
221 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 66828B.032
222 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 66828B.033
223 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 66828B.034
224 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 66828B.035
225 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 66828B.036
226 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 66828B.037
227 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 66828B.038
228 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 66828B.039
229 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 66828B.040
230 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 66828B.041
231 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 66828B.042

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(233) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011. 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

WITNESS 

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. We want to welcome you this morning 

to the hearing on the fiscal year 2012 budget of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy. 

Our witness is Dr. John Holdren, the director of OSTP. 

We appreciate you being here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WOLF AND RANKING MEMBER

FATTAH

The Administration and the Congress are in broad agreement 

about the need for significant investments in science and technology programs next year. 

I think where there are some differences is that many do not 

agree on how the President’s budget distributes the science and 

technology money used for fiscal year 2012. 

I am not sure that the Administration is doing enough to ensure 

that all of the various elements of the science and technology budget are well-coordinated and are formed into a coherent over-arching 

program. 

And I question sometimes whether the Administration takes seriously the threat posed to us by China and our other economic competitors. 

Dr. Holdren, you are here today not only to defend your own 

budget request but also to discuss these larger issues with the Government’s research and development agenda because you have one 

of the most important positions within the Government on these 

science and technology issues. 

But before we get to your testimony and questions, I would like 

to turn it over to Mr. Fattah, the ranking member. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Let me welcome you also, and let me thank the chairman for conducting this very important hearing. 

Needless to say, there is a very, very significant challenge for our 

country in this space. Many years ago we had absolute advantages 

that are now relative advantages over our economic competitors in 

a variety of these areas. Innovation and technology is critically important and our investments in science are important. Larger countries like China are making very significant investments and smaller countries like Singapore and others are making, relative to their 

size, very significant investments in these areas. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

This Administration has done more than any administration or 

actually more than a number of administrations combined in terms 

of investment in science, technology, and innovation. 

The chairman’s efforts and this committee’s efforts in terms of 

the report around the Gathering Storm I think have helped generate more interest here on The Hill around our critical needs. 

And I think that there is a combination of issues that create 

some synergy related to energy independence that also have 

spurred some interest. 

So I am very interested in your testimony and look forward to 

an opportunity to interact. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

You may proceed. Your full statement will appear in the record. 

TESTIMONY OF OSTP DIRECTOR HOLDREN

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah. 

It is certainly a privilege for me to be here today to talk with you 

about the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal for science 

and technology. And I will try to address the broader concerns. I 

am certainly not here just to talk about the OSTP budget request. 

The premise behind this budget is one that, as both of you have 

already stated, is something we really all share and that that is 

that creating the American jobs and industries of the future, creating the quality of life that we all want for our children and their 

children does require investing in the creativity and the capacity 

to innovate of the American people. 

We think that the 2012 budget proposal that the President has 

put forward does that with responsible and targeted investments in 

the foundations of discovery and innovation, that is in research and 

development, in science, technology, engineering, and math education and in 21st century infrastructure. 

And it does that with increases in the highest priority focuses 

being offset by reductions in lower priority ones. It is a budget that 

is aimed at helping us win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building the competition, but doing it in a way consistent with the need to reduce the deficit, to trim budgets overall. 

Now, clearly we need the continued support of the Congress in 

order to get this done. And I stress continued support because the 

strengthening of the national effort in science, technology, and innovation has for a very long time been very much a joint venture 

of the Congress and the Administration. It has been that way over 

the past two years and we certainly hope it will continue to be a 

joint venture. 

As you know, the President’s budget proposes a record $66.8 billion for civilian research and development, but we are committed, 

as I have already suggested, to reducing the deficit even as we 

prime the pump of discovery and innovation. 

We have made in developing the President’s budget strategic decisions to try to focus the resources on those areas where the payoff 

for the American public, for the American taxpayer is likely to be 

highest. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

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

details of the President’s budget proposal. I just want to very briefly highlight a couple of key points for the agencies that are under 

the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

First of all, consistent with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which was passed by Congress, as you know, in December, signed by the President in January, the budget calls for continuing on the doubling trajectory for the National Science Foundation, the DoE Office of Science, and the NIST, that is National Institute of Standards and Technology, laboratories that the President originally committed to in his speech at the National Academies in April of 2009. 

Two of those three agencies that are especially important to the 

future economic leadership of this country are under the jurisdiction of your subcommittee, as you know. 

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 that was called for in the 2010 NASA Authorization 

Act. 

The President’s budget also helps NOAA improve critical weather and climate services, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans 

and coasts, and in ensuring continuity in crucial earth observation 

satellite coverage. 

The 2012 budget also emphasizes STEM education to prepare 

our children to be the skilled workforce of the future. It does that 

in part by providing $100 million as a down payment on a ten-year 

effort to prepare 100,000 new highly effective STEM teachers. That 

is part of a broader Administration commitment to look carefully 

at the effectiveness of all of our STEM programs and find ways to 

improve them. 

And to further that goal, I have established a committee on 

STEM education under the National Science and Technology Council which, as you know, deals with interagency efforts relating to 

science and technology. STEM education is certainly very much an 

interagency effort. 

And that committee, which is being co-chaired by OSTP’s associate director for Science, the Nobel Laureate in physics, Carl 

Wieman, has already begun its work. It began its work in March 

and involves all the federal agencies that are involved in different 

ways in STEM education. 

The budget also includes investments for a wireless innovation 

and infrastructure initiative that will help extend the next generation of wireless, we hope, to 98 percent of the U.S. population. 

Of course, it does, getting to my own office’s budget, request 

under this subcommittee $6.65 million for OSTP operations. That 

is five percent below the 2010 funding level and slightly below the 

2011 funding level. And that is in recognition of the need to share 

the sacrifice and to freeze non-security discretionary spending. 

So let me reiterate in closing the guiding principle that underlies 

this budget and that is that America’s strength, our prosperity, our 

global leadership all depend directly on the investments that we 

are willing to make in R&D and STEM education and in infrastructure. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

Only by sustaining these investments are we going to be able to 

assure future generations of Americans a society and a place in the 

world that is 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. 

Now, I know that staying the course in the current fiscal environment is not going to be easy, but I believe that the President’s 

2012 budget for science and technology provides a blueprint for 

doing that that is both visionary and responsible. 

The support of this committee, which has been the source itself 

of so much visionary and at the same time responsible legislation 

in this domain in the past, is obviously going to be essential if we 

are going to stay on course. 

And I very much look forward to working with all of you, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Members of the committee, in 

working toward that end. 

Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
237 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 466 66828B.043
238 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 467 66828B.044
239 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 468 66828B.045
240 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 469 66828B.046
241 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 470 66828B.047
242 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 471 66828B.048
243 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 472 66828B.049
244 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 473 66828B.050
245 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 474 66828B.051
246 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 475 66828B.052
247 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 476 66828B.053
248 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 477 66828B.054
249 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 478 66828B.055
250 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you. 

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL

I have a number of questions and we will go through the panel. 

But before I do, one, I am committed to doing everything we can 

with regard to funding the sciences. 

Secondly, if you look at the CR, the sciences did very, very well. 

We protected them. 

Thirdly, I am very concerned about the fact that our country is 

beginning to fall behind. I am particularly concerned about China. 

Let me ask you a couple of questions. I reviewed your international travel itineraries for last year and found that you were 

overseas for nearly two full months over a sixteen month period. 

Why is it necessary to be out of the country so often? Can you 

effectively manage the office if you are out of the country that 

much? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all—— 

Mr. WOLF. I have your itinerary, your travel schedule. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, I know. I am going to have to—— 

Mr. WOLF. Fifty-three days, 35 business days. China, Norway, 

Japan, South Korea, China, Denmark, Russia, England, China. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me explain, first of all, that most of those trips 

were in my capacity as the high level representative of the U.S. 

Government in joint commission meetings on science and technology cooperation under agreements that we have with all of those 

countries. 

We have those high level joint commission agreements with 

India, Russia, China, Brazil, South Korea, and Japan. And it is 

my—— 

Mr. WOLF. You were never in Brazil, and you were in China. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have not done Brazil yet. We do have such an 

agreement with China. 

I was also in China for the strategic and economic dialogue at 

the request, the specific request of secretaries Clinton and Geithner 

because of the importance of dialogue with China on innovation to 

get them to roll back their discriminatory and unfair policies with 

respect to procurement, with respect to intellectual property rights, 

and with respect to a number of other issues disadvantageous to 

American business and to our exports. 

So I was on all of these trips basically acting as the President’s 

agent, pursuing the priorities of this country as reflected in important aspects of international cooperation in science, technology, and 

innovation that we believe are in the U.S. interest. 

Mr. WOLF. During that year, your most frequent destination by 

far was China. You took three separate trips covering a total of 

three weeks. 

Can you go into detail of what you were doing there during those 

three weeks? Maybe you just covered some of that. Then if you 

could elaborate in a written statement by the end of this week, I 

would appreciate it—who you met with, what your purpose was, 

where you went, when you left, when you came back? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I would be very happy to do that, sir. 

The meetings were, as I mentioned, some in connection with the 

strategic and economic dialogue, some in connection with the U.S./ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
251 

China dialogue on innovation policy, which is the forum in which 

we have been pursuing with the Chinese and making some considerable progress, I should say, in getting the Chinese to step back 

from the most discriminatory practices that they have put in place 

under the label of indigenous innovation. 

Some of those conversations as well were at the request of the 

State Department in the company of Todd Stern, the U.S. ambassador to the climate change talks, to try to work on the Chinese, 

particularly Minister Xie Zhenhua, to get them to take more reasonable positions in climate negotiations. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, let us look at this. Fifty-three days, 35 business 

days, three trips to China for 21 days. I think this is a little too 

much to be gone from the office, but I will take a look at it when 

you send it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Be happy to provide it. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 483 66828B.056
253 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 484 66828B.057
254 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 485 66828B.058
255 

Mr. WOLF. Did you take your BlackBerry with you? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, I did, with the permission of the security authorities. I did. The BlackBerry, of course, was scrubbed before and 

after, but I did take it with me and I did—— 

Mr. WOLF. Are you sure you can really scrub it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not an expert in information technology, but 

I am assured by the people who are in the White House that that 

is—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t we have a joint meeting with you and 

me and the FBI. 

Dr. HOLDREN. That would be fine. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. WOLF. We will schedule it. I will ask the staff to set up a 

time. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you ever been out to the FBI and had a briefing 

with regard to China stealing any of our technology? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, I have had those briefings, but not at the FBI. 

I have had them in the situation room. I have had them in SCIFs. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you been out to the cyber center out in Northern Virginia? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are going to visit that in a couple of weeks actually. 

Mr. WOLF. To date, you have not been there. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have not, but I have been briefed by its director 

in the situation room. 

Mr. WOLF. I think you have to see it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are going to do it. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you tell us when you are going to go out there? 

Maybe I can get a staff person—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. To go with you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Good. Happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE TO CHAIRMAN WOLF’S REQUEST FOR DR. HOLDREN TO VISIT THE CYBER

CENTER (NCIJTF) IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA

OSTP staff is working with the FBI to schedule a visit to the facility in Chantilly, 

VA. Once a date has been set, OSTP will notify Chairman Wolf’s staff of the date. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CHINA LANGUAGE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011

The recently enacted fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill contained a legislative prohibition on bilateral activities between your 

office and the Chinese Government or Chinese-owned business. 

What steps are you taking to live within the terms of this prohibition during the fiscal year? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, it is our intention to live within the terms 

of that prohibition insofar as doing so is consistent with my responsibilities for executing the President’s constitutional authority—— 

Mr. WOLF. What does the—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. In foreign relations. 

Mr. WOLF. What does the language in the bill mean to you? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am instructed after consultation with counsel 

and with appropriate—who in turn consulted with appropriate people in the Department of Justice that that language should not be 

read as prohibiting interactions that are part of the President’s 

constitutional authority to conduct negotiations and at the same 

time, and there are obviously a variety of aspects of that prohibition that very much apply, we will be looking at that on a caseby-case basis in OSTP to make sure we are in compliance. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, can you keep the Committee informed on a caseby-case basis of any time you do anything at all with regard to 

China where you think that perhaps your activity will be in confrontation with the language. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Be happy to do that. 

Mr. WOLF. Great. Thank you. 

COMPETITION FROM CHINA

China’s government sponsored R&D investments as a fraction of 

GDP have grown by more than five percent annually while the 

American rate of growth have actually been negative in recent 

years. 

How does the 2012 budget address this imbalance? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 

the President committed the country in his speech in April 2009 to 

trying to reach three percent of GDP in the combined public and 

private investments in R&D in this country. And that represents 

an effort to maintain the U.S. lead over our competitors including 

China because as you correctly point out, China’s investments have 

been growing very rapidly, in some cases more than ten percent 

per year. 

We are very concerned about that. We want to be sure we maintain the U.S. lead, which does remain large, I should say, across 

the range of critical science and technology domains, but China is 

trying to close the gap and we are interested in maintaining our 

lead. 

And the challenge we all face, and I reassert that we face it together, is how in this time of budget stringency we can find ways 

to increase the U.S. investments in science, technology, and innovation in ways that allow us to stay ahead. 

I would say one important aspect of that since the private sector 

comes up with almost 70 percent of the national R&D expenditures 

is we have to do more to encourage the private sector to continue 

to increase its investments in R&D. And one of the ways we have 

proposed to do that is by making the research and experimentation 

tax credit both simpler, more effective, and permanent in order to 

provide a reliable incentive for the private sector to lift their game 

in R&D. 

Clearly in a country where 70 percent of the R&D is financed by 

the private sector, we have to attend to that as well as to the government’s expenditures. 

Mr. WOLF. If the existing trend continues, do we run the risk of 

China pulling even with or exceeding us in government R&D investments? And if that is the case, when could that happen? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
257 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have got some projections. I mean, none of us 

has a clear crystal ball on this issue because we do not know how 

fast the Chinese economy will continue to grow. 

And there are a lot of people arguing that it will be slowing down 

soon for a variety of structural reasons, but we cannot be sure. We 

do not know if they can sustain the rates of increases in R&D expenditures that they have been making. And so it is very hard to 

predict with any confidence. 

I do not believe that it is likely that the Chinese could equal U.S. 

expenditures in this domain any time before 2015, but it also depends on whether you count those investments at market exchange 

rate or at purchasing power parity. 

The other point that I would emphasize, though, is it is not just 

the sheer amounts, but it is the quality of the work that is done 

with those investments. And as I think many authorities have 

pointed out, the greatest Chinese universities remain light years 

behind U.S. universities in terms of the quality of their faculty, 

their facilities, their students. 

A large fraction of Chinese engineering graduates would not 

qualify for entry-level engineering jobs in the United States because the level of their engineering training is simply not up to 

ours. 

So we need to remember that quality as well as quantity is important and we need to continue to focus both on adequate resources in terms of our own investments and in the various elements of the U.S. system which maintain our qualitative advantages. 

Mr. WOLF. They graduated 700,000 engineers last year. We graduated 70,000. It is not engineer for engineer, but 35 percent, 40 

percent, 45 percent of our graduates were foreign students, many 

of them Chinese who are going back. 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is true. 

Mr. WOLF. You were recently quoted as saying that major scientific advancements will allow China to ‘‘eat our lunch’’ economically. At the same time, however, you continue to advocate for U.S. 

assistance to Chinese scientific agencies and expanding joint research opportunities. 

If you acknowledge that Chinese scientific advancements are a 

threat to our economy, why would you want to improve their capabilities and further speed up their advancements? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, Mr. Chairman, with respect, they will 

eat our lunch if we do not continue our own investments in the 

strength of our science, our technology, our innovation, and our 

STEM education. I do not believe they will eat our lunch if we stay 

the course. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, sure. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will take the second part of your question. I am 

happy to address that as well. I just wanted to be clear—— 

Mr. WOLF. You go ahead. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. In terms of my quote that I was not 

predicting that they will eat our lunch. I was saying avoiding their 

eating our lunch is the reason that we need to stay the course. 

Now, the question of why then if we are even worried about competition with China should we cooperate with them. The answer to 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

that question is that there are a variety of domains in which cooperation with China is very much in our national interest. 

One of those domains is the prediction and the control of 

epidemics which, of course, know no boundaries. A lot of the scientific and technological cooperation we have done with China has 

been in that domain. 

Another domain in which it makes great sense for us to cooperate with China is nuclear safety, the prevention and the mitigation 

of nuclear reactor accidents. China is building nuclear reactors very 

rapidly. The consequences of nuclear accidents also know no boundaries. And it is in our interest to work with them to reduce the 

likelihood of accidents at their reactors as well as, of course, our 

own. 

China’s oil imports are one of the reasons that gasoline prices are 

so high in the United States today. It is the rising demand from 

China and other developing countries and it is pressure on the 

world oil market which has pushed gasoline prices as high as they 

are. 

It is in our interest to cooperate with China in activities in alternative energy which will help them reduce their pressure on the 

global market because it is a global market. And we have an interest in China reducing its oil imports just as we have an interest 

in reducing our own. 

In the area of environmental problems that cross national boundaries, again it is in our interest to work with China to accelerate 

the pace at which they reduce the emissions that are affecting our 

environment as well as theirs. 

Mr. WOLF. In terms of specific joint scientific ventures, the President has advocated for cooperation between NASA and China’s 

space program. 

Does the PLO run the Chinese space program? Am I correct 

there, the PLO? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The PLA? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Dr. HOLDREN. They certainly have a lot to do with it. I do not 

think we fully—— 

Mr. WOLF. The dominant one? 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Understand. My guess would be yes, 

but, again, I do not understand and I am not sure anybody understands exactly the way the tentacles of the PLA interact with other 

activities. But they do certainly have a major influence. There is 

no question about that. 

Mr. WOLF. Since our space capabilities exceed theirs by virtually 

all measures, how does this cooperation benefit anyone but China? 

What is the technical or scientific benefit to NASA of cooperating 

with the Chinese Space Administration? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will give you a couple of examples. One is the 

question of space debris where we are all threatened by junk in 

space that our satellites and the International Space Station might 

run into. 

And collaborating in the area of minimizing space debris and 

making sure that we all know where all the debris is is very much 

in our interest, in the interest of the safety of our astronauts. That 

is one domain. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

A second domain which is much more long term, much more 

speculative, there is certainly nothing in place now, but the President has deemed it worth discussing with the Chinese and others 

is that when the time comes for humans to visit Mars, it is going 

to be an extremely expensive proposition. And the question is 

whether it will really make sense at the time that we are ready to 

do that to do it as one nation rather than to do it in concert. 

And nobody knows the answer to that question at this point. It 

will depend, since nobody is going to be ready to go to Mars before 

2030, whether it makes sense to do that jointly or not very much 

depends on the state of political relations, economic relations, and 

so on at the time. 

But many of us including the President, including myself, including Administrator Bolden believe that it is not too soon to have 

preliminary conversations about what involving China in that sort 

of cooperation might entail. 

If China is going to be by 2030 the biggest economy in the world 

as some think it may be or even if it only is still the second biggest 

economy in the world, it could certainly be to our benefit to share 

the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others. 

Mr. WOLF. An IMF report which I am sure you saw came out last 

month showing that, when measured in purchasing power parity, 

the Chinese economy will overtake the American economy in 2016, 

which is much earlier than any previous estimates. 

What is your reaction to that finding of the IMF? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I looked at that finding with interest. I have 

actually long been one of those arguing that we should be paying 

more attention to purchasing power parity in many contexts as the 

appropriate metric. There are obviously respects in which market 

exchange rates are more meaningful, other respects in which purchasing power parity is more meaningful. 

But I think if China passes us by 2016 in purchasing power parity GDP, that will be a big deal. It will still be true at that time 

that their per capita GDP will be a quarter of ours or less, but I 

am not denying the significance of the possibility of the United 

States becoming the second largest economy in the world by any 

measure. 

And, again, I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that what the 

President’s 2012 budget is advocating is investments in science, 

technology, innovation, STEM education, and infrastructure which 

will postpone the day when China passes us and perhaps postpone 

it indefinitely. 

Again, I would say none of us has a clear crystal ball. China has 

many problems. You yourself have been in the forefront of pointing 

out some of the problems that China has created for itself in the 

domain of human rights and the domain of a government in which 

the citizens do not have anything resembling real participation. 

And that could come to bite them. 

We do not know what China is really going to be like and what 

problems they are going to be struggling with in 2015. But in the 

meantime, we should be doing what we can do to strengthen the 

United States’ economy, to build jobs, to build sustainable industries, to develop new products, to innovate. We should be doing all 

we can in that domain and that is what this budget is about. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I agree. And I would say that this committee, 

and I would say in a bipartisan way, is really doing that. I am not 

going to put you in a spot by asking you this question, but I am 

going to state it as a fact. 

It concerns me very deeply that this Administration is tone deaf 

to the human rights violations taking place in China. I think Ambassador Huntsman has done a good job. Short of that, I think this 

Administration has been relatively weak. 

The Chinese people are wonderful people; it is the evil government that is doing these things. When the dissidents come to the 

U.S., they tell me that based on what this Administration is doing, 

many of the people are being demoralized there. 

We have a situation. The Catholic Cardinal from Hong Kong was 

in to see me three weeks ago. The Catholic church is being persecuted, and there are a number of Catholic Bishops that are under 

house arrest. 

I attended a house church on Easter Sunday as some of the people were taken away and arrested. There are hundreds of house 

church leaders in jail. 

And when you talk about doing things ‘‘in concert’’, does it sort 

of bother you? It bothers me, that that would be the case. 

Rebiya Kadeer, who is head of the Uighurs, has two children 

that are in prison and a daughter under house arrest. The Chinese 

have even spied against her here in this country. The Uighurs are 

going through a very difficult time. I think that should really bother the Administration. 

The 2009 Nobel Prize winner put on a dinner for Hu Jintao when 

the 2010 Nobel Prize winner was in jail and could not even get out 

to go to Oslo to get his award, and his wife was under house arrest 

and would not be allowed to go. 

That, I think, troubles me. I would hope it would trouble the Administration and produce more than just a press release or a 

spokesman at the State Department saying something. Your actions make all the difference. 

President Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire. President Reagan went to Moscow with Gorbachev and he spoke out for 

human rights and religious freedom with Gorbachev there at that 

time. 

The reason I ask you with regard to the People’s Liberation 

Army is that they also run a major organ donor program. They go 

into prisons and take the blood type, and then they also bring people over who want to buy kidneys for fifty or fifty-five thousand 

dollars. For fifty or fifty-five thousand dollars, you can buy a kidney of somebody who is executed by the People’s Liberation Army 

that you would have this kumbaya relationship with. 

Now, that ought to bother anyone. That ought to bother the 

President. It ought to bother you. I have been there. I have been 

to Tibet. I snuck into Tibet with a young Buddhist monk and I 

have seen what they have done, torturing the Buddhist monks. We 

went by Drapchi Prison. 

The Administration initially would not even meet with the Dalai 

Lama. That should bother you. The Dalai Lama is a peaceful person. And what is taking place with regard to the Tibetans, they litVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 

erally turned Lhasa into a no longer Tibetan city. The Chinese run 

it and are trying to undertake ethnic cleansing. 

And, lastly, should it not bother you about this cooperation with 

the number one supporter of genocide? I was the first member of 

the House to go Darfur. There is genocide in Darfur. The genocide 

in Darfur continues to this day. 

The AK–47s and the weapons, much of that has come because of 

the Chinese helping the Bashir Government, which is under indictment by the International Criminal Court. Here is a man who is 

under indictment by the International Criminal Court and his 

number one support is the Chinese Government. They have the 

largest embassy in Khartoum. 

So as you say ‘‘in concert with’’, doesn’t that bother you? Or is 

it the Simon and Garfunkel theory—man hears what he wants to 

hear and disregards the rest? 

We cannot disregard the Catholic Bishops that are in jail or 

under house arrest, the Protestant Pastors that are under house 

arrest, the organ donor program where they are killing people to 

sell kidneys, the persecution of the Muslims and the Uighurs in 

that portion of the country. We cannot deny what they are doing 

with regard to the genocide. 

I was with two young women who told me as they were raped 

by the Janjaweed that circle the camps in Darfur, many of them 

carry weapons coming from China. You cannot separate this out. 

I cannot separate it out. And this Administration should not separate it out. 

When you look at the human rights report that just came out, 

this Administration does not have a very good record. When you 

say you want to work ‘‘in concert’’, it is almost like you are talking 

about Norway or England or something like that. 

And, lastly, and you should know and you should have been out 

to the cyber center before, China is spying against us and stealing 

economic information that is stripping this country and taking jobs 

away. So I am not going to ask you if it bothers you. It bothers me. 

I believe in doing what Ronald Reagan did with regard to the Soviet Union—standing up, speaking out. When I asked Secretary 

Locke the other day whether he would agree to attend—not worship, but attend—a house church, he would not even tell me that 

he would attend the church, go with a Buddhist and stand with 

him, go, meet, and ask to meet with Rebiya Kadeer’s kids who are 

in prison, go and ask to talk to the Catholic Bishops that are under 

house arrest, talk to the Protestant Pastors who have taken away, 

advocate on behalf of the people that are being ethnicly cleansed 

in Darfur. 

So I am not going to ask you if it bothers you, but it bothers me. 

And as long as I have breath in me, we will talk about this. We 

will deal with this issue whether it be a Republican administration 

or a Democratic administration. It is fundamentally immoral. 

I saw those two young girls that I interviewed. And if you want 

to see the tape, come by my office. They said as they were raped 

by Janjaweed, the Janjaweed said it was to create lighter skinned 

babies. 

The Chinese Government is the number one supporter of the 

genocidal government of Sudan, and these are all facts. And if you 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

want to get briefed on the facts, we can give you the briefing of the 

facts. 

So you say ‘‘in concert with’’ like you’re talking about working in 

concert with Mr. Culberson, or with Mr. Yoder, not in concert with 

somebody that is fundamentally evil. You can do it. This Administration can do it in an appropriate way. President Reagan, to his 

credit, called the USSR the evil empire in 1983. He said ‘‘tear down 

this wall’’. 

And then, if you recall his speech at the Danilov Monastery, he 

advocated for human rights and religious freedom. Yet, he did it in 

such a way that at the funeral for Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev 

came. This Administration is failing on this issue. And I think people are expecting you to advocate, to stand up, to speak out. And, 

quite frankly, we are not seeing that. 

When I hear you say you will work in concert with China, I am 

not going to ask you if it bothers you, but it bothers me. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. WOLF. You can comment. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. May I comment, please? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I want to say first of all, it does trouble me. It does 

bother me. And I need to say as well, Chairman Wolf, that I admire you for the leadership that you have shown in calling attention to human rights abuses in China. I admire you for that. And 

I agree with you that these abuses are reprehensible. 

I would only remind you that when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he also continued cooperation with the 

Soviet Union in science and technology domains that we judged 

were in the U.S. national interest to cooperate with them on. And 

we continued to do that not because we were doing a favor to the 

Soviet Union, which President Reagan had called the evil empire. 

We did it because it was in our interest. 

And I would similarly say that the efforts that we are undertaking to do things together with China in science and technology 

are very carefully crafted to be efforts that are in our own national 

interest. We have been, I think, very strategic about that, very 

careful about that. 

I mentioned the kinds of areas in which we are engaged. That 

does not mean that we admire the Chinese Government. It does 

not mean that we are blind to the human rights abuses which you 

have shown so much leadership in calling attention to. 

But it is, I have to say, it is not my position, I am the science 

and technology advisor, I am not advising the President on what 

his stance should be in balancing the various national interests 

that the United States has at stake in the way we deal with China. 

You understand very clearly, I know, probably more clearly than 

I do, that those interests are complicated. And the President obviously is not making that balance in the same way that you would 

make it. But I think this is a matter that is very worthy of continuing discussion. 

I would be happy to come to your office and look at that tape, 

but I am not the person who is going to be whispering in the President’s ear on what our stance toward China should be government 

to government except in the domain where I have the responsibility 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
263 

for helping the President judge whether particular activities in 

science and technology are in our national interest or not. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

MAKING SUFFICIENT INCREASES IN SCIENCE SPENDING

And I join with you in your admiration for the chairman and his 

efforts in relationship to human rights. 

Let me get to some of the issues at hand relative to science and 

technology. 

Portugal is involved in a financial bailout due to some of the 

challenges that they are facing, but they also took a decision to provide laptops to every child in schools in Portugal. And Singapore has invested over $5 billion in their National 

Science Foundation. 

China made a decision a few years back to build 100 science only 

universities and some 200 math and science laboratories. And five 

years later, they were constructed and built. 

I want to just go back a minute. Decades ago during the Cold 

War, we built national laboratories like Los Alamos and Lawrence 

Livermore and Sandia and on and on and on, made very significant 

investments. The country went into debt even to make commitments so that our country could be number one in the world in 

terms of our technological capabilities. 

This Administration has called on the Nation again to make 

these investments even in difficult financial times. You do that in 

the context of a freeze on discretionary spending, but increases in 

the various accounts of agencies that were focused on in the report 

on the Gathering Storm, focused on in the America COMPETES 

Act. 

So I just want you to kind of walk through this. You were chair 

of the PCAST during the Clinton administration, and there has 

been this proposal to create 1,000 STEM schools, 800 elementary, 

I believe, 200 high schools, and a number of other steps, and if you 

could just kind of walk through for the committee what you see as 

the critical investments that we need to make now. 

If you get on a plane now and fly out to Sandia, you see an institution in which we have invested for 50 plus years, right? I mean, 

what are the investments we need to make now so that long after 

we are no longer in these roles America is number one, because we 

seem to be acting as if we are going to lead this world on the 

cheap? We have this notion that we are going to kind of cut our 

way to the front of the line. 

And I want to be certain, since you are the lead science advisor 

to the President and you see what is going on across the globe in 

which countries smaller than us—I asked some of our officials how 

a country so much smaller than us could make such a significant 

investment in particular technologies. And I was told that their 

leadership had decided that even if they had to eat dirt, they were 

going to lead the world in that particular area. 

I do not know that we remember the sacrifices that other generations have made to position our country in the lead. We benefitted 

by that. But I want to know what steps we need to take in responsibility to our stewardship of this country so that our children and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

grandchildren will be in a circumstance in which we are number 

one. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Fattah. Let me 

answer as best I can a couple of parts of your question. 

First of all, you referred to our national laboratories. We have by 

far the strongest national laboratory system in the world. Nobody 

else has capabilities close to the capabilities of our national labs 

and that is because we have continued to invest in those laboratories since the initial investments we made to set them up. 

Second point, we have the strongest research universities in the 

world, again by far. Nobody is even close. There are a few universities in the UK, maybe one in Japan, maybe one in China that are 

even in the top 25. That list is completely dominated by U.S. universities. 

Our task in both of those domains, the strength of our national 

laboratories and the strength of our research universities, is to 

maintain that strength, nourish it, and expand it. And that is the 

basis for the President’s proposal to double the budgets of the basic 

research institutions in this country that provide so much of the 

support for those universities and for those national laboratories, 

the DoE Office of Science, the National Science Foundation in particular. 

The other major component, there are two other major components which I have alluded to of our strength in science, technology, and innovation that we need to pay attention to. One is the 

private sector. 

And what has happened in the private sector is some of the great 

research laboratories that the private sector used to maintain have 

been downsized, they have been fragmented and outsourced for a 

variety of reasons having to do with the structure of the economy 

and the incentives for the private sector. We have to increase the 

incentives, as I have already mentioned, for the private sector to 

invest more in research and development and innovation. 

And we have to invest more in the mechanisms by which discovery is transferred out of the national laboratories and the great 

research universities into marketable and successful products in 

the economic marketplace. 

One of the ways that is happening in the Obama administration 

is the energy hubs that the Department of Energy has stood up. 

Three of them have been stood up. We propose to stand up three 

more. And those hubs involve the interaction of national laboratories, research universities, and corporations to bring to bear their 

diverse comparative advantages on this challenge of translating 

discovery into jobs, into products, into new businesses in the marketplace. 

As we get better at that, that will prove to be one of the crucial 

dimensions of maintaining our economic standing in the world, 

maintaining the jobs we need, and maintaining our competitive position against competitors like China. 

The last element that we need to pay attention to is STEM education—science, technology, engineering, and math education. The 

President has said on a number of occasions that he believes the 

single most important thing we could do for the future of our counVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

try is to lift the level of our game in STEM education, particularly 

K through 12 STEM education. 

You mentioned PCAST, the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology. We provided the President with a report 

on what needs to be done to improve K through 12 STEM education some months ago. And one of the things we argued in that 

report is we need equal measures of emphasis on inspiration and 

on preparation. We need to inspire more kids to go into science and 

engineering and math and innovation and we need to do a better 

job of preparing them and keeping them there and keeping them 

successful in those pursuits once they get there. 

That is a large part of what the President’s educate to innovate 

initiative is about which he announced originally in November of 

2009 with at that time over half a billion dollars in private sector 

and philanthropic support for efforts in which national laboratories, 

corporations, and universities would provide real life scientists and 

engineers and mathematicians to go into classrooms and work with 

teachers to improve the curriculum, to develop more hands-on activities and experiments so kids could learn about science and engineering by doing it rather than just by being lectured about it. 

And so they would have more role models of both genders of 

every ethnicity to establish in real human terms what exciting and 

interesting careers are available to kids who pursue science and 

engineering and math. 

We have got to get better at that. That is probably, of the four 

pillars of continuing strength, the research universities and national laboratories, the private sector, the capacity to translate between discovery and applied innovation in the marketplace and 

STEM education, STEM education is I think the one and the President thinks is the one that requires the most additional effort to 

bring us up to speed. You see it in the international test scores. 

You see it in other measures and, yet, we also have fantastic examples of creativity and accomplishment in our young people. 

If you go to the Intel science talent search finalists dinner and 

look at their displays as I have every year since coming into this 

position, if you meet with the middle school mathletes who have 

won national mathematics competitions, we have got some incredibly bright kids out there. We just have to do a better job of nurturing more of them, inspiring more of them, and preparing them 

when they get into these fields. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

STEM EDUCATION AT THE TERMINAL DEGREE LEVEL

And you are absolutely right that we need help at every level. 

And I just commented in the congressional record and it is a very 

significant effort by ExxonMobil in terms of the national math and 

science initiative and a hundred plus million dollar commitment. 

But let me talk to you not about K to 12 STEM education, but 

at the terminal degree level. We have a dearth of American citizens 

of any stripe pursuing terminal degrees in the hard sciences. 

What can you tell us about why this is a continuing challenge 

and what are your recommendations as it relates to the President 

and his budget to address this issue? We have a number of entities 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 

under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that are involved in efforts in this regard, so I would be very interested in your thoughts. 

When we look at people pursuing terminal degrees in nuclear 

physics or computer information science or any of the hard 

sciences, we are challenging ourselves in terms of the critical skills 

that are going to be necessary. 

And just, for instance, in our federal agencies, there is going to 

be a major critical skills shortage just over the horizon unless we 

prepare more young people for these roles just in terms of, for instance, the nuclear stockpile, our non-proliferation work, I mean, 

just across a whole range of issues. 

So I would be interested in your comments. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, again, thank you for the very good question. 

I would say a couple of things about it. 

Number one, the number of people who pursue and complete terminal degrees in science and engineering and math is deficient for 

a couple of reasons. One is too few people entering these programs. 

And the second reason is losing too many along the way. 

And the reasons we have too few entering the programs are 

largely the reasons I just talked about, deficiencies in our inspiration and preparation and the combination of those at the K through 

12 level. So too many kids who have the talent and potentially the 

curiosity and the excitement to excel in these fields decided to excel 

in something else. 

But a further problem and a very important problem is too many 

people who enter college with the idea of majoring in math or engineering or science transfer into other fields along the way because 

they become bored, they become disenchanted. The way they are 

taught science and engineering and math at the university level is 

not what it needs to be to keep them inspired and engaged. 

And on that particular topic, I have a couple of assurances to 

offer you. One is that my associate director for Science, the Nobel 

Laureate Carl Wieman, has focused most of his attention since getting the Nobel Prize not on doing more Nobel Prize–level physics 

but on understanding better what works and what does not work 

in college-level education in science and engineering and math. 

And Wieman and his colleagues in that pursuit have developed 

some very important research findings that establish that it is 

quite practical to improve by a factor of two or more the success 

of college science, math, and engineering teaching both in terms of 

how much the students actually learn and in terms of how excited 

they stay about what they are doing. 

And we are currently conducting a new PCAST study looking at 

the first two years of college education which is where you lose 

most of these folks to figure out how to apply these new research 

findings and specific programs which will cause them to spread. 

And I have already spoken and Carl Wieman has spoken with 

the presidents of many of our research universities who are equally 

excited about the possibility of doing much better at this part of the 

effort, of keeping kids, young people engaged in science and engineering and math in college pursuing those goals in those fields, 

doing it more successfully, staying more excited, and addressing 

that particular problem. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I am going to wrap up with just two more 

questions on this point. But one of the ways that we solved this 

problem in the past, because this problem has been with us for a 

while, is that we had foreign-born students to actually dominate 

many of these programs in the hard sciences at our great universities here in America and many of them would end up staying. 

And they would become citizens and they would have the terminal 

degrees. And our industry would have the intellectual genius necessary to go forward. 

But now you have students who end up getting the degree who 

are going back to their native countries and being part of what is 

essentially the economic competition to our country long term. 

So we have a number of challenges and we have to get more 

American-born students to pursue hard science degrees and we 

also need to keep talent that is coming to America for an education. 

We need to try to hold on to more of that talent to the degree that 

that is possible. 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

So I am interested, and I will end here, as you look at the broad 

spectrum of work, and your testimony touches on a number of 

issues, and we have obviously a range of challenges, but as the lead 

science and technology advisor to the President, if you could just 

comment in more general terms about what you see as the Nation’s 

most pressing scientific and technological related challenges over 

the near-term horizon of the next 10 and 20 years that you believe 

we should be focusing on here in the Congress and in terms of our 

priorities relative to appropriations. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, again, another good and rather sweeping 

question. Let me say a couple of things about it. 

First of all, in terms of students from other countries who graduate in science and math and engineering from our universities, as 

you say correctly, some of them do go back to their home countries. 

That is not in itself entirely bad for the United States to have highly educated people going back who have experienced the advantages of the economic and political system of the United States. 

It is one of the ways over the long run that we work to change 

the economic and political cultures in those countries because a lot 

of these students become leaders in their countries and their views 

about the United States and how we do things become very important. 

But it is also important that we not make it too difficult for those 

who would like to stay to do so. And in some respects in our visa 

policies I am afraid we have done that. We are looking at our visa 

policies to see if there are modifications that would make it easier 

for those foreign born students who do want to stay in the United 

States and who have been educated in science and engineering and 

math in our universities, make it easier for them to pursue that 

choice to stay and apply their talents in this country because we 

have gotten great benefits from the talents of foreign-born students 

who have decided to stay. 

You also asked me what the great challenges are. I mean, clearly 

a structural challenge is that part of the problem of inspiration and 

keeping students in these fields is having them confident that 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

there will be exciting and interesting jobs available for them to 

take up after they graduate. 

And that again is a matter of ensuring that the private sector 

makes the investments that they should be making, that we make 

the investments and the private sector makes the investments in 

science and technology infrastructure. That includes information 

technology, high-speed computing. It includes infrastructure in 

space which we use for communications, for geopositioning, and for 

many other purposes. We have to continue making the investments 

if the jobs are going to be available for those students to engage 

in. 

In terms of substantive challenges, what are the things that we 

really need to be getting right in science and technology going forward? I mean, clearly a huge substantive challenge is in the domain of how do we strengthen manufacturing again in this country? What can we do with nano-tech, with info-tech, with bio-tech, 

with the intersection of those to develop a much stronger manufacturing sector again in this country? 

And that is something that we are spending a lot of time looking 

at jointly with the National Economic Council and in concert with 

many of the high-tech CEOs and leaders in this country and in the 

research universities and the national laboratories. How do we 

apply these rapidly advancing scientific developments in the domains I have mentioned to translate them into new industries, into 

new jobs? 

In terms of another substantive focus that is going to be immensely important, it is what I would describe as the energy-economy-environment intersection. We need affordable and reliable energy to fuel our economy, but we need to get it in ways that do not 

imperil our national security in the way our very heavy dependence 

on imported oil from unstable regions does today. We need to get 

it in ways that do not imperil our environment. 

There are tremendous technological challenges and opportunities 

at this intersection of energy, economy, and environment in which 

we need to be the leaders. We need to be the leaders in new battery 

technology. We need to be the leaders in fuel cell technology. We 

need to be the leaders in smart grid technology. 

And, again, these are challenges, but they are also enormous opportunities that can constructively occupy a lot more graduates of 

science and engineering and mathematics from our great universities than we are generating now. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CHINA LANGUAGE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011, 

CONTINUED

Dr. Holdren, I noted in your response to Chairman Wolf’s questions that the Administration has decided that any negotiations 

that the President conducts are an exemption to the policy adopted 

by Congress. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have to say first of all Congressman Culberson, 

I am not a lawyer. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But I have been advised by our counsel and consultation with the Department of Justice that we must take care 

not to infringe the President’s constitutional authorities in relation 

to the conduct of foreign relations, and diplomacy in particular. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am always astonished in the time that I have 

been here that the number of administration officials who forget 

that the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution are actually very narrow, and in fact are limited to: the President is the 

Commander-in-Chief of the Army, shall have the power to make 

treaties, and shall have power to fill up vacancies. That is it. 

It will be the chief executive officer of the United States, and 

chief executive officer means to execute the laws enacted by Congress, and the Congress just enacted and the President just signed 

into statutory law an absolute, ironclad, unambiguous requirement 

that none of the funds made available by the Congress to the Administration may be used for NASA or your office to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy 

program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, 

or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chineseowned company unless that activity is specifically authorized by 

statute and enacted after the date of enactment of this law. 

It is not ambiguous, it is not confusing, but you just stated to the 

chairman of this committee that you and the Administration have 

already embarked on a policy to evade and avoid this very specific 

and unambiguous requirement of law if, in your opinion, it is in 

furtherance of the negotiation of a treaty, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman, I say again. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is exactly what you just said. I don’t want to 

hear about you not being a lawyer. If you are—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay, as long as that is—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Can we let the witness answer the question, please. 

Dr. HOLDREN. What I have been informed is that a variety of 

opinions, previous signing statements and other legal documents 

have found that the President has exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, the scope, and the objectives of international negotiations and discussions as well as the authority to 

determine the preferred agents who will represent the United 

States in those diplomatic exchanging. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And I have been informed similarly—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And I am not qualified to dispute—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are just following orders. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Or argue with you about what I have 

been advised that as a result of those exclusive constitutional authorities that have been asserted to me by people who are lawyers 

and who work in this domain that the provision of the legislation, 

which you just read, should not be read to restrict activities that 

support those constitutional authorities. 

Now you can argue that with me till the cows come home, but 

I will lose, I am not a lawyer, I don’t know how to argue that point. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, no, I am not arguing about it legally, this 

is just common sense and it is plain English. And all of your money 

flows through this committee. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I understand. I understand that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I just laid out for you they are now evading the 

law just enacted by Congress. 

Essentially, obviously the White House’s position is that any activity that your office engages in or any division of the executive 

branch engages in with China or any Chinese-owned company is 

obviously going to be classified as being in furtherance of negotiations involving treaty responsibilities of the President in the Constitution. 

I mean you just laid out for us very clearly how you intend to 

evade the very explicit and unambiguous law enacted by Congress. 

It is very distressing and you are not likely to—I mean you need 

to remember that the Congress enacts these laws and it is the chief 

executive office’s job to execute those laws, and this is unambiguous. 

Your office cannot participate, nor can NASA in any way, in any 

type of policy, program, order, or contract of any kind with either 

China or any Chinese-owned company. 

Now if any employee of yours, if you or anyone in your office or 

anyone at NASA participates, collaborates, or coordinates in any 

way with China or any Chinese-owned company you are in violation of the statute, and frankly not only are you endangering your 

funding, you are endangering—I mean this is not only—it is a direct violation of law and it is up to the chairman and this committee to decide how to enforce or frankly to—what remedies are 

available for what is obviously the—your intent to violate this— 

the Administration’s intent to violate this law. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Culberson, I—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You have a huge problem on your hands. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I hear—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Huge. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I hear you very clearly. It is not our intention to 

evade this law as you say, we intend to comply with it insofar as 

it does not infringe on the constitutional authorities that I have 

been advised exist. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I said we would review on a case-by-case basis activities with China as to whether they are precluded by this legislation or not, and we will inform the committee, as the chairman has 

asked, of those considerations. 

But I am very much aware that there are many activities that 

we would have carried out with China or might have carried out 

with China that will be precluded by this, that do not fall under 

the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to diplomatic 

relations with other countries. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The President’s responsibilities for negotiating 

treaties with other countries are obviously set out. I mean he has 

got that responsibility set out in the Constitution, but the scope, 

the extent, the deal, the manner in which he conducts those negotiations are what officers of the executive branch are authorized to 

do. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

Now, frankly, the existence of your office—you are a creature of 

statute. Every officer in the executive branch was created by a statute, by Congress, and funded through this committee, so the scope 

of the President’s responsibilities again are all designed by statute. 

You have now got a statute that preempts every other statute on 

the books. 

Now I am a good enough lawyer and practice enough in court to 

know that what you have just given us from the chief counsel’s office is very revealing, Mr. Chairman, because obviously the White 

House is now going to engage in a—rather they have obviously 

identified a way to evade the intent of Congress, and are obviously 

going to try to classify anything you are doing with China as in 

pursuit of a treaty, but that is not going to fly. 

It has been signed into law, and the limitation that the Congress 

enacted preempts every other statute of the books, it is a long 

standing rule, and this one again is just common sense, that a law 

that you pass today that is, for example, very specific in regard to 

a particular subject, not only does a law passed today preempt 

every other law passed before it, but number two, particularly if 

the law today that is very specific, it deals with a particular subject, that absolutely preempts every other law passed before it, and 

that is just a general rule. 

In this case it is even more specific, and this is not legal, it is 

just common sense, Dr. Holdren, that you can’t participate, collaborate, or coordinate in any way with China or any Chinese-owned 

company unless that activity is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division. 

So you need to tell the lawyers, the General Counsel’s Office 

what you just read to us now threatens their funding. I am a pretty 

good lawyer, and I can think of lots of ways to help the chairman 

of this committee and other subcommittees enforce the law. I mean 

it doesn’t have to be just lawsuits, there are a thousand ways to 

enforce the law, all kinds of creative ways to enforce the law. I 

mean the law is essentially what—you know, the law is meaningless unless it is enforced, and it doesn’t have to be just through a 

judge. 

Trust me, the chairman of this committee and the Appropriations 

Committee is charged with enforcing the law. What you just read 

to me endangers, frankly, your funding, and the Office of General 

Counsel’s funding. I intend to go after all of them in every division 

of the White House. 

You have just opened the door for me, and I think it is very revealing. You just gave us a peek behind the curtain. You are obviously not going to pay any attention to this law if the General 

Counsel’s Office tells you that this activity that you are engaged in, 

Dr. Holdren, or your subordinate, is in furtherance of a treaty. You 

have just told us you can go right ahead and do it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. What I have said, Congressman Culberson, it is 

not our intention to declare that every activity in which we do or 

might engage with China falls under the category that is within 

the President’s exclusive constitutional authority. That is not our 

intention. 

And I am sure that this provision, as long as it stays in force, 

and I must admit I am very hopeful that when the next round of 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

appropriations comes there will not be a similar restriction in it because it will be restricting. It will be restricting. There is no question about it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So not every activity. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It will be restricting. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Not every activity is going to be cut off. And so 

clearly you are already beginning to identify some. 

I just think it is very distressing and disturbing. Not only does 

it ignore the intent of Congress, but you are also blindly ignoring 

the threat posed by China. 

I heard you respond earlier to questions from the chairman that 

you took your BlackBerry to China. Do you know that Google executives, and frankly no executive of any company I know, will permit their employees to take their cell phones or iPads or whatever 

to China. Google actually requires that their employees—the only 

thing they can take is a stripped down notebook that has a web 

browser on it, and then when they return the machine is destroyed. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Do you know about that? You nodded your 

head. You are familiar with that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I do know about that, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Do you know about the National Security Agency and the policy of the United States military not to permit any 

U.S. military officer or any government official, and I think it is 

even true, Mr. Chairman, of the State Department, I think you 

serve on the committee with Kay Granger, I don’t believe anybody 

from the State Department takes a PDA or a wireless computer device of any kind into China. You sync your BlackBerry at the White 

House don’t you? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sir, I am not sure what the State Department 

does, but the policies of the White House in this regard have certainly been vetted with our security agencies, and I suspect the 

reason for a difference between what Google requires and what the 

White House requires is that we have greater confidence in the 

technical abilities of the people who are working for the Administration in the security domain to make these devices secure. If that 

judgment is misplaced and we learn about it clearly we will correct 

it. 

But again, it is my understanding that the experts, including experts in the NSA and the FBI and the expertise available to our 

intelligence community in this domain, is that we can make these 

devices safe for us to use in China. 

And again, you know, you are outside my domain of specific expertise. The advice I am getting on this from people who are experts is that we can safely do this, and so we do. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Your BlackBerry syncs wirelessly or do you sync 

it at the White House with a hard plug in? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, it syncs wirelessly. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you are 

going to help educate Dr. Holdren on what obviously everybody else 

in the government knows, and that is you don’t take wireless devices into China. The extent of the espionage, the aggressive attempts by the Chinese to penetrate the U.S. government and private companies with cyber attacks is something you, as a science 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

advisor, ought to know better than anybody else, and I am frankly 

very disappointed, disturbed to hear that you already found a way, 

in your opinion, to evade the law enacted by Congress, and that 

you are also obviously indifferent to or unaware of the aggressive 

attempts by China to go after the United States in stealing our 

technology in cyber attacks. It is just very disturbing, Mr. Chairman, and you have been very gracious. 

I will save my other questions for the next round. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Doctor, for being here. I just want to echo a couple 

comments you made earlier in terms of the situation with graduates of institutions of higher learning who can’t stay in the country. 

Caltech is in my district, as you know, and it is a cause of great 

concern for me that we have these very bright people come to 

Caltech from all over the world that get advanced degrees in math, 

science, and engineering, they want to stay, they want to start a 

business, they want to hire Americans, and we boot them out of the 

country. They then go elsewhere and compete with us. 

And while I acknowledge there is certainly a benefit in having 

bright people educated in America in other countries, there is an 

even greater advantage in keeping them here to help grow our 

economy, and I have been working on legislation that would provide for those that graduate with advanced degrees in math, 

science, and engineering who want to start a business and hire five 

Americans we should give them a green card and encourage them 

to do that. 

SUPPORTING LARGE RESEARCH FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

I wanted to ask you a comment on something. Having access to 

cutting edge research facilities is increasingly important to our Nation’s ability to make game changing discoveries. Given the increase in cost to build and operate these facilities around the globe 

we often now have to work with partners to keep costs down. Increasingly the construction of these large facilities, such as the 30- 

meter telescope in Hawaii, not only require non-federal contributions, but also sophisticated international collaboration. Important 

international partners need to understand U.S. plans are going forward to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck and that 

U.S. scientists are participating and having access to these cutting 

edge facilities. 

In what ways are the White House and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy leveraging international and non-federal funding 

commitments for large facilities sponsored by federal agencies such 

as NSF, NASA, and the Department of Energy? 

Does OSTP actively work with federal research agencies to spur 

negotiations to ensure that proper planning, design, and development can occur? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you, Congressman Schiff. The answer 

is yes, on all counts. That is OSTP does have the lead responsibility in the White House for working with all of the science and 

technology rich agencies in what they do jointly with other counties 

and in international collaborations, including ITER, the InterVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

national Thermal Experimental Reactor, including international 

high energy physics experiments, includes the astronomical kinds 

of facilities you are talking about. 

We have as one of our four divisions, the Division of National Security and International Affairs, which has within it the responsibility, and a number of people work in that domain very specifically 

to work with the DoE, with the NSF, with NOAA, with NASA on 

the development and implementation of cooperative efforts, which 

as you point out are enormously important. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you another question related to my first 

comment in terms of the visa situation. 

INSPIRING INTEREST IN STEM EDUCATION

Over the years I have brought a great many astronauts to my 

district to meet with middle school students, and I brought an astronaut to a middle school in Pasadena, one of the lowest performing schools in my congressional district. He was particularly 

good with the kids. They all are very good, but he was particularly 

good. 

He had a bunch of NASA patches in his trouser pocket that he 

offered to give the kids if they could get certain questions right. 

They had to earn the patches. And the first question he asked kind 

of bugged me because I got the math wrong. He said that—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. You didn’t get a patch? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I did not get a patch. I was lucky I didn’t put my 

hand up. 

The question was when he is on the shuttle he orbits the earth 

every hour and a half, how many sunrises and how many sunsets 

would he see in a 24–hour day? 

I didn’t think it was that difficult a math problem, but the students who are all middle school students, you know, guessed eight, 

guessed six, guessed twelve, and then one child put up his hand, 

and I think the correct answer was thirty-two, which was—when 

at the astronaut reached to take out a patch and give it to him I 

realized that the answer I had was wrong, I was off by four, and 

I spent I think the rest of the presentation figuring out—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Trying to figure it out. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. Why I got the math wrong. It really 

bugged me. I had to get him to explain it to me afterwards. 

But I wondered when he gave this to this young child whether 

that middle school student knew he was gifted. 

And you know my district is a suburban, largely middle income, 

but there are a lot of lower income families, particularly served by 

this school, and I wondered, you know, this kid who put up his 

hand among 300 other kids was clearly gifted to get it right, to get 

it right in front of 300 other classmates who were all guessing all 

over the boards, and I wondered whether he knew he was gifted, 

whether his teacher knew he was gifted, whether his parents knew 

he was gifted, and what the odds were that that child would make 

it in his lifetime the one mile from there to Caltech, and I thought 

the odds were probably not very good, and in some respects the 

odds of coming to Caltech from half way around the world were 

better and easier than coming from a mile away from Caltech. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

And I wonder what your thoughts are and what we could do 

about that. How do we make sure that we identify talented young 

people like that? That we give them every opportunity to make 

their way what geographically is a short distance, but in terms of 

society and everything else may be an infinite distance. What can 

we do about that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all I would say I would guess that 

the odds of that student making it the one mile to Caltech went 

up because astronaut came to that classroom, and they went up 

both because of the inspiration that that visit provided and because 

the nature of the interaction called attention to that kid’s talent in 

a way that the teacher couldn’t help but notice, and the kid probably noticed that he was able to do something that the other kids 

weren’t. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And this Congressman wasn’t able to. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I didn’t want to mention that. 

That is one of the ideas that is behind this educate to innovate 

initiative in trying to get more real world scientists and engineers 

and mathematicians into classrooms working with kids. It is not 

just for the inspiration, but it is for the nature of the interactions 

that reveal talented kids who might not have known themselves 

how talented they were until they have the opportunity to engage 

in these kinds of interactions with somebody who has succeeded in 

these domains. 

And we have found by the way as you did in this instance that 

astronauts are enormously effective in this domain. They are very 

highly trained, they are very smart, they are very interesting in 

terms of the way they think about physical problems and the physical world and can relate them to kids. 

I have got so many examples that are similar to yours of seeing 

astronauts interact with kids. We had five astronauts when we had 

Astronomy Night for Kids on the White House lawn in October of 

2009. We had Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. We 

had Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in space. We 

had Buzz Aldrin, the second person to set foot on the moon. We 

had of course Charlie Bolden, the NASA administrator. And we 

had John Grunsfeld, the Hubble repairman, the guy who spent 55 

hours walking in space, and we had 300 kids from middle school. 

Kids who either had done particularly well in science and math or 

who had been recently rapidly improving their performance. That 

was their reward is being able to come to this event. And the interactions were just mind boggling. 

We had moon rocks and we had a portable planetarium, we had 

16 telescopes, but the interactions between those five astronauts 

and those 300 kids I would bet changed a lot of lives. I mean this 

is one very important way that you get it done, but we have to do 

more as your question suggests to be able to reach into the communities that are less well off, that are less likely to have parents inspiring their kids and teaching their kids, and we have to figure 

out more ways to make this happen. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do we have a mechanism, you know, I know many 

areas have magnet schools, but do we have a mechanism to identify students at a very young age like this who have this talent and 

pull them into a special program? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 

Dr. HOLDREN. We try to do it in part with science fairs, and as 

you know the President has given a lot of prominence to the value 

of science fairs and robotics competitions and math competitions 

and so on, which start at a very early age. I have a grandson of 

ten who just competed in a science fair in a public elementary 

school in Falmouth, Massachusetts where he lives, and it was clear 

to me—I was not there, but my wife went, my wife is a scientist 

as well, and she went as one of the people sort of observing this 

whole thing—and it is apparent that these experiences that kids 

have in science fairs in developing their own experiments and explaining them to people are a way in which kids of exceptional talent do get identified early, and then the trick is—again, your question goes to this—what to you do once these kids are identified by 

their teachers? How can you provide the resources needed to ensure that that talent get develops, that that inspiration continues? 

And we are thinking about that. We are trying to think about what 

both the limitations and the opportunities are associated with 

these kinds of competitions, which have become immensely popular. 

I don’t know if you were able to go to the science and engineering 

fair on the mall last year, but the robotics displays were the ones 

that were most overwhelmed. The second most overwhelmed display—and I think 500,000 people came to this weekend event—but 

the second most overwhelmed display was the NASA display where 

they had real live astronauts meeting kids and talking with them. 

But the first most overwhelmed display was the robotics where 

kids were dealing in hands on ways with robots and being able to 

modify them and make different kinds and so on and so forth, and 

that is just a wonderful mechanism for identifying particular kinds 

of talent, and we have to figure out what the next steps can be. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I would love to stay in touch with you on that. 

We have great robotic programs in my district as a result of 

Caltech. They work with a lot of our local high schools on robotics 

programs. 

But it still seems a bit haphazard what you are describing. It requires a student to kind of self-initiate and gravitate towards a 

science fair. 

I got the impression, although it may not be correct, that some 

of our competitor countries, they will identify these students 

through examination and then they are put in a certain program, 

track, et cetera, quite methodically to cultivate that talent. 

I don’t know that we want to go exactly down that route, but it 

seems we may be missing a lot of our native talent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Have you seen Waiting For 

Superman? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have not seen it. 

Mr. WOLF. I will get you a copy. If I do, will you watch it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely I will. I think Carl Wieman has already been trying to get me to watch it. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you seen it? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

Mr. WOLF. I will get you a copy. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

I think the answer is there, and it is a very powerful movie. At 

the end, some of the young people want to get in a school, and the 

decision as to whether they will be able to do it is based on whether they win the lottery. They follow the families, and those who 

win the lottery are cheering. It is almost like a hockey game or a 

basketball game where the parents cheer because their young child 

gets in. Then the two or three who never make it go home. One 

is from California, and I will get you a copy. I will try to get it for 

you certainly by the time to go home for the recess, and you should 

watch it. 

Also, we are losing astronauts. I bumped into an astronaut the 

other day, and for the record we can check and make sure that 

what I am saying is accurate, but he told me the astronauts are 

leaving in droves based on the Administration’s position with regard to NASA and space. We don’t want to get to the point that 

we don’t have any astronauts or where the astronauts are so rare. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree. 

Mr. WOLF. I took the NASA Administrator down to an intercity 

school in Washington, D.C., and I think every child deserves that 

opportunity ,and not just, you know, a handful. 

NASA’S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET LOGISTICS

With regard to the NASA budget, science investments were supposed to be an area of particular emphasis in the 2012 budget request, but the emphasis seems to have been very unevenly applied. 

Agencies like NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy Office of 

Science received significant increases, but NASA, the fourth largest 

R&D agency and one that we were all raving about, was held flat 

from 2010. 

How does a flat NASA budget reflect the Administration’s emphasis on scientific investment? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, NASA has a 

great many functions under its roughly $18.5 billion budget, and 

we have been trying in the Obama Administration to strengthen 

the science within that. 

We think one of the things that happened over the prior administration when there was a grand vision for expanding our activities 

in human exploration, but the budgets for that were never provided, is that the science budget suffered, and we have been in the 

process of trying to build them back up, but we are living as you 

know in an extremely difficult budget time. 

I mean if I were a king, NASA would have a bigger budget so 

that we would be about both to pursue a vision for advanced technologies to take us farther and faster in space so that we would be 

able to fund all of the earth observation that we really need NASA 

to be doing, so that we could fund all the looking outward that we 

need NASA to be doing. 

Unfortunately at this particular juncture there is not enough 

money and some difficult choices have been made. 

I said early on that while I agree with you that science and technology did much better in the 2010 Continuing Appropriations Act 

than nearly any other sector of government activity, that still 

doesn’t mean that we are doing as well as those of us who are foVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

cused on the challenges and the opportunities in science would 

have liked. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I would agree with you. The Administration 

needs to step forward and deal with the entitlement issue, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We don’t want to get off into 

that subject, but the President appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission, and then he walked away from their recommendations two 

different times. If he had embraced it by dealing with the entitlement issue, you could plus up many of these accounts. 

But the question was, the others had increases and NASA has 

a flat line, and that just doesn’t make any sense. 

Last year, you attempted to cancel NASA’s exploration program 

and were soundly repudiated by Congress. It seems like the Administration didn’t learn its lesson, though, because this year’s NASA 

budget is also unacceptable. 

You are once again proposing big increases in earth science, 

space technology, and commercial space flight, and paying for those 

increases by cutting the exploration program, which is budgeted at 

more than $1 billion below the authorized level. 

Why does the Administration insist on using the exploration program as the bank to pay for the other priorities? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t have 

phrased it quite that way. I think first of all that the 2010 Authorization Act from NASA contained much of what the President 

wanted and it also contained much of what the Congress wanted. 

I thought it was a pretty good compromise between positions that 

initially seemed to be quite far apart. So I didn’t consider it a resounding repudiation of what the President wanted to do. 

With respect to the amounts of money in space exploration, the 

President’s budget still funds at a very substantial level, the key 

ingredients of that, the heavy lift vehicle, the multiple purpose 

crew vehicle, but it was necessary. 

And you referred to the astronauts. It is necessary if we want to 

maintain access for U.S. astronauts to the $100 billion International Space Station on U.S. rockets, if we want to minimize the 

gap during which we would be dependent entirely on the Russian 

Soyuz, we absolutely have to make investments in commercial crew 

development, and at the same time we need to invest in those technologies, the heavy lift and the multipurpose crew capsules to be 

ready for the next step, and there is a balancing act involved in 

doing that under a budget cap that is lower than what one would 

want to pursue all of those goals. 

I think the President’s budget made the best choices that NASA 

and the President’s other advisors thought could be made under 

the circumstances, and taking into account that we were restrained 

until the recent passage of that 2011 Continuing Appropriations 

Act, we were restrained by the language in the 2010 Appropriation’s Act which heavily restrained NASA from moving any resources around in the Constellation Program, and by the time we 

were relieved of that constraint you weren’t in the same position 

that you would have been in if throughout fiscal year 2011 one had 

had more flexibility. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

DEVELOPING NASA’S HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH CAPABILITIES

Mr. WOLF. The NASA Administrator has been quoted several 

times saying that NASA is not going to build a 130 metric ton 

launch vehicle, which is a requirement of the authorization and 

now the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill also. 

Between statements like that and a budget request that significantly underfunds the authorized exploration program it looks like 

the Administration has no regard for the legal requirements of the 

authorization. 

Do you view the lift capability requirement as legally binding? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, first of all I believe—— 

Mr. WOLF. It has got to be really difficult to pick what you want 

to like. This is not a cafeteria government, it is—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Look, I understand that, and I believe that the administrator has clarified his views on that and has made clear subsequently. There was a statement he made in response to a question from a reporter that I think was at best less than a complete 

commitment to the 130 tons, but he has clarified that subsequently. 

I was at a meeting with him, a public session with at the Goddard celebrating the anniversary of Goddard’s birth out in Maryland in which the administrator made very clear that he is committed to 130 tons, and I think that is a fact. 

Mr. WOLF. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you do 

view the lift capability requirement as legally binding then? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I regard it as something that we are legally 

obliged to pursue. I don’t think we can necessarily legislate success. 

Ultimately we will get 130 tons. Whether we will get it by the date 

specified in the legislation that is something we are obliged to try 

to do and we will try to do it. 

But I am concerned, I know the administrator is concerned that 

sometimes what is Congress wants, however admirable, is not necessarily achievable under the available budgets and in the time 

available. 

So we are going to try, we are going to do everything we can to 

get this capability by the date specified, but it is going to be a challenge. 

Mr. WOLF. The Administration advocates for the development 

and deployment of a smaller launch vehicle, such as one with 70 

to 100 metric tons of lift. A vehicle of this size would be oversized 

for servicing the Space Station, but undersized for deep space exploration. 

What would the mission be for a 70 to 100 metric ton launch vehicle, and why would the development of the smaller vehicle be a 

useful achievement? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say that is a question that goes beyond my expertise, and it is one that I would direct to our colleagues at NASA. 

I could speculate as to the value of that intermediate step in 

terms of preparing the way for the larger capability that ultimately 

we will need, and I would speculate that there are a variety of 

kinds of payloads that would fall in that range that would still be 

extremely useful to be able to get up there, including the possiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

bility, should the 130 tons not be available by the specified date, 

to launch the components we need in pieces and put them together 

in orbit, but that would be speculation. 

I know that NASA is engaged in a detailed study of how best to 

meet the goal that the Congress has specified, and my understanding is that that study will be ready by mid-summer and will 

be provided to the Congress, and I think it would not be terribly 

productive for me to try to second guess what it is going say. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, maybe you have answered this, but I want to 

kind of lock it down so there is no misunderstanding. In addition 

to funding issues, NASA’s work on the exploration system is being 

delayed by foot dragging within the Administration on the vehicle 

designs and acquisition strategies for the crew vehicle and the 

launch system. 

NASA told us that they can have these decisions made and communicated to the Congress by June 20th, which you are referencing, but we are hearing reports that others in the Administration want to delay that. 

Any further delay is, I believe, unacceptable and I assume you 

would agree. Will you commit to us right now that the exploration 

implementation plan will be done and submitted by June 20 as 

NASA has planned? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot guarantee NASA’s performance, but I have heard no reports that anybody is trying to 

slow them down, that anybody has suggested that it would be acceptable to deliver that report later. 

It is my understanding that that is their goal, that that is their 

intention, and I expect they will meet it, but I can’t guarantee you 

personally since I am not at NASA and not engaged directly in this 

process. 

I will certainly convey to the administrator your view as expressed here that that deadline is firm and it is essential that it 

be met. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you are a very important person in this administration and in the space area, and we have been hearing that 

there has been some effort to urge NASA to go slowly, particularly 

since this appropriations process will then pass. But if you could 

check with the Administrator—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will do that. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And then get back to the Committee to 

let us know that that June 20th date will be met. I would appreciate it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will do that, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

SUMMARY OF DR. HOLDREN’S DISCUSSION WITH NASA ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN

At the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee on May 4, 2011, Chairman Wolf 

requested that Dr. Holdren call Administrator Bolden about the June 20 deadline 

for NASA to submit its exploration implementation plan to Congress. 

Response: On May 12, I talked to NASA Administrator Bolden about the exploration implementation plan. I stressed the importance of completing the exploration 

plan by the June 20 target date. Administrator Bolden confirmed that NASA is 

making every effort to meet that date. 

Mr. WOLF. With the funding levels proposed in the President’s 

budget, NASA will be unable to meet the 2016 target date for iniVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

tial operation of the Space Launch System and the Multi Purpose 

Crew Vehicle, which will further prolong the gap in our national 

human exploration capability. 

Aren’t you concerned about the possibility of additional years 

without a NASA-owned system for getting Americans into space? 

And what do you see as the impact on our national prestige and 

security of a major delay in NASA’s exploration program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all I am concerned about it, Mr. 

Chairman, and I am doing everything I can within the constraints 

that we are all working under to see that NASA does meet that 

target and that we minimize, as I have said before, that we minimize the period in which we are dependent on the Russian Soyuzy 

for transport of our astronauts to the International Space Station. 

I am concerned as you are by the possibility that the number of 

people interested in becoming astronauts and remaining astronauts 

will go down if we do not have assured means of providing access 

to the space station. 

We think the space station, by the way which under the President’s proposals, would continue to operate until at least 2020 is 

an enormous resource for science and for technology development 

and for the continuing inspiration of American young people seeing 

American astronauts going back and forth to and from the space 

station and operating and working and living there, and we want 

that to be a viable resource with U.S. astronauts getting there on 

U.S. rockets. That is our aim, that is my aim. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. We are going to go into STEM education. I 

don’t want to keep others waiting, but I want to go into STEM, 

which I am a big supporter of. 

A year or two ago, and I guess we can check the figures, 50 percent of the money that was available for STEM grants was left on 

the table, and it was not accessed by students. You might want to 

check and see if that is accurate and then get back to the Committee. I would appreciate that. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE TO CHAIRMAN WOLF’S CONCERN THAT 50% OF STEM GRANTS GO

UNSPENT

At the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on May 4, Chairman 

Wolf expressed concern that 50% of STEM grants go unspent. 

Response: Nearly all STEM programs are spending all their money, with these 

notable exceptions: The Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 created two 

new need-based grant programs that complement funds awarded to Pell Grant recipients: Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grants. The former are awarded to Pell 

Grant recipients in their first and second years that completed a rigorous high 

school curriculum, while SMART Grants are given to Pell recipients in their third 

and fourth years that major in technical fields or languages vital to national security. Unfortunately, the number of students receiving the grants has been lower 

than estimated, resulting in the amount of funds available exceeding the value of 

grants awarded. Due to this unexpectedly low usage, the Department has rescinded 

$1.085 billion in total funds for the program since the 2008 fiscal year. This figure 

includes a recession of $560 million in fiscal year 2011. Both ACG and SMART 

Grants are scheduled to sunset after the end of the 2010–11 academic year and are 

not scheduled to receive any additional appropriations. 

Secondly, you mentioned something that triggered the idea. We 

have asked the National Science Foundation to do an in-depth 

study, which they hope to have some time this summer, as to why 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

young people make a decision to go into math, science, physics, 

chemistry, biology, the sciences. There seems to be some sort of 

fifth or sixth grade deciding point there, and so the director of the 

NSF is working with a number of other people to look at that. 

If you have any ideas for that I urge you to talk to him and cooperate. They hope to do a report, which we would then hope to 

get into the hands of all of the school systems. Because there may 

be somebody in some place that is doing something amazing, and 

if we could just let people know about it that may be kind of the 

silver bullet, if you will, for that issue. But if you could check on 

those two things, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will talk with him. Dr. Subra Suresh is a good 

friend and we spend a lot of time talking about these matters, and 

I too have seen the research that indicates that kids actually decide 

very early on their trajectory, and they either get excited about 

science and math and engineering early or they may not get excited at all, and you are absolutely right, we have to work harder 

to understand that and to make sure that for the kids with that 

inclination and those kinds of abilities that they get the inspiration 

to make those choices. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. With that I will just go to Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

I want to follow up with chairman, just with the heavy lift, of 

course with the understanding, my understanding that the cost of 

developing a rocket with a lift of 70 tons, which was not fully integrated into a robust plan for completing a 130-ton rocket, would 

still be about 80 percent of the cost of a fully integrated plan. 

The language in the CR bill for the heavy lift rocket indicates 

that it will be simultaneous development of the upper stage of that 

rocket. 

The question would be how will your office help ensure that 

NASA manages contract modification and other options to ensure 

that the law is followed for simultaneous development? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Aderholt, we will certainly be paying 

attention to that and working with Administrator Bolden and his 

staff to do everything we can to promote the successful achievement of the goals that the Congress has specified. 

I think any interest in a 70-ton rocket would be in the context 

of a fully integrated plan to get to 130 tons, and again, I think the 

administrator has clarified his views on that subsequent to some 

initial expressions which were less clear, and OSTP is also committed to that goal and we will work with NASA to try to ensure 

its achievement. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Let me change into just another topic. 

TORNADO DEVELOPMENT AND PREDICTION RESEARCH

Of course as you know the southeastern part of the United 

States was hit by the series of tornados, I guess it was a week ago 

today, and I think over the course of the southeastern states there 

were approximately, and I think we are hovering around 350 

deaths right now, actually a third of those are in the district that 

I represent, and a lot of those is just north of Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, that area that I represent. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

The question I have in relation to the tornados that hit. Do you 

believe that the tornado genesis, the process by which a tornado 

develops, is it the same in the humid southeastern United States 

as it is in the central plain areas of the United States? Go ahead. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all the amount of energy available to 

tornado formation is certainly affected by the amount of water in 

the atmosphere and by the temperature of the atmosphere, and 

both have been increasing. The temperature has been increasing, 

the amount of water has been increasing. There are a lot of other 

factors that govern the formation of tornados, including the interaction of weather fronts as you know, and so it is not a simple matter of saying simply if it is more humid and if it is hotter we are 

going to have more tornados, but all else being equal, that is given 

the other conditions that it takes to form tornados, if there is more 

moisture in the air or more heat in the air the potential for powerful tornados is larger. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I see. How does the budget request for your office 

or for NASA or NOAA reflect the need for research on these southeastern tornados, which you have indicated, you know, cause with 

more humidity and the more rain would cause? Does your request 

reflect research regarding that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is certainly considerable research in NOAA 

on that question, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and it is continuing. 

The other relevant factor that I think is very important in this 

case is the capacity to forecast tornados and provide early warning, 

and NOAA’s budget is very important in that domain as well. In 

fact we have a particular challenge in this domain because the 

Joint Polar Satellite System, which was not fully funded in the 

2011 is budget is essential to maintaining continuity of the capacity to forecast tornados. 

For all the tragedy that these tornados caused it would have 

been even larger. The loss of life could have been significantly larger had it not been for the amount of early warning that we had 

in large part due to the continuing availability and functionality of 

our polar-orbiting weather and climate satellites, and we could lose 

that. In fact we are now projecting a gap in that capability some 

time in the vicinity of 2015 because we have not made adequate 

investments to put the next polar-orbiting satellite up there. 

So this is a very important matter where the safety of our citizens and the budget for NOAA come together. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. No doubt, I mean the series of tornados that 

went through I know Alabama last Wednesday can only be compared to 1925, and when there were over 700 deaths, and of course 

I think a lot of that is due to the fact that the early warning was 

not there in 1925, and so, you know, the tornados that occurred 

last Wednesday could have been much worse than 700 had there 

not been that early detection, so I do understand and I do appreciate that. 

So okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

In this discussion about the tonnage for NASA, I am not sure 

that in the past the Congress has been so specific about the level 

of tonnage, and it is obviously challenging to think that as members we would be able to kind of project forward the science. But 

I think that the point is, is that where this requirement is in statute and if the science does not get us to the capacity to be able to 

do it then we run against a circumstances that would be challenging. So it will be interesting as we go forward. 

But I think that the focus and the direction is in the right—the 

compass is correct. That is, that we want to produce a heavier lift 

as we go forward in terms of tonnage. I don’t know that we have 

the wisdom, even though we obviously put it in statute, to say that 

somehow we are going to be able to do a certain tonnage. But notwithstanding that it has been done and we will see where we go. 

NOAA SEVERE WEATHER PREDICTIONS AND WARNINGS

I want to shift gears a little bit to NOAA, and I note that you 

just commented on this, but in terms of the very severe weather 

that parts of our country have faced and it is very unfortunate 

about the deaths and injuries and the loss of property, but that 

whether or not given the NOAA budget submission in the 2012 

budget whether there are issues inside of that budget that will be 

important for us to consider. 

First is the severe weather issue. So we have the tsunami warnings, we have the severe weather warnings, we have—a large part 

of this request has to do with satellites, and if you could talk a little bit about this issue it would be helpful. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would be happy to talk about that issue, 

although it is a vexing one. 

When this administration came into office, we were faced with a 

situation in NPOESS, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, in which the replacements for our 

polar-orbiting satellite suite, which satellites are of great importance to our military as well as to civilian weather forecasting and 

to climate monitoring, was over budget—— 

Mr. FATTAH. If you would yield for a second. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Behind schedule, and under performing. 

Mr. FATTAH. If you will yield for a second, that is why the bin 

Laden raid was delayed for one day because of weather, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It does illustrate that forecasting the weather is 

extremely important to military operations, but of course it is extremely important as well as we understand from this horrible experience in the southeast, it is extremely important for civilian purposes as well. 

And in hurricane season our hurricane tracking capability is extremely important to the safety and welfare of our citizens, and we 

are very heavily dependent on this suite of polar-orbiting satellite 

for these purposes. 

I understand from the NOAA administration, Dr. Lubchenco, 

that over 90 percent of the data that we use for forecasts beyond 

48 hours comes from these polar-orbiting satellites, and if we lose 

that capability, if it is interrupted, and particularly if it was interVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

rupted for long, for that period the quality of our forecasts beyond 

48 hours will be seriously degraded. 

We are going to lose that capability now it appears for a period 

of time no matter what we do because the budgets for the last couple years have not been adequate to keep even the replacement 

program which we worked out with fewer instruments, fewer satellites, but still enough to do the basic job on track, and we need 

to get that back on track in 2012. 

The President’s 2012 budget makes a request that would get it 

back on track. I very much hope that we will have the support of 

the committee and the Congress as a whole in getting that done. 

NATIONAL CAPABILITY GAPS IN HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND WEATHER

DATA

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me delve into this a little bit, because 

there have been a lot of comments about the fact that we have to 

depend on the Russians to take astronauts because we have a gap 

in a space vehicle and now we have a gap in satellite coverage for 

our severe weather forecasting that is going to appear. And I want 

to go back to the decision package that led to these gaps. 

Now the ending of the shuttle flights was a planned activity well 

back more than a decade or so ago, and in 2004 the final timeline 

was put together for the end of these flights. There are people in 

our country who believe that the Obama Administration decided 

that we are going to stop flying shuttle flights. 

I want you to comment on these gaps and how we got to this moment where we have hundreds of tornados, we have a tsunami that 

hit Japan, created a nuclear problem, but yet we are going to be 

without satellite coverage for some period of time in terms of 

checking the weather. So if you could help us understand how we 

got to this moment that would be important. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Ranking Member Fattah, it is a complicated 

story. I could send you a timeline and would be happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 66828B.059
287 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 66828B.060
288 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 66828B.061
289 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 66828B.062
290 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 66828B.063
291 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 66828B.064
292 

Mr. FATTAH. I would like for you to do that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The essence of the matter is in part you are right 

that we have known since early in the previous administration that 

the shuttle program needed to come to an end. It needed to come 

to an end for a number of reasons, one of them being that this is 

basically 1970’s technology which in some sense is so complicated 

and so fragile you see the results in the fraction of the time that 

we end up having to postpone launches for the safety of the astronauts, which obviously has to remain paramount. But it was also 

the case that the shuttle is so expensive to operate that while you 

are operating it you can’t find the money in any plausible NASA 

budget to develop its replacement, and so it was recognized again 

already in the Bush Administration they made that decision that 

the shuttle would be phased out. 

And the problem was that the successor program to the shuttle, 

the Constellation Program, was going to provide both access to 

lower earth orbit and the heavier capabilities for deeper space missions. It never got the budgets it needed to stay on track, and the 

result was by the time we came into office the Constellation Program was in danger of being three to four times over budget, that 

is over the originally anticipated cost for those vehicles. 

And in addition, it was so far behind schedule that no amount 

of money poured into it at this point could erase the gap in the capacity to put American astronauts on the space station on U.S. 

rockets. 

At the same time the attempt within NASA to find enough 

money to keep Constellation on track had sapped the resources 

available for many of NASA’s other programs, but we had a further 

problem. We had a problem that the NPOESS program, the successor program for these polar-orbiting satellites was a joint venture of the Department of Defense, NASA, and NOAA, and for a 

whole variety of reasons those folks were proving not to be playing 

very well together, and that contributed to delays and cost overruns in the NPOESS program itself, which we were charged when 

we came into office with fixing. 

I say we, I was charged in my confirmation hearing for fixing it 

and then I was charged by the President with fixing it because it 

is an interagency science and technology program that falls under 

the jurisdiction of OSTP, and we worked very hard with those 

three agencies to fix it and we figured out a way, we thought the 

best possible way to fix it in terms of dividing certain responsibilities more clearly between the Department of Defense on the one 

hand and NOAA and NASA on the other, but carrying out those 

responsibilities required an increase in NOAA’s budget which they 

have not received. 

That is the essence of the story. I will give you a longer time line 

following this hearing, sort of the step by step of who did what and 

to whom that led us to this predicament. 

Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank you, that is very illuminating and 

unfortunate, but I want the time line. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

CONTROL OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS

Dr. Holdren, I know you have published repeatedly in the journal 

Science and other science publications so I know you are familiar 

with them and read the journal Science on a regular basis. I am 

confident. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am sometimes a little bit behind on my reading 

of Science because of my other responsibilities, but I do read it on 

a regular basis. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I can certainly sympathize. You said you were 

not aware that the People’s Liberation Army had any role in the— 

or you weren’t sure of the role or how far their tentacles extended 

into NASA. 

To what extent are you familiar with the role of either the People’s Liberation Army or the Communist Party in Chinese universities in the way they are operated or governed? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all I am aware that the PLA has a 

substantial role in the Chinese space program. I don’t want to be 

misunderstood about that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I said I am not clear on the details of the extent 

of that role and how it works. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Fair enough. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But there is no question that the PLA has a role 

in the Chinese space program, and similarly I would be very surprised if the PLA didn’t have some interactions with the Chinese 

university system. I am not again familiar with the details of how 

that works. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Or the Communist Party’s involvement in either 

the space program or in their research at their universities. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, the Communist Party governs that country, 

and so the involvement is obviously extensive. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You mentioned earlier in your testimony that 

you are engaged in efforts to promote scientific and technological 

cooperation that you feel is in our best interests. 

And I just want to make absolutely certain you were aware—and 

I was unaware until I had seen this in the April 8th edition of 

Science—that all mainland universities in China, Mr. Chairman, 

have two leaders, the president of the university and the Communist Party secretary. So it is not just the space program. It is 

pervasive. 

And the reason the chairman and I keep circling back to this is 

that the Chinese have made it their national policy, it is their goal 

to make the 21st century the Chinese century, and they see their 

primary obstacle to be the United States. 

And the chairman quoted an article I think that the—was it the 

IMF, Mr. Chairman, said that about 2016 the Chinese economy 

would surpass ours? 

It is, I think, self-evident that by the—and this has, I think been 

out in the open that by 2015 the Chinese will be in a position militarily to announce, as I expect they would, their own Monroe doctrine of sorts, and that is my own personal supposition, Mr. Chairman, but I have run that past a number of folks and I think we 

can safely predict that some time within the next four to five years 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

we will see China announce a Monroe doctrine for the eastern 

hemisphere that they have a zone of influence within which the 

United States can’t and shall not have any influence or interference. The Malacca Straits are the carotid artery to the Chinese 

in terms of their reliance on foreign oil. 

The chairman also took testimony of the subcommittee from the 

Director of the National Science Foundation that in fact the Chinese—and I just saw an article more recently on this, Mr. Chairman—that the Chinese now control 97 percent of all rare earth elements on the planet. 

And you were quoted in this same article, Dr. Holdren, this is 

from the journal Science, March 26, 2010, that the—or excuse me, 

I’m sorry—a group of scientists had sent you a letter: ‘‘last month 

magnet industry leaders in the United States sent a letter to John 

Holdren [. . .] calling on the Obama Administration to take prompt 

action to restore rare earth mining and processing in the United 

States and other western countries. The recommendations including establishing short-term stockpiles of rare earths critical for defense needs and having the U.S. Department of Energy set up a $2 

billion loan guarantee program to help western mining companies 

build new mining and processing facilities.’’ 

What have you done in response to that letter and what have 

you done to protect the United States and help ensure that we 

have access to these strategically vital rare earth elements? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you for those good questions, Congressman Culberson. 

Let me start by saying that we do understand that China wants 

to be number one. That is not surprising. We want to stay number 

one. And the things that we are recommending in the 2012 budget 

are intended to keep us number one, and we have talked already 

a bit about the ingredients that will be required for us to stay number one. 

I have also already said I don’t think any of us has a clear crystal ball as to when China might pass us and in what respects. I 

think China has some big internal problems, most of them of their 

own making, many of them resulting from the kinds of policies and 

practices that Chairman Wolf has been a leader in denouncing, and 

my hope is that we stay number one and that China does not pass 

us in important aspects of capability. 

I also hope that China is not in a position militarily at any foreseeable time to make a unilateral declaration of the sort that you 

described that would impair United States’ interest and the United 

States’ freedom of action. 

But with that said and turning to the rare earth element question, we have been aware of that issue for a long time. We have 

had in place under the leadership of the Office of Science and Technology Policy jointly with the National Security staff and the National Economic Council an interagency working group on the rare 

earth minerals that has provided briefing papers for the President, 

that has developed short-term and long-term strategy proposals for 

how to minimize this vulnerability. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Which are? 

Dr. HOLDREN. China has come to this position because they were 

able to undercut the price. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

We have considerable rare earth mineral resources in the United 

States, in Alaska, and in other parts of the United States, but it 

is a matter of not just having the resources but of developing the 

whole supply chain of not just mining, but processing those materials into usable forms, and we are doing a number of things to 

make that happen. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Such as? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We have developed a review of domestic and global policies that effect that and are looking to strengthen the ones 

that will accelerate U.S. production. 

We have been in conversation with companies and with the governors of the states that possess these resources on what they can 

do to accelerate the process of reviving rare earth mineral industries in their states. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Reviews and conversations. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Reviews and conversations. We have—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Something specific. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, we have the—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Tangible. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The DoE has ramped up its R&D, including developing a new hub on critical minerals, which as the other hubs have 

done will aim to reduce the time lag between discovery and innovation in universities and national laboratories—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But that is utilization of the rare earth elements. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And getting things into the progress. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is utilization of rare earth elements. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, it is not just utilization. I’m sorry, sir, but it 

is also how we can mine them more cheaply, process them more efficiently, convert them into the forms that we need in our products 

more efficiently so that the Chinese will not be able to undercut us 

economically and maintain that very large market share that they 

now enjoy. It is not just a process focused on using them. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. What specific tangible things have you 

done—because this is in your shop, this is your responsibility—to 

protect the United States against what is obviously now a monopoly of the Chinese on rare earth elements, which they have used 

already to their strategic advantage when one of the Chinese captains of a Chinese ship t-boned a Japanese ship some time last 

year I think, and the Japanese arrested the Chinese captain, who 

deliberately hit them, you remember that, and then all of a sudden 

the Japanese had to release the captain. 

Well, it turns out the Chinese had, you know, these reports out 

there that you can read them and find them, and the open source 

is that the Chinese used their monopoly on rare earth elements to 

strangle the Japanese and force them to release this captain. 

I mean this is a strategic threat to the United States, and we are 

really looking for what—you got this letter from the industry leaders last March and you have known about this for a long time, 

what specific tangible steps have you taken to ensure that the 

United States has access to rare earth elements from sources other 

than China? I am looking for some other nation. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, we are always talking to the Australians, 

have been talking to the Australians who have considerable resources of these. 

The problem, Congressman, as I mentioned, is not the existence 

of resources of these minerals in many countries other than China, 

the problem is that it is a matter of two or three years to develop 

the supply chain, and we are working with companies and governments to develop those supply chains and to do it with technologies 

that will enable us to compete with or undercut the Chinese. 

Now that is not something you can do overnight and it requires 

initially understanding the character of the problem. We have gotten started. We got started. We got started a year ago March on 

that effort. 

I would be happy to provide you following the hearing with a 

more detailed report on that. 

[The information follows:} 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 579 here 66828B.065
298 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 580 here 66828B.066
299 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 581 here 66828B.067
300 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, please do, I know the chairman would be 

very interested. 

By the way, in your office does anyone in your office, anyone 

working with your office have any Chinese nationals working directly or indirectly for them or with them? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We of course don’t have any Chinese nationals 

working in our office. To work in the Office of Science and Technology Policy you have to be an American citizen and you have to 

be eligible for a top secret clearance. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Directly or indirectly—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. No. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing].Would anyone working with or that 

has access to your office have any Chinese nationals working with 

them directly or indirectly? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure, Congressman, what you mean by 

indirectly, but as the chairman has mentioned, I myself have traveled to China numerous times over the last several years and have 

had Chinese visitors here in connection with my responsibilities for 

conducting the Joint Commission on Science and Technology Cooperation with China, but we have nobody in our office who is a 

Chinese national or who is consulting for our office who is a Chinese national. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Super. 

ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES THROUGH SCIENCE

I also wanted to ask about, if I could, I notice that when you 

were president of the AAAS that you asked that scientists tithe 10 

percent of their time to working on your number one priority as 

AAAS president: fighting world poverty. Do you recall all that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I recall my presidential speech in which I listed 

a number of important priorities, including fighting world poverty 

and disease, mastering the energy-economy-environment challenge 

and more. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. Did your number one priority you laid 

out for AAAS was to—and I am looking at your speech here on the 

Science website that how can science and technology help, what is 

your obligation to scientists? Number one, meeting the basic needs 

of the poor, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe, Congressman, I would have to revisit 

that text myself, but I listed five or six items, and I think I said 

they were not in order of importance. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. They were all important and they included avoiding the use of weapons of mass destruction. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure, and that—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. They included maintaining the productivity of the 

oceans and so on. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And I suggested that not all scientists tithe 10 

percent of their time to reducing world poverty, but that they tithe 

10 percent of their time to these large public interest questions 

across the board. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Noble worthwhile effort, but what I am driving 

at is another issue. You have said, and it is clear that your office 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

since NASA doesn’t report to the—the NASA administrator is not 

a cabinet-level official and doesn’t report directly to the President, 

the NASA administrator reports to you, so essentially your responsibilities are very broad for the President to encompass essentially 

a supervisory role or as sort of the administration official responsible for NASA. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It would be I think more accurate to say, Congressman, that the NASA administrator reports to me on matters 

of science and technology, to OMB on matters of budget, and to 

Cabinet Affairs on matters of interaction with the rest of the administration. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So to what extent since you have a long history 

of publications of, you know, guiding the AAAS and focus on that 

number one—maybe not in priority order—but one of the top five 

goals of scientists, you know, tithing 10 percent of their time and 

focusing on the fighting of global poverty, to what extent were you 

involved in and how and what way did you help guide Lori Garver 

and her remarks to Goddard last year in which she said NASA’s 

number one goal was fighting world poverty? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I had no influence on those remarks at all and was 

not aware of them until after they came out, and I don’t really understand the context. I had no interaction with Lori Garver. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That makes no sense, I agree. 

ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

A couple of other quick areas, Mr. Chairman, that I just find particularly fascinating and revealing. 

Back in 2001, you published a paper in Science in which you argued we have a—essentially an environmental Hippocratic Oath to 

do no harm to the environment, that the—you had argued that the 

atmosphere is essentially a commons that we all have an equal 

right to, and when you had published a paper with Paul Baer, John 

Harte, Barbara Haya, Antonia V. Herzog, Nathan E. Hultman, 

Daniel M. Kammen, Richard B. Norgaard, and Leigh Raymond, 

which I know you are familiar with, and I will be as brief as I can, 

Mr. Chairman, but this is particularly interesting and I know will 

be of interest to the chairman as well, that you were attacked in 

a letter of February 2nd, which I am confident you remember. 

A gentleman by the name of Arthur Westing wrote and said hey, 

this idea proposed by John Holdren and others that recommends 

apportioning the use of the atmospheric commons as a gaseous and 

aerosol waste dump sounds superficially attractive and that you 

suggested that emissions were allocated based on equal rights to 

the atmospheric commons for every individual. 

And he says the idea of an equal per capita allocation of greenhouse gases is flawed, because he said, it implicitly condones global 

overpopulation and rewards countries in proportion to their level of 

transgression of human carrying capacity of their portion of the 

global biosphere. 

And you wrote a response to him saying that, you know, we see 

no evidence that an equal per capita allocation would provide an 

incentive to significantly alter national population growth. Climate 

demographic interaction would help reduce population growth rates 

through increased investments, and in any case we suggest in our 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

policy form possible solutions to any appearance of incentives for 

governments to adversely alter their population policies in response 

to per capita permit allocations. 

This can be achieved, for example, by choosing a fixed base-year 

population by determining for each country a population baseline, 

incorporating reasonable declines in population growth, or by allocating permits to population based on some previous time point. 

Would you explain this? I am just not sure I understand the concept of an atmospheric commons, and I don’t notice the Chinese respecting that. I mean they dump more pollution into in atmosphere 

along with the Indians than any other country on the face of the 

earth. And what right would any international body have to impose 

population limits on any country? 

I mean that essentially is what you are advocating here. It is just 

sort of bizarre. I am not sure I understand what you are—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. You are not correctly understanding it. We are not 

proposing there to impose population limits on anybody. The idea 

of a population baseline was simply a reference point against which 

entitlements to add pollutants to the atmosphere would be based. 

Precisely the problem that you mention with China making very 

large emissions into the atmosphere under which we all live. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And India. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And India as well. Is one of the reasons that in 

selected domains we think it is in our interest to continue to cooperate with them, to move them more rapidly toward reducing 

those emissions, which is in our interest because we all live under 

one atmosphere. 

The only significant point about the concept of an atmospheric 

commons is the atmosphere is common to everybody. We live under 

one atmosphere. Things added to it in one place that stay there influence the conditions and the quality of life for others elsewhere. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Uh-huh. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And therefore ultimately society has to figure out, 

and that can only be done by negotiations and agreement ultimately, has to figure out how to limit what every country adds to 

that commons to the detriment of all the others. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is nothing more sinister or sophisticated 

than that behind this interaction. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. One final question. 

Why, then, should the United States continue to unilaterally, 

under your guidance and the Administration’s guidance, continue 

to impose aggressive and stringent restrictions on access to domestic sources, oil and gas, restrictions on atmospheric emissions, carbon dioxide, unilaterally, when the Chinese and Indians are ignoring it? That is a cannon ball around the ankle. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, with all respect, Congressman Culberson, 

you phrased that a little differently than I would phrase it. 

We are not imposing stringent restrictions on carbon dioxide 

emissions in this country at this point. And the Congress has not 

agreed to do that and it is not happening. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you were trying to do it by rule through the 

EPA. Aren’t you helping in that effort? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

Dr. HOLDREN. The EPA has some authority in this domain, 

and—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And you are advising them on it and helping 

them on it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not advising the EPA, I advise the President, 

let me be clear about that. 

But in my view it is important and valuable and necessary that 

the United States reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases because, we along with China and India, are major contributors to 

the additions of greenhouse gases that are implicated in global climate change that is not good for any of us. 

And it is also I think highly likely that if we are to succeed in 

persuading China and India to take more stringent steps to reduce 

their emissions—and by the way, China has already done quite a 

lot to reduce their emissions below what they would otherwise be, 

they are still enormous, but they have made large investments in 

energy efficiency and particularly in automotive efficiency, they 

have imposed stringent standards on automotive efficiency, they 

are building more advanced coal plants to try to reduce the emissions from that sector, they are studying carbon capture and sequestration. 

I think we should continue to urge the Chinese to make progress 

in that direction and we should continue to make progress in that 

direction ourselves. 

Mr. CULBERSON. On our own. 

Dr. HOLDREN. On our own and in negotiation and cooperation 

with others. It is in our interest to persuade China to reduce their 

emissions, and it is in our interest to reduce our own. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The chairman has been very gracious, thank 

you, sir, for the extra time. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

POPULATION CONTROL

Well, I didn’t know Mr. Culberson’s line of questioning, and let 

me just say I am not going to ask you a question. But I do want 

to, based on what he said, put this in the record. 

In anticipation of the hearing, I got your book out of the Library 

of Congress. Your book, ‘‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,’’ coauthored with population control advocates Paul and 

Anne Ehrlich. There is no question to ask, and many views that 

people had in 1977 they have discontinued. I want to put that out 

there, but it was troubling when I went through it. 

On page 837 it said, ‘‘indeed it has been concluded that compulsory population control laws, even including requiring compulsory 

abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the 

population crisis becomes sufficiently severe to engage the society.’’ 

Page 837. 

You also went on to say on page 838, ‘‘neither the Declaration 

of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.’’ 

It says in the Declaration that all men are created equal and are 

endowed by their creator with the rights to life and liberty and the 

pursuit of happiness. Those words were drafted by Thomas JefferVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:24 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 066828 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A828P2.XXX A828P2

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

son in Independence Hall in the City of Philadelphia, which I used 

to walk through and see the Liberty Bell almost every day. 

Lastly, you went on to say on page 787, ‘‘the development of a 

long-term sterilization capsule that could be implanted under the 

skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable with official permission 

for a number of births. No capsule that would last that long, 30 

years or more has yet been developed. But is technically within the 

realm of probability.’’ 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Dr. HOLDREN. You didn’t ask a question. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I didn’t. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But the chapter—I want to comment. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The chapter from which you read was a compilation of ideas and concepts that had been discussed in the literature, 

it was identified as such, and the author statement at the end says 

we do not advocate these measures. 

I think it is not fair to assert that I held the view that compulsory measures to limit population were appropriate, justified, warranted, or moral. That was a summary of views that appeared in 

the literature in a large comprehensive book in which I was mainly 

responsible for the chapters on geochemical cycles, on energy, on 

materials, and so on. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I appreciate that. 

COORDINATION OF STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS

On STEM education in a report on duplication in government 

programs that came out a few weeks ago, GAO identified five different agencies—NSF, NASA, Department of Energy, Defense, and 

Education—who fund programs to improve STEM education. 

We know this is not a complete list because other agencies fund 

it. NOAA also has STEM education programs. 

Do you believe that the benefits of having so many different 

agencies involved outweigh the costs of inefficiency and program 

fragmentation? 

The other question that we can kind of marry to that is, the GAO 

review concluded we need better cross agency coordination to reduce duplication and ensure a balanced portfolio of STEM education programs. 

This is not a new finding. In fact, it seems that this finding is 

made pretty much every year by both internal and external reviewers. 

Since we have known that STEM education coordination is a 

problem, why haven’t we fixed it and what can we do working with 

you to fix it? 

Now again, I am talking about trying to have more, not talking 

about cutting back. We are talking about encouraging more. So 

those two questions together. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Chairman Wolf, I agree with you, and that is why 

we have stood up this National Science and Technology Council 

committee chaired by Carl Wieman, Carl Wieman agrees with you 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

as well, we want to look at all those programs across all the agencies that are engaged in STEM education, we want to figure out 

which ones are duplicative, which ones are effective, and which 

ones are ineffective. We want to eliminate the duplicative and ineffective ones and we want to end up with a package that is more 

potent that spends the resources we have available in a more effective way to lift our game in STEM education in this country. I 

think you are exactly right, that has been begging for review and 

we have gotten it under way. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I want to help you on that. If we can do something in this committee in the mark up, I hope you will come to 

it. 

So the question sort of continues. Last year’s America COMPETES Act, which I voted for and I commend Bart Gordon very, 

very much for the work that he did, assigned responsibility for the 

coordination of federal STEM education programs to a committee, 

which we have been discussing, under the auspices of your office. 

What is the status of the committee? Can you tell us who is on 

it? How many meetings they have had? When can we expect to see 

concrete steps taken? 

And then to connect that, the COMPETES Act also required you 

to submit a report with each year’s budget request outlining what 

is in the budget for STEM education, discussing potential duplication and providing progress and implementation updates on ongoing activities. 

Will there be a report for 2012? 

Again, this is nothing you should be fearful of. We are not looking to throw this out. It is so we can have a more effective effect. 

So, who is on the panel, the committee that you referenced? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can’t tell you off the top of my head who is on 

the panel. I can tell you who chairs it, and that is my associate director for science, Dr. Carl Wieman. 

Mr. WOLF. And that is very impressive, but can you tell us—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will happily provide that. I don’t have the list of 

the panel members with me, but all the agencies that have these 

programs are represented on the panel. 

[The information follows:] 

REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON THE NSTC STEM ED COMMITTEE

At the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on May 4, Chairman 

Wolf requested details about the newly-formed STEM Ed Committee under the 

NSTC: who sits on the committee; action plan, etc. 

Response: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on 

STEM held its first meeting on March 4, 2011. The Committee is co-chaired by Dr. 

Carl Wieman, Associate Director for Science at OSTP, and Dr. Subra Suresh, Director of the National Science Foundation. Agencies represented on the committee include: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health 

& Human Services, Interior, Transportation, as well as NASA and the EPA. There 

are two working groups under the committee: Federal Inventory of STEM Education 

Fast Track Action Committee and Federal Coordination in STEM Education Task 

Force. The Committee’s charter is also included. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 66828B.068
307 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 66828B.069
308 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 66828B.070
309 

Dr. HOLDREN. And I have to tell you that Dr. Wieman is not only 

a very smart guy, but he is a very determined guy, and he—— 

Mr. WOLF. Oh, I’m sure, I—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Wants to get to the bottom of this. 

Mr. WOLF. I think it is a great appointment. 

Now, when were they set up? What day were they set up? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe they had their first meeting in March, 

last month, that’s right. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Do you know when they plan on—and this is 

not fair to put you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t know that off the top of my head, but I 

would be delighted to provide you the answers to those questions, 

who is on the committee, when they are planning on reporting, and 

what that report will cover. 

Mr. WOLF. Will there be a report for the 2012 budget? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe there will. 

Mr. WOLF. Good, good. 

Dr. HOLDREN. All right. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, let us know if there is something that we can 

do here in this bill that helps you with regard to that. Again, I 

know it may be viewed in a different way by some that think we 

are looking to strip something out, we are looking to change. But 

I agree with you that we should give you more resources and have 

more young people involved. 

Do you know if my figures are accurate with regard to last year 

or two years ago, with 50 percent of the—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I must say that took me back, and I have made 

a note to look into it. I don’t understand where that number comes 

from, but I will sure find out. 

Mr. WOLF. If you can. 

STEM EDUCATION BEST PRACTICES

Do you believe the 2012 budget reflects an appropriate balance 

between K through 12 STEM programs and those focused on higher education? Should we be more aggressively focused on the 

youngest kids to ensure that they become engaged in science? How 

are you balancing that out? 

You mentioned earlier that you don’t think it is being taught appropriately at some colleges, and you are right. I very seldom have 

heard of somebody who goes to the University of Virginia and majors in business administration or political science and then in 

their sophomore year transfers into physics. It is usually they 

go—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Other way. 

Mr. WOLF. It is the other way. 

So do we have the right balance here? Is all the necessary original research out there and it is just a question for your office to 

pull this all together? Maybe you can participate in the conference 

the National Science Foundation is going to have showing what 

works for fifth grade and sixth grade, but also maybe have a separate session about how do you then tell the University of Virginia, 

Virginia Tech and MIT, how they can make it relevant so that the 

people who come into physics stay in physics rather than go into 

political science? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

Dr. HOLDREN. The answers are all basically yes or maybe. 

The maybe is do we have the balance right? I think we have 

taken a good cut at the balance in this budget, but we are constantly looking at it and we are constantly learning about additional opportunities to do things in different domains, that is one 

of the things that Dr. Wieman is looking at, and we will obviously 

be proposing to adjust balances over time as we learn more and 

discover things that we should be doing and aren’t doing, or as we 

discover things that we have been doing that aren’t working well. 

In terms of the conference you mentioned we will absolutely be 

participating in that conference. 

Mr. WOLF. You all are smart people, you have a lot of information. Is there something down there that you know now about it 

but you are so busy—and I respect that—but we are not getting it 

out to those people who need to know, like the deans of engineering 

across the country? 

I saw a figure, I think it is in the ‘‘Gathering Storm,’’ but don’t 

quote me. It could have been in Norm Augustine’s update, but it 

said, and I believe I made a comment on it, that we graduated 

more Ph.D.s in physics in 1956 than we graduated last year. Is 

that a fact? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t know whether that is a fact. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think it could be? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is certainly conceivable, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. If you have some information, Mr. Fattah and I could 

do a letter to all of the deans of engineering or we could put together a conference. You could call a conference, we could use the 

Capitol Visitor Center here whereby you could bring your best 

minds to say, ‘‘we now know this is successful at the university 

level, and this has worked whereby all you deans ought to be looking at this.’’ But the point is you may have something there that 

we want to sort of get out. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, this is cutting 

edge stuff. 

Carl Wieman is one of the leading researchers in the world, probably the leading researcher in the world and practitioner who at 

a number of major universities has put these new approaches into 

practice and achieved spectacular results, but this is such new stuff 

that it is not yet very propagated very widely. 

We recruited Dr. Wieman to be the associate director for science 

at OSTP because—not because he is a Nobel Prize winner in physics, that it is wonderful to have a Nobel laureate as your associate 

director for science—but we recruited him because of his extraordinary leading edge work on this subject, and we are trying to use 

the fact that he is now in OSTP in the White House and talking 

with the President about this and talking with other university 

leaders. We are trying to use that to propagate these ideas, and we 

will continue to do that, and I think we will see these ideas and 

these approaches spread, and I think they will be helpful with the 

phenomenon you identify, that we have—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, could you have the doctor come up and—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. And maybe we should—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. He would love to, I assure you. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe we should have a conference this fall where we 

bring all the deans together here. 

Dr. HOLDREN. He has been talking to a lot of them, but a conference could be a good idea. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t you have him come on up. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I will do that. 

Mr. WOLF. And we can just talk. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. 

TSUNAMIS AND DISASTER PLANNING

Mr. WOLF. We had asked NOAA several weeks ago if they would 

hold a conference here, and I appreciate the NOAA Administrator 

saying yes. We are going to bring all of the governors up and down 

the east coast, the Caribbean and all the FEMA people together to 

see if all the economies are ready for a tsunami, are they ready for 

an earthquake? We hope to do the same thing maybe out at 

Caltech out there. 

I don’t know if you were going to be participating in that. You 

may talk to the head of NOAA to see. We are also bringing the 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Good. 

Mr. WOLF. That way if something is coming, we know that they 

should be prepared and we know that everyone has a plan. This 

Committee six years ago plused up the buoy systems around the 

world to make sure that we were ready, and so I think you should 

see if there is some role that you can play. We are not looking to 

fill your time up, but I would like to do something. 

Dr. HOLDREN. This is important stuff and I am engaged in this 

domain of planning and preparedness and understanding how our 

facilities may be vulnerable to tsunami and earthquakes and making sure with the other agencies that are involved. 

This is another one of these cross-cutting agency issues, and I am 

involved in it, and I agree with you about its importance. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the conference will be in June here at the Congress. The Congress is out that week. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can’t tell you at this moment whether it is on 

my calendar, but it might well be, and I am scheduled to have a 

conversation with Under Secretary Lubchenco at the end of the 

afternoon. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, she has been very good. She is really—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. She is great. 

DUPLICATION OF EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAMS

Mr. WOLF. I have a question on NOAA duplication. We are just 

going to get it to you for the record. 

There is some concern with regard to the duplication of NOAA 

and NASA on certain research topics like atmospheric composition, 

climate and other things, so please take a look at that. 

OSTP FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

The only new item in your 2012 budget request is a $350,000 decrease that would be achieved by limiting the activities of the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

What work did you have planned for the PCAST that might be 

deferred under the budget request? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have to say in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, that 

I didn’t volunteer for that reduction. This comes under the heading 

of sharing the sacrifice, and the—what PCAST does depends in 

part on what studies the President asks us to conduct for him, and 

how we will deal with that decrease going forward will depend in 

part on what studies the President requests from us, and we may 

find ourselves having more meetings by teleconference and fewer 

meetings face to face, which has both advantages and disadvantages. 

We may handle it by saying we are going to have to prioritize 

among the different requests the President has made of us and ask 

him what he wants the most, because we don’t have enough money 

to do it all. 

Mr. WOLF. Could that decrease impact the schedule for PCAST’s 

planned report on higher education STEM programs? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do not think it will because that study is already 

well under way and I don’t think its completion is going to be imperiled by that reduction. It would be studies later in the pipeline 

that would be impacted. 

MEETING GOALS FOR BASIC RESEARCH SPENDING

Mr. WOLF. Between the American Competitiveness Initiative, 

two versions of the American COMPETES Act, and the ‘‘Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, we have had a variety of calls 

for increases in basic research over the last few years. 

ACI and the COMPETES Act proposed doubling the budgets of 

NSF, NIST, and Energy Office of Science over either seven or ten 

years, and ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ called for an annual 10 percent increase in basic research funding for physical science and math and 

engineering. Including the proposed 2012 budget, but excluding one 

time stimulus funding, how close are we to being on track to these 

goals? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are certainly not there in the Continuing Appropriations Act for 2011, and the only way we could get back on 

track on those projectories would be if the President’s 2012 budget 

were approved by the Congress, but that would get us—if the 2012 

budget were approved that would get us back on this sort of trajectory that you are describing and that American COMPETES called 

for. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I don’t know what our allocation is going to be. 

I certainly will do everything I can, and I think Mr. Fattah feels 

the same way. I think you are back to that issue of hopefully—and 

I know this is not your responsibility, the President will deal with 

this whole entitlement issue—tieing the entitlement issue onto the 

debt limit, and then I think it would free up a lot of additional revenue. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. If you looked at the tax package that passed, the 

White House said this was an example of Republicans and Democrats working together. I voted against the tax package. There was 

a cut in the payroll tax which will cost $112 billion for one year. 

Can you imagine what $112 billion spent wisely could have done? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

Instead we give a break to Jimmy Buffett, a break to Warren 

Buffett, and we basically hit these programs really hard. So I don’t 

know what the allocations will be. 

The ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ report also calls for OSTP to set up an 

office to oversee improvements to the Nation’s research infrastructure. Have you established this office? And what kind of strategy 

are you pursuing to ensure the aging research facilities get the upgrades needed to keep them functional and relevant? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, that is both a function of the science committee and the National Science and Technology Council, which is 

also chaired by Dr. Wieman and it is always the focus of studying 

PCAST as initiated. 

Mr. WOLF. So would the PCAST cut have any impact on this? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I hope not. 

Mr. WOLF. So maybe. Maybe? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We have to look at how we are going to accommodate that cut. But again—— 

Mr. WOLF. You would really be upset if we put that money back. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure I am allowed to answer that question. 

Mr. WOLF. I think there are other questions that we will just 

submit for the record. I will go back to Mr. Fattah and Mr. Culberson at the end. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am prepared to conclude, Mr. Chairman, unless 

we are going to go back around. 

Mr. WOLF. No, we won’t. 

CYBERSECURITY AT OSTP

Two weeks ago we had a conversation with the NSF director 

about balancing the desire to promote public access to research 

findings with needs to protect scientific intellectual property and 

data critical to American economic and national security interests. 

Do you believe we are currently striking the right balance? Or 

can you take a look at this? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are taking a look at it, that is another issue 

that is in our domain. There is a tension there that will never be 

entirely resolved between those two goods. The good of the need to 

protect intellectual property and national security information on 

the one hand and the need and the value of openness on the other. 

I wouldn’t swear to you, sir, that we have the balance exactly 

right now, but we are looking at it. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the Chinese are stealing us blind. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I hear you on that. 

Mr. WOLF. And if we can chat after you go out to the Cyber Center, the staff will get in touch with you. I was out there last Thursday and they are stealing us blind. 

And keep in mind, a secretary in the Bush Administration had 

his computer stripped. They took the same equipment, I believe, to 

Beijing that you may have taken. 

So we will also ask the bureau to talk to you about that too, but 

I think Mr. Culberson is right. There may be a problem. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to talk to the bureau. 

Mr. WOLF. The Chinese stripped my computer here. Have you 

had any cyber attacks against your computer? 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

Dr. HOLDREN. Not that I am aware of, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. You may be one of the only agencies in the government that has not. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I mean I am not saying there have been no cyber 

attacks against OSTP, my understanding is that cyber attacks are 

directed all the time at virtually every U.S. agency. I am sure in 

that sense there have been attacks against OSTP as well. 

I am not aware of any successful ones, and I am not aware of 

any cyber attack other than the usual things that come in every 

day on my own personal computer. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, can you look and see if you believe, since you 

are the science advisor, that we have every necessary policy in 

place so that agencies such as NASA and NSF and others are doing 

everything that they need to do? We would even work it out here 

that you look at this in-depth government wide. Obviously the law 

enforcement agencies are looking at it, but almost from a different 

level than you might look at it. So if you would look at that, I 

would appreciate it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will certainly do it, Mr. Chairman. I do want to 

assure you that OSTP is a full participant in the interagency working group on cyber security at every level from the working level 

to the deputy’s level to the principals level in which I participate, 

and we do participate with the Director of National Intelligence 

and the head of the FBI and all the folks that you were talking 

about we are with them all the time talking about the cyber security issue, what we can do to increase the protection of U.S. assets 

and the protection of U.S. intellectual properties. So this is not a 

new issue for me. 

Mr. WOLF. I understand. 

Okay, do you have anything, Mr. Culberson? 

Mr. CULBERSON. I will submit anything else in writing, but just 

to say, if I could that just to reiterate, that the scientific community has no better friends in Congress than Chairman Wolf and 

this committee, and all of us work arm in arm. Mr. Fattah, all of 

us. Adam Schiff, my dear good friend who has a daughter about the 

same age as ours, in support of the sciences, in support of NASA, 

in support of planetary exploration. We have philosophical disagreements in certain areas, obviously, but we are arm in arm in 

our commitment to support, to firewall our investment in the basic 

sciences and to preserve and protect America’s leadership, and the 

world requires a very strong investment by the federal government 

in fundamental scientific research, sir, and you can expect strong 

support from this committee in that effort. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I thank you very much for that, Congressman Culberson, I appreciate it, I know it has been true in the past, 

and I see that it is going to be true going forward and it is greatly 

appreciated by me and by the Administration. 

Mr. WOLF. In closing to follow up with what Mr. Culberson said, 

I had an event a while back that Norm Augustine attended—you 

know Norm Augustine. He made a comment that the 16th century 

was the Spanish century. Spain is a great country, but it is no 

longer the dominant power. He said the 17th century was the 

French century, and we used the French to help us at Yorktown. 

They are no longer the dominant power. He said the 19th century 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

was the British century. The 20th century, he said, was the American century. And then he left a question out there—will the 21st 

century be the American century or the Chinese century? 

Not a question, but following up on what Norm Augustine said, 

I want the 21st century to be the American century, and we want 

to work with you to make sure that it is. 

And also on the whole issue of China, I am going to take you at 

your word. We are not swearing people in under oath here, but if 

there is any activity that you are doing with China where you may 

think you are okay, I may not. Please call the Committee and tell 

us. Do I have your word? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, good, the stenographer can’t pick up a nod of 

the head. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Then the meeting is adjourned. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. Thanks. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 66828B.071
317 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 66828B.072
318 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 66828B.073
319 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 66828B.074
320 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 66828B.075
321 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 66828B.076
322 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 66828B.077
323 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 66828B.078
324 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 66828B.079
325 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 66828B.080
326 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 66828B.081
327 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 66828B.082
328 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 66828B.083
329 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 66828B.084
330 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 66828B.085
331 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 66828B.086
332 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 66828B.087
333 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 66828B.088
334 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 66828B.089
335 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 66828B.090
336 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 66828B.091
337 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 66828B.092
338 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 66828B.093
339 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639/800 here 66828B.094
(i) 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 01 here 66828P3.001

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

INDEX 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator 

Page 

Administrator Bolden’s accomplishments .............................................................. 23–24 

Aeronautics ............................................................................................................... 64–66

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ................................................................................ 88 

Astronaut corps ........................................................................................................ 87 

China: 

cooperation with ................................................................................................ 54–56 

cyber attacks ..................................................................................................... 55 

space program ................................................................................................... 26–27 

Commercial spaceflight ......................................................................... 30–31, 39–40, 58 

Conflict between prior appropriations bills and the authorization.......... 28–29, 75–76 

Constellation spending under the CR .................................................................... 57 

Contract cost for seats on Soyuz ............................................................................ 59 

Contracting practices ............................................................................................... 66–69 

Cost and schedule estimates ................................................................................... 50–52 

Crew time for research ............................................................................................ 61–64 

DESDynI Radar Satellite ........................................................................................ 41–42 

Duplication among federal agencies ....................................................................... 20–22 

Duplication in climate change programs................................................................ 44–46 

Educational benefits................................................................................................. 88–89 

Europa....................................................................................................................... 85–87 

Glenn Research Center and Plumb Brook Station................................................ 43–44 

Human-like robots ................................................................................................... 71 

Implementation of funding cuts proposed by the House....................................... 31–32 

Implementing the authorization under the budget request ................................. 24–25 

Infrastructure planning ........................................................................................... 49–50 

International partnerships ...................................................................................... 33–35 

Justification for spending money on NASA ........................................................... 46–48 

Leveraging private investment ............................................................................... 40–41 

Matching NASA’s missions with its budget ........................................................... 19–20 

Math and science education .................................................................................... 37–38 

Modification of current contracts ............................................................................ 42–43 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.................................................................................... 56–57 

NASA’s: 

compensation for loss of Columbia .................................................................. 27 

funding challenges prior to the authorization ................................................ 27 

implementation of decadal surveys.................................................................. 76–85 

long term goals .................................................................................................. 48–49 

long term planning............................................................................................ 73–75 

overall mission and vision ................................................................................ 36–37 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Near-Earth objects ................................................................................................... 54 

New exploration program ........................................................................................ 22–23 

Ninety-day progress report ..................................................................................... 23 

Opening Statement: 

Administrator Bolden ......................................................................................... 4–18 

Chairman Wolf ...................................................................................................... 1–3 

Ranking Member Fattah ...................................................................................... 3–4 

Orion program .......................................................................................................... 75 

Planetary science...................................................................................................... 38–39 

Questions for the record: 

Mr. Aderholt .................................................................................................. 129–137 

Mr. Culberson................................................................................................ 138–141 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 119–128 

Mr. Wolf ........................................................................................................... 90–118 

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics............................................... 53–54 

Shuttle display sites................................................................................................. 34–36 

Shuttle transition ..................................................................................................... 52–53 

Soyuz contraction extension date ........................................................................... 59 

Space station............................................................................................................. 69–71

Space station support............................................................................................... 60–61 

Space technology ...................................................................................................... 41 

Superiority in space ................................................................................................. 71–73 

Test flight of Space Launch System ....................................................................... 29–30 

National Science Foundation 

Dr. Subra Suresh, Director 

Arecibo Observatory............................................................................................. 172–173 

Award oversight ................................................................................... 191–192, 192–193 

Communicating results of new investments ...................................................... 163–165 

Cybersecurity........................................................................................................ 168–196 

Deficit reduction ................................................................................................... 176–178 

GAO study on teacher training programs.......................................................... 190–191 

Hispanic-serving institutions .................................................................................. 175 

Icebreaking services ............................................................................................. 194–195 

Impact of continuing resolution .............................................................................. 157 

Increased funding for graduate research fellowship program .......................... 157–158 

International competitiveness in scientific discovery........................................ 159–162 

K–12 STEM education: 

communications strategy.............................................................................. 166–167 

education report ............................................................................ 165–166, 197–200 

education report, roll out of.......................................................................... 202–204 

effects of reducing ......................................................................................... 175–176 

maintaining student interest in................................................................... 167–168 

support for ......................................................................................................... 189 

Merit review pilot project .................................................................................... 200–201 

Minority-serving institutions .................................................................................. 174 

Neurosciene........................................................................................................... 178–181 

NSF: 

contracting ............................................................................................................. 197 

Department of Education, collaboration with ................................................ 190 

focusing on NSF’s mission............................................................................ 201–202 

international offices .............................................................................................. 168 

space lease ..................................................................................................... 169–172 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

NSF—Continued 

travel funds.................................................................................................... 195–196 

Opening remarks: 

Director Suresh ............................................................................................. 145–156 

Ranking Member Fattah .............................................................................. 144–145 

Vice Chairman Bonner ................................................................................. 143–144 

Potential duplication between government programs....................................... 162–163 

Program terminations.......................................................................................... 158–159 

Protecting scientific intellectual property .......................................................... 183–188 

Questions for the record: 

Mr. Aderholt .................................................................................................. 216–217 

Mr. Bonner ........................................................................................................ 218 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 219–227 

Mr. Honda...................................................................................................... 228–229 

Mr. Serrano.................................................................................................... 230–231 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 205–215 

Scientific data dissemination .............................................................................. 181–183 

STEM workforce, broadening participation in................................................... 173–174 

Use of hyperbaric chambers .................................................................................... 183 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Dr. John P. Holdren, Director 

Atmospheric emissions and environmental controls ......................................... 301–303 

Competition from China ...................................................................................... 256–263 

Compliance with China language from fiscal year 2011 .................. 255–256, 268–273 

Cybersecurity at OSTP ........................................................................................ 313–315 

Earth science programs, duplication of .................................................................. 311 

International travel.............................................................................................. 250–255 

Making sufficient increases in science spending ............................................... 263–265 

Meeting goals for basic research spending......................................................... 312–313 

NASA’s fiscal year 2010 budget logistics............................................................ 277–278 

NASA’s heavy lift launch capabilities, developing ............................................ 279–282 

National capability gap in human space flight and weather data................... 285–292 

NOAA severe weather predictions and warnings.............................................. 284–285 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Wolf ............................................................................................................ 233 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 233–234 

Dr. Holdren.................................................................................................... 234–249 

OSTP fiscal year 2012 budget request ............................................................... 311–312 

Population control ................................................................................................ 303–304 

Questions for the record: 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 316–328 

Mr. Culberson ................................................................................................... 336 

Mr. Graves..................................................................................................... 337–339 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 329–335 

Rare earth elements, control of........................................................................... 293–300 

Scientific and technical challenges ..................................................................... 267–268 

Social issues, addressing through science .......................................................... 300–301 

STEM education: 

At the terminal degree level......................................................................... 265–267 

Best practices ................................................................................................ 309–311 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

STEM education—Continued 

Coordination of programs ............................................................................. 304–309 

Inspiring interest in...................................................................................... 274–277 

Supporting large research facilities and infrastructures .................................. 273–274 

Tornado development and prediction research .................................................. 282–284 

Tsunamis and disaster planning ............................................................................ 311 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING