U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–836PDF 2010

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2011

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 24, 2010

Serial No. 111–78

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

February 24, 2010

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member, 

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee 

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 15

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 16

Witnesses:

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

Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; CoChair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

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

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

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

Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; CoChair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ....... 60

Appendix 2: Re-Energyse Funding Profile

RE–ENERGYSE (Regaining our Energy science and Engineering Edge) Funding Profile by Subprogram .................................................................................. 70

Appendix 3: Scientific Integrity Correspondence

Letter to Director John P. Holdren from Representative Paul C. Broun, M.D., 

Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, dated 

July 13, 2009. ....................................................................................................... 92

Letter to Director John P. Holdren from Representative Paul C. Broun, M.D., 

Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, dated 

October 2, 2009. .................................................................................................... 98

Letter to Director John P. Holdren from Representative Paul C. Broun, M.D., 

Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, dated 

December 1, 2009. ................................................................................................ 100

Letter to Representative Paul C. Broun, M.D., from John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, dated February 23, 2010. ......... 131

(1)

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 

PROPOSAL 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
2
3

1The FY 2010 enacted level does not include any carryover from the estimated $21.5 billion in R&D funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included $10.4 billion 

for NIH; $3.0 billion for the NSF; $5.5 billion for DOE; $580 million for the NIST; $1.0 billion 

for NASA; and $830 million for the NOAA, all to be spent by the end of FY 2010. 2This is just a rough estimate across the agencies/offices under S&T (sole or joint) legislative 

jurisdiction and does not include all activities at all agencies to which we might have a claim 

in the case of legislation on those activities. 

HEARING CHARTER

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

The Administration’s FY 2011

Research and Development Budget Proposal

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010

9:30 A.M.–11:30 A.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose 

On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology will 

hold a hearing to examine the Administration’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2011 funding for Federal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 

programs, in particular at agencies within the jurisdiction of the Committee. In addition, in preparation for a reauthorization of the 2007 America COMPETES Act, 

the Committee will examine the status of programs authorized in the 2007 Act, as 

reflected in the Administration’s budget request.

2. Witness

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

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). He also serves as 

Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Dr. 

Holdren is on leave from Harvard, where he is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor 

of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government and Director of the 

Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School’s Belfer Center for 

Science and International Affairs.

3. Overview of FY 2011 R&D Budget Request

The President’s FY 2011 budget proposes a total of $147.7 billion for research and development (R&D) across all agencies, a $343 million or 0.2 percent increase over 

the FY 2010 enacted level.1 The budget would decrease for defense-related R&D, and increase by $3.7 billion (5.9 percent) to $66 billion for nondefense R&D, most 

of which is categorized as ‘‘basic and applied research’’ ($61.6 billion). Funding for 

all research, development, demonstration, commercial application and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education activities at agencies and 

offices under the Committee’s jurisdiction totals approximately $44 billion in the FY 

2011 request.2

The FY 2011 request would keep the three science agencies authorized in the 

COMPETES Act—the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of 

Science on a 10-year doubling path initiated in theory in 2007 but not realized until 

2009. The Administration is requesting a total of $13.3 billion for those three agencies to keep them on track for doubling by 2017. It maybe helpful to think of this 

growth path in terms of its annual rate of increase, which for 10 years equals ∼7 

percent. The COMPETES Act put those same three agencies on a seven-year doubling path (10 percent annual growth), reflecting a compromise between the House’s 

proposal for 10 years and the Senate’s proposal for five years. 

The Administration’s FY 2011 budget also places priority on STEM education across the agencies. The total federal funding for STEM at all levels would be $3.7 

billion in FY 2011, including $1 billion, representing a 40 percent increase, for K–

12 STEM education. Of that $1 billion, nearly half would be at the Department of 

Education: $300 million for the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning in STEM 

program, and $150 million through the Investing in Innovation (i3) program. The 
4

rest of the funding is spread across the Federal science agencies. Three STEM priorities of note are: RE-ENERGYSE (more on that below under the DOE summary), 

strong support for graduate research fellowships, and increased focus on research 

and evaluation.

4. Summary of 2007 COMPETES Act

The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69) was signed into law by President 

Bush on August 9, 2007. A response to the 2005 National Academies’ report Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm, COMPEIES seeks to ensure U.S. students, teachers, 

businesses, and workers are prepared to continue leading the world in innovation, 

research, and technology. The law implemented recommendations from the Gathering Storm report, and specifically:

• Authorizes $33.6 billion over FY 2008–10 for STEM research and education 

programs across the Federal government.

• Keeps research programs at NSF, NIST and the DOE Office of Science on a 

near-term doubling path;

• Helps to prepare new teachers and provide current teachers with STEM content and teaching skills through NSF’s Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 

and Math and Science Partnerships Program;

• Expands programs at NSF to enhance the undergraduate education of the future science and engineering workforce, including at two-year colleges;

• Expands early career graduate-level grant programs and provides additional 

support for outstanding young investigators at NSF and DOE;

• Creates the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) at NIST (replacing the existing Advanced Technology Program or ATP) to fund high-risk, high-reward, 

pre-competitive technology development with high potential for public benefit;

• Puts the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which provides costshared technical assistance to small manufacturers to modernize their operations, on a path to doubling over 10 years;

• Establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA–E), a 

nimble and semiautonomous research agency at DOE to engage in high-risk, 

high reward energy research;

• Includes provisions throughout the bill to help broaden participation by 

women and minorities in science and engineering fields at all levels; and

• Strengthens interagency planning and coordination for research infrastructure and information technology (i.e. high-speed computing).

5. Descriptions of Agency R&D Budgets

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The Department of Energy supports a wide range of basic and applied research 

activities and world-class research facilities within the Science and Technology Committee’s jurisdiction.

The Office of Science

The total FY 2011 budget request for the Office of Science (SC) is $5.1 billion, 

a 4.4 percent increase ($217 million) over FY 2010 enacted level. SC’s responsibilities are in three main areas: selection and management of research; operation of 

world-class, state-of-the-art scientific facilities; and design and construction of new 

facilities. SC supports basic research in the following areas: fundamental research 

in energy, matter, and the basic forces of nature; biological systems; climate change 

and the environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use; 

fundamental science that supports the foundations for new energy technologies and 

environmental mitigation; a knowledge base for fusion as a potential future energy 

source; and advanced computational and networking tools critical to research. The 

Office of Science also supports several ongoing interagency initiatives such as the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program ($191.2 million); the Climate Change Technology Program ($706.2 million); Networking and Information Technology Research 

and Development ($461.9 million); and the National Nanotechnology Initiative 

($331.3 million).
5

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E)

The Administration requests approximately $300 million for ARPA–E to support 

new projects and program direction. As envisioned by the Gathering Storm report,

and authorized by the America COMPETES Act, the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) is responsible for funding specific high-risk, high-payoff, 

game-changing R&D projects to meet the Nation’s long-term energy challenges. The 

mission of ARPA–E is to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies by sponsoring research and technology development that industry alone is unlikely to undertake. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 provided $15.0 million to stand up the ARPA–E program, and the 2009 Recovery Act provided $400 million to carry out 

program activities through FY 2010. In FY 2009, ARPA–E released its first Funding 

Opportunity Announcement, and received 3700 responses. Ultimately 37 awardees 

were chosen. Proposals for the second round of funding were due in mid-January 

and despite the narrow technical scope the agency still received over 600 proposals. 

A third funding opportunity will be released in the spring of 2010.

Nuclear Energy

The Administration request for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) R&D is $503 million, an eight percent increase ($37 million) over the FY 2010 enacted level, with 

close to 80 percent of that request dedicated to the Fuel Cycle R&D and Reactor 

Concepts RD&D programs. The Administration has reorganized NE to focus primarily on closing the nuclear fuel cycle and developing advanced nuclear reactor 

technologies. These changes include, a zeroing out of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, moving the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program into the newly 

created Reactor Concepts RD&D program, and the creation of the Nuclear Energy 

Enabling Technologies (NEET) program to develop cross-cutting technologies. In addition to the reorganization of NE’s funding and programming, the President recently announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel to examine alternative solutions to waste storage and issue a final report in two years.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

The Administration’s proposal of $2.35 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) represents a 5 percent ($112 million) increase from 

the FY 2010 enacted level. The Administration proposes significant increases for investment in large-scale demonstrations in biopower, concentrating solar power, offshore wind, and advanced conventional water power. Vehicle technology research 

would also receive a significant increase, while hydrogen related research would fall. 

Energy efficiency activities would continue to support R&D for innovative new 

building technologies and a new focus on retrofitting existing buildings.

Fossil Energy

The Office of Fossil Energy’s budget was reduced by $191 million, reflecting a 

commitment to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology development and 

a shift in focus away from natural gas and oil R&D. Neither the Natural Gas Technologies program nor the Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies program received funding and the gas hydrates initiative has been shifted over to the Office 

of Science.

Energy Innovation Hubs

The FY 2011 budget request proposes funding of $34 million for the establishment 

of a new Energy Innovation Hub to specialize in Batteries and Energy Storage. This 

is in addition to requests of $24 million each for three ongoing hubs initiated in FY 

2010—Fuels from Sunlight; Energy Efficient Buildings; and Nuclear Modeling and 

Simulation. The new Batteries and Energy Storage Hub will be housed under the 

Office of Science—Basic Energy Sciences program. 

Plans for eight Energy Innovation Hubs were announced in FY 2010 with proposed budgets of approximately $25 million each to support very large interdisciplinary teams focused on overcoming specific energy technology challenges. No federal 

funds for Hubs can be used for construction of permanent infrastructure, and all 

awardees must re-compete every five years.

RE-ENERGYSE

For the second year in a row the Administration is including a proposal to fund 

RE-ENERGYSE (Regaining our ENERGY and Science and Engineering Edge) with 
6

3 In 2005, NSF signed an MOU with the US Coast Guard (USCG) in which NSF agreed to 

take over M&O budgetary authority for USCG Icebreakers operating in the Arctic and Antarctic. The rationale at the time was that 90+ percent of the USCG icebreakers time was dedicated to supporting NSF’s science missions at the Poles. In FY 2010, the Appropriators required 

that budgetary authority be shifted back to USCG (P.L. 111–117). As a result, $54 million is 

a suggested appropriation of $55 million for FY 2011. This would support a broad 

range of workforce education and training activities at universities and community 

colleges for students interested in pursuing careers in energy. RE-ENERGYSE is intended to be a DOE-wide initiative. However, the majority of funding—$50 million—

comes out of EERE, with an additional $5 million requested under the Nuclear Energy program. The National Science Foundation is proposing to contribute an additional $19 million through five existing NSF programs, although this $19 million approximates what NSF is already spending on energy specific proposals under those 

programs.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

The FY 2011 budget request for NASA is $19.0 billion. The proposal represents an increase of 1.5 percent over the enacted FY 2010 appropriation of $18.7 billion 

for NASA. The President’s FY 2011 request for NASA includes a projected increase 

in NASA’s topline budget of $6 billion over five years as compared to the FY 2010 

request runout. Specifically, the FY 2011 budget request proposes $19.45 billion for 

FY 2012, $19.96 billion for FY 2013, $20.6 billion for FY 2014, and $20.99 billion 

for FY 2015. Within the proposed FY 2011 budget for NASA, an additional $600 

million in FY 2011 is provided to ensure the safe completion of the Space Shuttle 

manifest through the first quarter of FY 2011, if needed. The budget request also 

assumes extension of the operations and utilization of the International Space Station from 2016 to at least 2020. However, the Constellation Program, which includes 

the Ares 1 crew launch vehicle and the Orion crew exploration vehicle, would be 

cancelled under the proposed budget request. In so doing, the budget request does 

not support the goal of returning Americans to the Moon by 2020 that was articulated in the FY 2010 budget request. In its place, the Administration proposes three 

new technology initiatives that total $13.9 billion over five years that it describes 

as exploration-related and proposes to spend $6 billion over five years in the development of commercial human spaceflight vehicles. The budget also initiates an 

agency-wide space technology program that is incorporated into a new Aeronautics 

and Space Research and Technology account, and provides an increase of approximately $1.8 billion over four years for Earth observations and climate satellites and 

research, as compared to the FY 2010 request. 

The FY 2011 budget request appears to be responsive to the NASA Authorization 

Act of 2008 [P.L. 110–422] in a number of areas, but diverges markedly from other 

areas of policy direction in the Act. Areas where the budget reflects direction and 

priorities established in the 2008 Act include: support for NASA’s Earth Science 

Decadal Survey missions; support for aeronautics R&D on ‘‘green aviation’’; support 

for extension of the operation and utilization of the International Space Station to 

at least 2020; and funding for exploration-related technology development activities. 

In addition, the request provides initial funding, in combination with funds requested for DOE, for restarting the domestic production of plutonium-238. The Administration’s request for FY 2011 diverges from the 2008 Act in its proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program and in its investment in the development of 

commercial crew human spaceflight vehicles as the only potential direct U.S. access 

to the International Space Station, following the retirement of the Shuttle. The 2008 

Act had made clear that the Congressional intent for a congressionally authorized 

commercial crew initiative ‘‘not come at the expense of full funding of the amounts 

authorized . . . and for future fiscal years, for Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle development, Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle development, or International Space Station 

cargo delivery.’’ In addition, while the FY 2011 request for NASA focuses heavily 

on advanced technology development, the request does not propose funding for advanced technology development within the Science Mission Directorate, as directed 

in the 2008 Act.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation budget request for FY 2011 totals $7.424 billion, 

$552 million or 8.0 percent more than FY 2010 funding (not including any 2010 carryover in the $3.0 billion included for NSF in the 2009 Recovery Act). However, 

when funding for U.S. Coast Guard Icebreakers ($54 million) is counted appropriately, the real growth is 7.2 percent.3 This level of funding keeps NSF on a 10-
7

excluded from the FY 2010 NSF budget total, thereby obscuring the true growth in funding for 

NSF’s programs.

year doubling path. NSF provides approximately 22 percent of support for basic research at U.S. colleges and universities and is second only to NIH in support for 

all academic research. The budget for NSF is divided into three main accounts: Research and Related Activities, Education and Human Resources, and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction. 

Research and Related Activities

The Administration’s budget would provide $6.02 billion for Research and Related 

Activities (R&RA) in FY 2011, an increase of $401 million or 7.1 percent over FY 

2010 funding (NSF budget documents report 8.2 percent growth—see footnote on 

icebreakers). R&RA is made up primarily of six disciplinary directorates. The largest relative increases went to Engineering (+11 percent) and Computer and Information Science and Engineering (+10.6 percent). Geosciences, which funds atmospheric, 

earth and ocean sciences, including most of NSF’s climate change research; and Biological Sciences, which funds 68 percent of all non-medical academic research in the 

life sciences, including environmental biology, also saw greater than 7 percent increases. Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences received a 5.3 percent increase, 

and the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, the largest by far at NSF 

with a proposed $1.4 billion in FY 2011, received a 4.3 percent increase. 

The Administration’s R&RA priorities for FY 2011 included a significant increase 

in funding for three programs labeled by NSF as ‘‘innovation’’ programs, including 

Partnerships for Innovation ($19.2 million), Science and Engineering Beyond 

Moore’s Law ($70.2 million), and NSF’s Centers programs ($313.8 million across 

NSF). The cross-cutting area of research that received the most significant boost in 

the FY 2011 budget is climate change science. The Administration proposes $370 

million for NSF’s contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Education and Human Resources

The Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate, which funds education 

and broadening participation programs at all levels ‘‘from K to gray,’’ would be funded at $892 million in FY 2011, an increase of only $19.2 million or 2.2 percent over 

FY 2010 funding. The Administration continues to offer a mixed message regarding 

this treatment of EHR relative to the healthy increase for R&RA. On the one hand, 

they point out that funding for EHR alone represents an incomplete picture of the 

many education and training programs and activities distributed across NSF. On 

the other hand, they maintain that NSF is primarily a research agency and that 

the Department of Education (DoED) has a greater responsibility for education, especially at the K–12 level. Significant funding ($450 million) is requested for STEM 

education at DoED in the FY 2011 budget. 

In the 2007 COMPETES Act, the Committee expanded teacher training programs 

at NSF, including the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and the Math and 

Science Partnerships Program (MSP). In the FY 2011 budget, Noyce would be funded at $55 million, the same level since FY 2009, and MSP would be funded at $58.2 

million, the same level as in FY 2010 and a small decrease from FY 2009 funding. 

Both Noyce and MSP received significant funding in the Recovery Act ($60 million 

and $25 million, respectively). 

Of particular note in the ERR budget is the proposed restructuring of programs 

to broaden participation in STEM at the undergraduate level. NSF is proposing a 

new comprehensive broadening participation program that builds on three existing 

programs: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program 

(HBCU–UP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and Tribal 

Colleges Undergraduate Program (TCUP), and newly invites proposals from Hispanic Serving Institutions, consistent with the mandate in Sec. 7033 of the COMPETES Act. Funding for this newly consolidated program would be $103 million in 

FY 2011, a $13 million or 14.4 percent increase from the total FY 2010 funding for 

HBCU–UP, LSAMP and TCUP.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

The MREFC request for FY 2011 is $165 million, an increase of $41 million from 

FY 2010. MREFC also received $400 million in the Recovery Act to initiate construction on three projects, two of which will continue to receive funding in FY 2011. The 

only new start in FY 2011 is the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), 

which passed final design review in November.
8

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

The FY 2011 NIST Budget Request proposes a funding level of $918.9 million, a 

7.3 percent increase over the FY 2010 enacted budget. The budget would provide 

$584.5 million for NIST’s core Scientific and Technical Research and Services 

(STRS); $124.8 million for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF); $129.7 million 

for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program; and $79.9 million for 

the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). The NIST FY 2011 budget request reflects the Administration’s overarching priorities to promote U.S. innovation and 

competitiveness in energy and green technology, manufacturing, healthcare, cybersecurity, and disaster resilient buildings and infrastructure.

Research and Facilities

The FY 2011 NIST budget requests $584.5 million for the agency’s Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS). The STRS increase of $69.4 million (13.5 percent) over FY 2010 encompasses a number of new initiatives to address the critical 

national priorities mentioned above. For instance, the request includes $10 million 

for a new Green Manufacturing and Construction initiative, focused on the development of accurate metrics to assess environmental sustainability in manufacturing, 

and on research and measurement data to better assess the energy performance of 

buildings. In healthcare, in addition to continuing work on Healthcare Information 

Technology standards, the budget also includes a $10 million initiative to support 

measurement science for the development of complex biologic drugs. The FY 2011 budget request for CRF is $124.8 million, a 15.1 percent decrease from the FY 2010 enacted budget. Last year’s budget included $47 million in Congressionally directed funding, which the agency did not request this year. The requested CRF funds would support completion of the Boulder lab renovations and address maintenance needs at the Gaithersburg Laboratories.

Industrial Technology Services (ITS)

The $129.7 million request for the MEP program is a four percent increase from 

FY 2010 enacted level. The MEP program is a public/private partnership in all 50 

states and Puerto Rico that provides technical assistance for small manufacturers 

to modernize their operations and adapt to foreign competition. MEP Centers are 

supported by equal contributions from Federal funds, state funds, and client fees. 

The increase in the FY 2011 budget proposal would direct funds to innovation services for small and medium-sized manufacturers to accelerate technology adoption, 

promote environmentally sustainable practices, support market diversification, and 

improve workforce capabilities. The FY 2011 request for the Technology Innovation 

Program (TIP) is $79.9 million, a $10 million increase over FY 2010 enacted. TIP 

awards cost-shared grants to small companies and joint ventures for the development of high-risk, high-reward technologies that meet critical national needs.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) budget request for FY 2011 is $5.55 billion, a 17 percent ($806 million) increase over the FY 2010 

enacted level. The bulk of this increase is allotted for the National Environmental 

Satellite Data Information Systems (NESDIS) office, and more specifically for the 

Joint Polar Satellite System (formerly—National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)). Specifically, NOAA is requesting an increase of $678.6 million to $1.061 billion for the new Joint Polar Satellite System. 

The increased funding will permit the agency to initiate work on its first satellite 

for mid-afternoon orbit coverage under the program. The balance of the funds permit NOAA to complete and launch the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite, 

which will now bridge the gap between NOAA’s current satellites and the new generation. Additional detail on NPOESS restructuring is provided in Section 6 below.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

The FY 2011 budget for the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) would increase by 0.5 percent from FY 2010 enacted. 

However, this increase includes the transfer of research programs from the DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to DHS S&T. When not including the new 

radiological and nuclear research portfolio, the DHS S&T budget would decrease by 

12 percent. Overall, research priorities remain similar to previous years and the 

budget cut is enacted uniformly across the divisions with one exception: the Infrastructure and Geophysical Division was cut by 50 percent, eliminating two Congressionally directed programs that supported local, community-based terrorism re-
9

sponse and mitigation research programs. The move of radiological and nuclear research from DNDO to S&T will consolidate all DHS basic research within S&T and 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the research. 

Overall, the DHS DNDO budget decreased by 20 percent, with the majority of this 

budget cut coming from the transfer of radiological and nuclear research to S&T. 

Additionally, DNDO is shifting priorities away from the research, development and 

deployment of a few specific technologies to a focus on understanding capability 

gaps in all sectors of homeland security and law enforcement while increasing test 

and evaluation programs to identify potential solutions.

6. SELECTED INTERAGENCY PROGRAMS

Restructuring NOAA’s Polar Satellite Program (NPOESS)

As part of a tri-agency effort with NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), 

NOAA has invested for several years in the development of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS), which is the next generation of polarorbiting weather satellites that serve both civilian and military weather forecasting 

and climatology needs. However, NPOESS has suffered a string of cost increases 

(from $6.9 billion at the Program’s outset to the Government Accountability Office’s 

(GAO) current estimate of $15 billion) and schedule delays (some five years for the 

first satellite launch) that now threaten the continuity of reliable high-quality 

weather and climate data. 

Reviews of NPOESS have blamed the cost and schedule overruns on the program’s organizational structure, which places direction and decision-making authority with an Executive Committee consisting of the three agencies, rather than with 

a single agency. In the FY 2011 budget, the Administration is proposing a significant reorganization of NPOESS. Instead of being combined in a single program, 

NOAA and NASA will separate from DOD. NOAA and NASA will be responsible 

for the satellites flying in ‘‘afternoon’’ orbits (i.e. passing over sunlit regions of the 

Earth at local afternoon) while DOD will take control of the spacecraft flying early 

morning orbits. The two groups will procure their satellites separately; for the civilian side, NASA will perform the acquisition management in much the same way it 

handles such tasks for NOAA’s geostationary weather satellites. NOAA will now 

refer to its portion of NPOESS as the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). The 

program will continue to rely on European satellites for coverage in a third orbit.

Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP)

The FY 2011 budget request proposes a $439 million increase (or 21 percent) over 

FY 2010 for a total of $2.56 billion in funding for integrated climate and global 

change research conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP) umbrella, bringing federal climate research funding to the highest level 

ever. Started in 1989, the USGCRP is an interagency effort comprised of 13 departments and agencies. Activities of the USGCRP are grouped under the following 

areas: improving knowledge of Earth’s past and present climate variability and 

change; improving understanding of natural and human forces of climate change; 

improving capability to model and predict future conditions and impacts; assessing 

the Nation’s vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of climate change; and 

improving the Nation’s ability to respond to climate change by providing climate information and decision support tools that are useful to policymakers and the general 

public.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

The Science and Technology Committee was instrumental in the development and 

enactment of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 

2003 (P.L. 108–153), which authorizes the National Nanotechnology Initiative 

(NNI). The NNI focuses on R&D that creates materials, devices, and systems that 

exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter as it is manipulated at the 

nanoscale. There are currently 26 federal agencies that participate in the NNI, with 

13 of those agencies reporting a nanotechnology R&D budget. A bill to reauthorize 

NNI (H.R. 554) is pending in the Senate. 

The FY 2011 budget request proposes $1.8 billion for NNI, a $5 million decrease 

from FY 2010 enacted. The most significant decrease in funding (∼20 percent, or $87 

million) is at DOD, where the Administration did not request funding for Congressionally directed projects funded in FY 2010. But NSF’s contribution to NNI also 

decreases some, while DOE’s and Health and Human Services’ contributions increase significantly. Overall, environmental, health and safety (EHS) research 
10

would increase by 22 percent to $119 million and nanomanufacturing R&D would 

be a new focus at several agencies, with total funding of $87 million.

Networking and Information Technology R&D Program (NITRD)

Similarly, the S&T Committee was instrumental in the development of the multiagency Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 

(NITRD) program through the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102–

194). The mission of the NITRD program is to accelerate progress in the advancement of computing and networking technologies and to support leading edge computational research in a range of science and engineering fields. Currently, 13 Federal agencies contribute funding to the NITRD program and additional agencies, 

such as DHS, participate in planning activities. 

The Administration proposes $43 billion for NITRD in the FY 2011 budget, a decrease of $9 million from FY 2010 enacted. The key NITRD agencies, including NSF, 

DOE and HHS (because of health IT) increase their contributions to NITRD in FY 

2011. DOD’s funding is decreased by $171 million, again accounted for by Congressionally directed projects.
11

Chairman GORDON. This hearing will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to the Science and Technology Committee hearing on Research and Development in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. Recognizing that we are in a time of 

constrained budgets and have some very tough choices that have 

to be made, I was very happy to see strong increases for research 

and development in the President’s budget. 

Ironically, it is during these difficult economic times that we 

have both an imperative and an opportunity to invest in our future 

economic growth through science, technology and STEM education. 

It is an imperative because we must lay the foundation for future 

discoveries and transformative technologies such as the internet. 

That foundation involves investing in cutting-edge research, as well 

as in the mechanisms that facilitate technology transfer and innovation that translates into 21st century jobs and improved standard of living. It also requires investing in the education and training of a workforce prepared for those high-skills, high-paying jobs 

generated through innovation. So I am happy to see such a focus 

on STEM education in the President’s budget. 

But business as usual will not be enough to maintain our lead, 

and to keep our own and the world’s best talent here in the United 

States, especially as other countries rapidly increase their own investments in science and technology. In 2007, we bucked business 

as usual and created ARPA–E as a whole new model of funding 

high-risk, but potentially transformative clean energy research. 

While I was hoping for more, I was pleased to see the strong support of ARPA–E in the President’s budget. 

And I want to thank Dr. Holdren for appearing before the Committee today to discuss how he can work, where we can work together to achieve these goals, and I am sure we will not be surprised, or he will not be surprised, by my colleagues and I having 

some questions and concerns about particular agencies and programs within the budget. So I look forward to a productive discussion about these issues. 

And now I recognize Mr. Hall for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning and welcome to this Science and Technology Committee hearing on 

Research and Development in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. Recognizing that we are in a time of constrained budgets and some very tough choices 

had to be made, I was very happy to see strong increases for research and development in the President’s budget. 

Ironically, it is during these difficult economic times that we have both an imperative and an opportunity to invest in our future economic growth through science, 

technology and STEM education. It is an imperative because we must lay the foundation for future discoveries and transformative technologies such as the internet. 

That foundation involves investing in cutting edge research, as well as in the mechanisms that facilitate technology transfer and innovation that translates into 21st 

century jobs and improved standard of living. It also requires investing in the education and training of a workforce prepared for those high-skills, high-paying jobs 

generated through innovation. I am happy to see such a focus on STEM education 

in the President’s budget. 

But business as usual will not be enough to maintain our lead, and to keep our 

own and the world’s best talent here in the U.S., especially as other countries rapidly increase their own investments in science and technology. In 2007, we bucked 

business as usual and created ARPA–E as a whole new model of funding high-risk, 

but potentially transformative clean energy research. While I was hoping for more, 
12

I was pleased to see strong support for ARPA–E in the President’s budget. These 

economic downturns present us with an opportunity to take a step back and think 

about how to innovate throughout our science and technology enterprise. 

I want to thank Dr. Holdren for appearing before the Committee today to discuss 

how we can work together to achieve these goals. And I’m sure you will not be surprised that my colleagues and I also have some questions and concerns about particular agencies and programs within the budget. I look forward to a productive discussion about these issues.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I had some words I wanted 

to say about Dr. Ehlers, but he stepped out and he is my age. I 

guess he has gone to the bathroom. I will kind of wait and cut in 

later. I sat up all night writing it. 

I thank you, Chairman Gordon, good chairman, for calling this 

hearing, and Dr. Holdren, I think I want to welcome you here 

today and thank you for your service as Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy. I am going to try to be firm but polite. Today’s hearing obviously covers a great deal of ground, so I 

will still try to be brief. At the same time, there are some specific 

points that I would like to address before we hear from you. 

First of all, none of us here dispute the magnitude and importance that a robust federal research and development enterprise 

has on our economy, our National security and our ability to be 

globally competitive. As you know, doubling the funding in key 

areas of basic research is the most important innovation in longterm economic competitiveness, and that has long been a priority 

of this committee. The President continues his commitment in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget but we also need to recognize that we are 

in a very difficult economy, a much more difficult economy than we 

were in when we originally set down this path with the America 

COMPETES Act. While being supportive of strong funding for basic 

research, I am concerned with where this budget is taking us and 

the way the Administration is choosing to direct the American taxpayers’ research dollars. 

Let us start with NASA. I have never been more concerned for 

the future of America’s human spaceflight program. The Administration’s own Augustine panel recommended that a human 

spaceflight program worthy of a great Nation would require a clear 

direction and adequate funding. Unfortunately, this Administration 

proposes to eliminate billions of dollars from human spaceflight at 

a critical and precarious time by shifting funding to other areas of 

NASA. On the eve of the completion of the International Space Station and the retirement of the space shuttle, I cannot understand 

how the Administration can propose such radical policy changes 

without a clear defined plan forward with measurable goals. This 

is a dangerous path that not only threatens our leadership and our 

highly skilled workforce but also threatens the very existence of 

America’s human spaceflight efforts and the utilization of the 

International Space Station. I hope someone has a better substitute, but I doubt it. 

Next, the Administration’s nonchalant response to the leaked emails from the climate research unit at the University of East 

Anglia. It contradicts your commitment to scientific integrity. It 

was my hope that your concern would rise to the level of mine. The 

continued assertion that the e-mails do nothing to undermine the 

veracity of the science presented by the IPCC gives us further 
13

pause of the ability of the objective in these matters. A long time 

ago, scientific consensus found the world to be flat but challenging 

that consensus provided us with the truth. 

The Administration has also changed course in several other key 

areas, the direction of which places significant sums of taxpayer 

money in jeopardy. Your office announced the dissolution of the 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, or NPOESS program. The tri-agency project structure including NASA, NOAA and DOD spent the last 16 years developing the 

next generation of weather satellites at a cost of more than $14 billion dollars, although the way that this program was structured almost doomed it to fail. We are about a year away from finally 

launching the first satellite. Now the Office of Science and Technology Policy decides to change program parameters by splitting 

the program with over $14 billion dollars of taxpayer funding already invested. The shift in program structure comes with no analysis or explanation as to whether it will be cost-effective, lower the 

inherent risk and deliver this project on time. 

Similarly, the Administration announced a desire to formally 

withdraw with prejudice a license application for Yucca Mountain, 

effectively eliminating Yucca Mountain as an option for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. After 25 years of scientific and engineering analysis and at a cost of $10 billion dollars, the Administration provided no details as to the rationale, whether scientific, 

economic or other, for killing this option. With no alternative proposal provided, the Administration asked that we wait an additional two years for the results of the blue ribbon panel just announced. 

All of these examples illustrate a troubling pattern in the Administration’s science policy decisions. These decisions should not only 

be based on sound science and sound economics but should also 

consider the long-term ramifications. I fear that the current decisions being made do not reflect these considerations. As the President’s principal scientific advisor, your task is to ensure scientific 

integrity and prudent investment so as to provide sound science 

that is good for the entire Nation, not just this Administration. 

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

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

that we have significant concerns with the present course, and I 

thank you again for being with us and I do look forward to your 

testimony. 

If I might have another just a minute or so say a word about Dr. 

Ehlers. He is back. Good. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed together anymore today, I know you share in my feelings and I will 

take a moment to recognize someone that I believe that we have 

found to be a tremendous asset not only to this committee but also 

to his constituents, the scientific community and the entire Nation. 

Vern Ehlers, or the Professor, as I call him, announced last week 

that he is ready to leave Washington and return to his beloved 

Michigan at the end of the Congress. As I am sure you will agree, 

it is unlikely that anyone will be able to fill his shoes. I just wanted 

to take this opportunity to tell him what a valuable contribution 

he has made to this committee. We will hear today about the President’s plan for STEM education. No one in the history of this body 
14

has worked more tirelessly or effectively on this issue, and we all 

owe him a debt of gratitude. He embodies qualities of a true statesman, a man of integrity and tenacious in his beliefs yet willing to 

compromise when in the best interests of the country. He is a 

gentle fighter. 

Fortunately, he isn’t going anywhere for a while so I suggest all 

of us on both sides of the aisle and you too, Dr. Holdren, glean 

every ounce of intelligence from him while we can. There is much 

to be learned from this gentleman, and I am not just referring to 

science. I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you Chairman Gordon for calling this hearing to review the Administration’s FY 2011 Research and Development (R&D) Budget and related science and 

technology policy priorities. 

Dr. Holdren, I would like to welcome you here today and thank you for your service as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Today’s hearing obviously covers a great deal of ground, so I will try to be brief. At the same time, there 

are some specific points that I would like to address before we hear from you. 

First of all, none of us here dispute the magnitude of importance that a robust 

federal research and development enterprise has on our economy, our national security, and our ability to be globally competitive. As you know, doubling the funding 

in key areas of basic research most important to innovation and long-term economic 

competitiveness has long been a priority of this Committee. The President continues 

this commitment in the FY 2011 budget, but we also need to recognize that we are 

in a very different economy than we were when we originally set down this path 

with the America COMPETES Act. While being supportive of strong funding for 

basic research, I am concerned with where this budget is taking us and the ways 

the Administration is choosing to direct the American taxpayer’s research dollars. 

Let’s start with NASA. I have never been more concerned for the future of America’s human space flight program. The Administration’s own Augustine panel recommended that a human space flight program worthy of a great nation would require a clear direction and adequate funding. Unfortunately, this Administration 

proposes to eliminate billions of dollars from human space flight at a critical and 

precarious time by shifting funding to other areas of NASA. On the eve of the completion of the International Space Station and the retirement of the Space Shuttle, 

I cannot understand how the Administration can propose such radical policy 

changes without a clearly defined plan forward with measurable goals. This is a 

dangerous path that not only threatens our leadership and our highly skilled workforce, but also threatens the very existence of America’s human space flight efforts, 

and the utilization of the International Space Station. 

Next, the Administration’s nonchalant response to the leaked e-mails from the 

Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia contradicts your commitment to scientific integrity. It was my hope that your concern would rise to the level 

of mine. The continued assertion that the e-mails do nothing to undermine the veracity of the science presented by the IPCC give us further pause as to the ability 

to be objective in these matters. A long time ago scientific consensus found the 

world to be flat, but challenging that consensus provided us with the truth. 

The Administration also has changed course in several other key areas, the direction of which places significant sums of taxpayer money in jeopardy. Your office announced the dissolution of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System or NPOESS (N pose) program. This tri-agency project structure, including NASA, NOAA, and DOD, spent the last 16 years developing the next generation of weather satellites at a cost of more than 14 billion dollars. Although the 

way that the program was structured almost doomed it to fail, we are about a year 

away from finally launching the first satellite. Now OSTP decides to change the program parameters by splitting the program. With over 14 billion dollars of taxpayer 

funding already invested, this shift in program structure comes with no analysis or 

explanation as to whether it will be cost effective, lower the inherent risks, and deliver the project on time. 

Similarly, the Administration announced the desire to formally withdraw, with 

prejudice, the license application for Yucca Mountain, effectively eliminating Yucca 

Mountain as an option for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. After 25 years 
15

of scientific and engineering analysis and at a cost of 10 billion dollars, the Administration provided no details as to the rationale, whether scientific, economic or other, 

for killing this option. With no alternative proposal provided, the Administration 

asks that we wait an additional two years for the results of a Blue-Ribbon panel 

just announced. 

All of these examples illustrate a troubling pattern in the Administration’s science 

policy decisions. These decisions should not only be based on sound science and 

sound economics, but should also consider the long term ramifications. I fear that 

the current decisions being made do not reflect these considerations. As the President’s principal scientific advisor, your task is to ensure scientific integrity and prudent investment so as to provide sound science that is good for the entire Nation, 

not just this Administration. 

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

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

with the present course. 

Thank you again, for being with us, and I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the Administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request for research and development 

(R&D) programs across the federal government. The President’s budget calls for $147.7 billion for research and development, 

which will fund an array of R&D projects in nearly every agency in the federal government. This investment represents a $343 million increase in R&D from FY 2010 

and keeps three science agencies—the National Science Foundation, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of 

Science—on a 10-year track for doubling funding. 

I am pleased to see that the President’s budget continues to invest in the America 

COMPETES Act programs in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Education. In particular, I was pleased to see the $1 billion investment in 

K–12 STEM education, a 40 percent increase from FY 2010. I strongly support this 

funding to attract students to STEM at a young age and improve STEM achievement. The Committee will consider the reauthorization of COMPETES this year. I 

would like to hear from Dr. Holdren on the impact these investments in STEM education have had on our students, especially in increasing the number of students 

pursuing STEM through higher education at community colleges, universities, and 

graduate programs. 

I support the increase in funding for two key workforce development and worker 

training programs: RE–ENERGYSE the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP). First, RE–ENERGYSE provides training and education to prepare our students at community colleges and universities for careers in energy. This important 

program would receive $55 million through budget, combined with an additional $19 

million from the National Science Foundation. Second, MEP is perhaps the single 

best way to prepare our manufacturers for changes in technology. The budget increases funding for MEP by four percent, requesting $129.7 million, and I am 

pleased to see the administration’s support for this vital program. The Committee 

must continue to support this program and, through the reauthorization of COMPETES this year, to expand its efforts to promote innovation by small and mediumsized American manufacturers. 

I was also pleased to see the Administration’s $545 million investment in carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) R&D, of which I have been a strong supporter. This investment is complimented by $2.4 billion in funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency R&D, including biofuels and biomass. Together, these investments 

will allow us to increase our energy independence while continuing to use reliable 

domestic energy sources, such as clean coal. 

Finally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget represents a general departure from the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 passed by 

Congress and signed into law. This departure is seen in the termination of the Constellation program and the $6 billion investment over five years in the development 

of commercial human spaceflight vehicles. I would like to hear from Dr. Holdren 

how the Administration plans to work with NASA and this Committee to enact 

these changes. 

I welcome Dr. Holdren, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you again, Mr. 

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Welcome, Dr. Holdren. It is a delight for us to see you at today’s committee hearing on the federal research and development budget. 

Now is the time to act boldly to produce a more diverse, well-educated workforce 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Federal research 

agencies can have a major impact on our nation’s future competitiveness in these 

areas. Investments in research and education programs with demonstrated success 

represent wise stewardship of our nation’s resources. 

Specifically, we must invest in segments of our population that are not pursuing 

these areas in order to foster a climate of diversity, creativity and competitiveness. 

We must also support policies that target gaps in the STEM workforce pipeline—

such as the early-career faculty period—where we are losing precious human capital. 

Strong, sustained investment in federal R&D is among my highest priorities. I believe that a competitive, educated workforce is well-positioned to take advantage of 

research grant opportunities made available by the federal government. 

The President suggests $7.4 billion for the National Science Foundation, an 8 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level. I recommend more robust funding for 

NSF Rather than focusing on infrastructure support, I recommend that the Foundation be given robust increases for extramural research and education activities. NSF 

‘‘Broadening Participation’’ programs are particularly effective in encouraging 

women and under-represented minorities to pursue STEM careers. 

Broadening Participation programs at the National Science Foundation are slated 

to receive modest increases only. I would prefer a much greater emphasis on these 

types of programs than is currently given. 

Several of my colleagues on this committee are members of the Diversity and Innovation Caucus. 

They have advocated for minority-serving institutions by offering amendments 

during committee markups. 

There is stronger support to broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (also called STEM) than ever before. 

I support the President’s initial FY 2011 budget request contained language specifying funds to expand the Department of Energy Office of Science to $5.1 billion. 

The America COMPETES Act of 2007 did authorize funds for several vital education 

and research programs. These programs should receive funding. 

In addition, net metering and smart grid technology investments, as well as 

ARPA–E, will empower individuals to use energy more wisely. We must boldly move 

energy efficiency to a personal level with stronger incentives. Some states are excelling at this effort, and greater federal engagement is needed. 

I also support funding increases for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 

the Technology Innovation Program within the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

Funding for OSTP has been neglected so severely over the past decade that the 

administration’s team of STEM advisors has dwindled by two thirds. OSTP must 

be restored to the strong, science-based, consultative body that is needed to coordinate cross-agency science programmatic activities and to liaison with the legislative 

branch. 

Dr. Holdren, It is my hope that your office will take a more formal approach to 

analyzing and watching over federally-funded Broadening Participation programs 

across the agencies. 

In 2006, two percent of employed doctoral engineers were black. That same year, 

2.7 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-one percent were White or Asian. 

I would like to partner with you to see this number change. 

A National Academies report on minorities and science, technology, engineering, 

and math is long overdue. 

This committee is anxious to see the recommendations for it. 

Currently, there exists no coordinating activity for all of these programs across 

the agencies. 

Such an activity would enable agency program directors to manage programs better and share best practices with one another on implementing these programs. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We could spend the 

rest of the day concurring with you. And Dr. Ehlers, let me say 

both in the majority and in the minority and on all occasions you 

have been a leader for this committee, a leader and a champion for 
17

science and technology, and we thank you, and you will be missed 

from this committee and from this Congress but I am sure your 

voice won’t be silent, so we want you to stay involved in public policy. 

Now at this time I want to introduce our witness. Dr. John 

Holdren is Assistant to the President for the Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology, or PCAST. Prior to joining the Obama 

Administration, Dr. Holdren was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environment Policy and Director of the Program on 

Science and Technology and Public Policy at the Kennedy School 

of Government. As our witness knows, his written testimony will 

be a part of the record. Each Member then will have the opportunity to ask questions for five minutes. I am hoping—as you 

know, we are all a little bit behind because of the snow. Dr. 

Holdren was supposed to have testified, I guess it was last week. 

He made a special effort because we thought it was important to 

get him up here early to be here today, but he is going to have to 

leave at 11:30. That is the reason that we started at 9:30 so that 

we want everybody to have an opportunity to discuss with him. So 

I am asking people to try to be crisp with their questions because 

I want everybody to have a chance to get those questions in today. 

Dr. Holdren, I will tell you that as we got ready to start the 

hearing, with Mr. Broun with a big smile on his face, Mr. Hall 

looked at me and said, ‘‘Does he bruise easily?’’ I told him no, that 

you had a tough skin. So we are glad to hear from you. 

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

PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; DIRECTOR OF 

THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

POLICY; CO-CHAIR OF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for that vote of confidence, Mr. Chairman, about bruising. 

Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be here today to testify about the Administration’s research and development and science, technology, engineering and math education budget proposals for fiscal year 2011. 

I do want to say that I myself have known and worked with Dr. 

Ehlers on a variety of issues for many years and I would second 

everything that Ranking Member Hall said about his wonderful 

qualities. Vern, you will certainly be missed in the Congress. But 

I, for one, will try to continue to tap your wisdom. 

Let me start by saying that the Obama Administration is working hard to keep the Nation on a path out of recession through recovery and into a new era of revitalized economic growth. That 

means obviously sparking job creation to get millions of Americans 

back to work, and it means building a new foundation for long-term 

prosperity that will reach every American family. A crucial element 

of that effort is the targeted investments that we are making in 

science, technology and innovation that will lead to new products 

and services, new businesses and industries, increased American 

competitiveness and high-quality sustainable jobs. 
18

That strategy includes investments in fundamental and applied 

research and development that will lead to better technologies and 

the jobs that go with them for advanced manufacturing, for clean 

energy, for health care, for environmental protection and remediation, and for national and homeland security. It includes increased 

use of public-private partnerships to speed up innovation and get 

the results more rapidly into the marketplace. 

It calls for exploration and discovery from the depths of the 

oceans to the frontiers of space, expanding our knowledge of our 

world and our universe while igniting the curiosity and ambitions 

of our young people. And it includes a focus on STEM education—

science, technology, engineering and math education—that will 

support and sustain rather than stifling that curiosity so that we 

can cultivate the next generation of innovators along with a technology-savvy workforce that competitiveness in the 21st century requires. 

Obviously, we need the continued support of the Congress and 

this committee to get it done, but if there is one message that I 

want to convey in my comments today, it is that the investments 

outlined in the President’s R&D budget are at the very core of this 

country’s future strength. So I do look forward to working with all 

of you to make sure, at this very important time in our history 

when competition abroad is growing and the stakes are increasing, 

that we keep America on a path that keeps this Nation great for 

our children and our grandchildren, a path that is built on scientific evidence, on technical progress and prowess, and on a nation of people who are inventors, innovators and makers, not just 

consumers. 

Let me turn to a brief birds-eye view of the fiscal year 2011 R&D 

budget and then elaborate on just a few highlights. The President’s 

2011 budget proposes a record $61.6 billion investment in civilian 

research and development, not including facilities and equipment. 

That is an increase of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, over the 2010 

funding level. Those increases are counterbalanced by some reductions in defense development funding such that the combined defense and non-defense R&D budget would be $147.7 billion. That 

is just two-tenths of a percent above the enacted 2010 level. Taking 

inflation into account, it would be a decline of about nine-tenths of 

a percent in real terms. I think this is a smart R&D budget, one 

that is fiscally responsible overall with some important targeted increases where investments today can do the most good tomorrow. 

Among the highlights, let me first note that this budget does reflect the President’s commitment to double the budgets of the National Science Foundation, the DOE’s Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories. The 

President’s plan for science and innovation and the America COMPETES Act identified those three agencies as key to the fundamental research that underpins our Nation’s prosperity and which 

the private sector won’t do enough of because the risks seem too 

high or the returns too far in the future. 

Last year, this Congress and this Administration worked together to put those agencies back on a doubling trajectory that had 

faltered in the previous Administration, and the 2011 budget main-
19

tains that trajectory with a 6.6 percent increase for the combined 

budgets of those agencies. 

I also want to highlight the Department of Energy R&D portfolio, which totals $11.2 billion, an increase of 3.8 percent in real terms. 

It includes $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency 

for Energy, ARPA–E, that was authorized in the America COMPETES Act to fund high-risk, high-reward research that can yield 

revolutionary changes in how we produce, distribute and use energy. ARPA–E announced its first set of grants last October and in 

2010 will make additional awards with Recovery Act funds. The 

2011 budget will allow that groundbreaking program to make additional awards next year. 

Separately, investments in DOE’s Clean Energy R&D Program 

will help reduce dependence on foreign oil and accelerate America’s 

transition to a low-carbon economy, with funding increases for 

solar energy, geothermal technology, energy conservation, building 

technology and nuclear energy. 

Let me highlight as well some of our goals within the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which as you 

know, plays a vital role supporting research on the earth’s oceans, 

atmosphere and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of $5.6 billion 

is an increase of $806 million over the 2010 enacted level. That will 

allow NOAA to improve weather and climate services that protect 

life and property, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans and 

coasts, and ensure continuity of crucial satellite observations of 

weather and climate. 

I want to emphasize recent progress in this latter area. The large 

increase in the NOAA budget reflects in part a new architecture for 

the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System, NPOESS, which as Ranking Member Hall already mentioned, has been a tri-agency—that is NOAA, DOD and NASA—

program that has had a troubled history. Since last August, OSTP 

has led an Executive Office of the President task force that, in close 

cooperation with the three partner agencies, has been investigating 

various options for how to place the NPOESS program on a pathway to success. Earlier this month, the three agencies announced 

a plan to restructure the program, not to cancel it, not to do away 

with but to restructure it. That plan is reflected in the 2011 budget. There will be a division of settlement acquisition, but the three 

agencies will continue to partner in areas that have been successfully shared up until now, including the program’s ground and data 

systems. And I want to assure the Committee that OSTP will remain actively engaged in overseeing the transition to a new structure for this program, which we regard as crucial, as I know you 

do. 

There are many other items in the R&D budget that are worth 

highlighting, including support for activities in the Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, the added $1 billion dollars for the National Institutes of Health to speed the discovery of 

new treatments and cures for cancer and other scourges, the added 

support for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

DARPA, for research in high-priority areas such as night vision, 

cybersecurity, enhanced GPS and force protection. The more than 

25 percent increase in funding for environmental, health and safety 
20

studies under the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the significant increase in support for the multi-agency U.S. Global 

Change Research Program mandated by Congress to improve understanding of climate science, expand global observing systems 

and develop science-based resources to support policymaking and 

resource management. 

But I want to focus on two other areas before my time is up. The 

first of these is NASA. Our U.S. space program represents not just 

a grand and inspiring adventure of exploration and discovery but 

also an indispensable platform for observing what is happening on 

the earth below, a crucial element of our communications infrastructure and geopositioning capability, and a source of new products, services, businesses and jobs whose potential is barely beginning to be tapped. 

The fiscal year 2011 NASA budget proposes a science and technology-centered restructuring of this country’s space exploration 

program that will invest in American ingenuity to enable us to do 

things in space that are more useful, more exciting and more affordable than returning astronauts to the moon’s surface 50 years 

after we did it the first time, using the last century’s technology. The new approach, which adds $6 billion over the next five years 

to NASA’s budget, includes a vigorous technology development and 

test program that will begin to reverse decades of underinvestment 

at NASA in new ideas. By extending the life of the International 

Space Station, likely to 2020 or beyond, it increases the number of 

U.S. astronauts who will be working in space over the next decade. 

By supporting the development of private sector capabilities to lift 

astronauts into low earth orbit, it will shorten the duration of our 

reliance solely on Russian launchers for that purpose. And by investing in new game-changing technologies, it gives promise of getting our astronauts to deep space destinations sooner, faster, safer 

and cheaper than what could realistically have been achieved 

under the old approach. 

Among the priorities included in this year’s and outyear budgets 

for NASA are technologies to reduce the cost and expand the capabilities of future exploration activities including in-orbit fuel storage and refueling, R&D on new launch systems and advanced deep 

space propulsion, robotic precursor missions to scout human exploration targets, reflying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, accelerating the development of other satellites, and continuing to increase our understanding of the cosmos through such projects as 

the follow-on on to the Hubble space telescope. 

Finally, just a few words about STEM education. The President 

has been emphatic about his commitment, which I share, to increase the participation and the performance of American students 

in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, aiming to improve our performance in competition with other nations from the 

middle of the pack to the top of the pack over the next decade. The 

2011 budget would invest $3.7 billion in STEM education programs 

across the Federal Government, including an historic $1 billion investment in improving math and science education among K–12 

students. That is an increase of over 40 percent in that category. 

The impact of these investments will be magnified by ‘‘Educate to 

Innovate’’, a campaign launched by the President last year to moti-
21

vate and inspire young people to excel in STEM education. That 

campaign has already mobilized over $500 million in financial and 

in-kind support from companies, universities, foundations and nonprofits. In addition to those investments, the 2011 budget would 

provide an additional $1.35 billion in funding for Race to the Top, 

which provides a competitive advantage to states that commit to a 

comprehensive strategy to improve STEM education. 

The investments in R&D and STEM education proposed in the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget reflect his clear understanding 

of the critical importance of science, technology and innovation in 

addressing the most compelling challenges our Nation faces, while 

at the same time respecting the need for overall budgetary restraint under difficult economic conditions. It is a budget intended 

to keep this country on a path to revitalized economic growth, real 

energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better 

health outcomes for more Americans at lower cost, strengthened 

national and homeland security, and continuing American leadership in science and in space. 

I look forward to working with this committee to make this vision, the vision of the President’s 2011 budget proposal, into a reality, and of course, I will be pleased to try to answer any questions 

that the members have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HOLDREN

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

my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss the R&D and STEM-education components of the President’s FY 2011 Budget.

Administration Initiatives in Science, Technology, and Innovation

The Obama Administration is working hard to keep the Nation on the path out 

of recession through recovery and into a new era of revitalized growth. This means 

sparking job creation to get millions of Americans back to work, and it means building a new foundation for long-term prosperity that will reach every American family. A crucial element of this effort is the targeted investments we’re making in 

science, technology, and innovation (STI) that will lead to new products and services, new businesses and industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs. 

Our STI strategy includes investments in applied research and development that 

will lead to better technologies—and the jobs that will go with them—for advanced 

manufacturing, for clean energy, for health care, for environmental protection and 

remediation, and for national and homeland security. It includes increased use of 

public-private partnerships to speed up innovation and get the results more rapidly 

into the marketplace. And it includes investments in the foundations of national 

strength in STI:

• fundamental research and the facilities and equipment needed to do it;

• domains of exploration and discovery from the depths of the oceans to the 

frontiers of space, expanding our knowledge of our world and our universe 

while igniting the curiosity and ambitions of our young people; and

• science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education that will build 

on rather than stifle that curiosity and will enable those ambitions, giving us 

a bigger and better prepared next generation of innovators, along with the 

tech-savvy workforce that competitiveness in the 21st century requires.

Because President Obama understands the crucial connections linking STI and 

STEM education to our ability to meet the great challenges before us, his 2011 

Budget provides strong and strategic investments in these domains despite the overall budget austerity that the country’s fiscal circumstances require. At a difficult 

time in the nation’s history, the President’s 2011 Budget proposes to invest in 

science, technology, and innovation today to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Obviously, we need the continued support of the Congress to get it done. In the remain-
22

der of this testimony, I elaborate on the reasons the President and I are most hopeful you’ll provide that support.

The Federal R&D Budget

The President’s 2011 Budget proposes a record $61.6 billion investment in civilian 

research and development, an increase of $3.7 billion or 6.4 percent over the 2010 

funding level, reflecting the Administration’s firm belief that investment in innovation is the key to building the American economy of the future. This Budget builds 

on the 2009 and 2010 appropriations approved by Congress, and if passed as proposed would mark the third year in a row of real increases for Federal nondefense 

R&D and Federal research, following four years of real decline between 2004 and 

2008. 

These important R&D investments aim to bolster the fundamental understanding 

of matter, energy, and biology that are at the root of all innovation and to foster 

significantly new and potentially transformative technologies. While reducing some 

development funding and scaling back on R&D facilities and equipment, all told, the 

total (defense and nondefense) R&D budget would be $147.7 billion, just $343 million or 0.2 percent above the 2010 enacted level, or a 0.9 percent cut after adjusting 

for projected inflation. 

Science is also fundamental to ensuring that Americans are safe and secure. That 

is why the Defense Department budget also devotes $2 billion to basic research, considerably higher than in. 2010, while reducing the Department’s overall R&D budget by some $3.5 billion-a reduction in spending achieved in large part by cutting 

lower-priority weapons-development programs.

Budgets of Science Agencies

The 2011 Budget also reflects the President’s commitment to double the budgets 

of the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for basic academic 

research; the DOE’s Office of Science, which leads fundamental research for energy 

and builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, and facilities for 

making nano-materials; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

laboratories, which support a wide range of pursuits from accelerating standards development for health information technology and ‘‘smart grid’’ technologies to conducting measurement science research to enable net-zero energy buildings and advanced manufacturing processes. 

The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation and the America COMPETES Act 

have identified these three agencies as key to our nation’s future prosperity and to 

preserving America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. Although 

the previous Administration supported an effort to double these agencies’ budgets 

between 2006 and 2016, these efforts fell short in 2007 and 2008. But last year, this 

Congress and this Administration worked together to finally put these agencies on 

a doubling trajectory, and the FY 20I I budget maintains that trajectory with a 6.6 

percent increase for their combined budgets, totaling $13.3 billion. 

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

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for academic research for most non-biomedical disciplines, funding basic research across 

the entire spectrum of the sciences and engineering. It is well regarded for funding 

nearly all of its research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The 2011 

Budget requests $7.4 billion for NSF, an increase of 6.9 percent in real terms above 

the 2010 funding level (8.0 percent in current dollars). This keeps NSF on track to 

double its budget as promised in the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation. 

In addition, last year the Recovery Act provided $3.0 billion for NSF. 

Basic research funding is important not only because it leads to new knowledge 

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

workforce of the future. In recognition of this dual benefit to society and of NSF’s 

special contribution, the 2011 Budget continues the President’s commitment to triple the number of new NSF Graduate Research Fellowships to 3,000 a year by 2013. 

The 2011 Budget also requests $64 million for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to promote partnerships between higher-education institutions and employers to educate technicians for the high-technology fields that drive 

our nation’s economy. 

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

guide societal actions leading to environmental and economic sustainability. The 

Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability portfolio will increase to 
23

$766 million in the 2011 Budget for integrated activities involving climate, environment, and energy. NSF is also committed to enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness with Science-and Engineering Beyond Moore’s law, a multidisciplinary research 

program designed to meet some of today’s most daunting computational challenges. 

NSF will also be collaborating with the Department of Energy (DOE) on the RE–

ENERGYSE (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) program to 

attract and educate future American scientists in the clean energy field. NSF’s proposed contribution is $19 million and DOE’s is $55 million in 2011.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Our U.S. space program represents not just a grand and inspiring adventure of 

exploration and discovery looking outward at our universe, but also an indispensable platform for observing what is happening on the Earth below, a crucial element of our communications infrastructure and geopositioning capability; and a 

source of new products, services, businesses, and jobs whose potential is barely beginning to be tapped. 

The FY 2011 NASA budget launches a bold new space initiative that invests in 

American ingenuity to enable us to do things in space that are more useful, more 

affordable, and more exciting than returning astronauts to the Moon’s surface 50 

years after we did it the first time, using the last century’s technology. The new 

approach—which adds $6 billion over the next five years for NASA—includes a vigorous technology development and test program that will begin to reverse decades 

of under-investment in new ideas. By extending the life of the International Space 

Station, it increases the number of U.S. astronauts who will be working in space 

over the next decade; by supporting the development of private-sector capabilities 

to lift astronauts into low Earth orbit it will shorten the duration of our reliance 

solely on Russian launchers for this purpose; and by investing in new, game-changing technologies it gives promise of getting our astronauts to deep space destinations 

sooner, faster, safer, and cheaper than what could realistically have been achieved 

under the old approach. 

Let me provide some budget detail. The President’s Budget supports the extension 

and enhanced utilization of the Space Station with a full complement of international crew and laboratories: it provides $2.8 billion in 2011, $463 million more 

than in 2010, to extend operations of the Space Station past its previously planned 

retirement of 2016, likely to 2020 or beyond. It funds a technology-demonstration 

program at $7.8 billion over five years to support the development and demonstration of technologies to reduce the cost and expand the capabilities of future exploration activities, including in-orbit refueling and storage. There will be $3.1 billion 

over five years for heavy-lift and propulsion R&D on new launch systems, propellants, materials, and combustion processes. And the Budget anticipates an investment of $3.0 billion over five years to fund robotic precursor missions to scout exploration targets. 

The Budget proposes $5.0 billion in 2011 for the NASA’s Science portfolio, an increase of more than $500 million compared to 2010. This increase allows for numerous exciting scientific opportunities in space: re-flying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which is crucial to our understanding of the Earth’s carbon cycle and 

its effect on climate change; accelerating the development of other satellites to enhance observations of the climate and other Earth systems; and continuing to increase our understanding of the cosmos through such projects as the follow-on to 

the Hubble Space Telescope.

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

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories advance 

technological innovation through advanced measurement science research and 

standards development. The 2011 Budget of $709 million for NIST’s intramural laboratories, a 6.9 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level, will improve NIST’s 

research capabilities by providing high-performance laboratory research and facilities for a diverse portfolio of research in areas such as advanced manufacturing, 

health information technology, cybersecurity, interoperable smart grid, and advanced solar energy technology. For NIST’s extramural programs, the 2011 Budget 

requests $130 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), 

a $5 million increase over the 2010 enacted level. The 2011 Budget also requests 

$80 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a $10 million increase 

over 2010. All of these NIST programs are important components of A Framework 

for American Manufacturing, a comprehensive strategy for supporting American 

manufacturers announced in December.
24

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plays a vital role 

in research on the Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, and marine habitats. The NOAA 

budget of $5.6 billion is an increase of $806 million over the 2010 enacted level. This 

will allow NOAA to strengthen the scientific basis for environmental decision-making, improve weather and climate services that protect life and property, invest 

more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts, and ensure satellite continuity. 

NOAA satellite systems, which are essential to our understanding of weather and 

climate, are a top priority in the 2011 Budget. The large increase in the NOAA 

budget reflects a new architecture for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). This tri-agency (NOAA, DOD Air Force, and 

NASA) program has had a long and troubled history. Since last August, OSTP has 

led an Executive Office of the President Task Force that, in close cooperation with 

the partner agencies, has been investigating various options for how to place the 

NPOESS program on a pathway to success. Last week, the three agencies announced a plan to restructure the program—a plan reflected in the President’s 2011 

Budget. NOAA and the Air Force will no longer jointly procure NPOESS; rather, 

NOAA and NASA will take primary responsibility for procuring satellites for the 

afternoon orbit and DOD will take primary responsibility for the morning orbit. The 

three agencies will continue to partner in areas that have been successfully shared 

in the past, such as the program’s ground system. Although NOAA’s 2011 Budget 

proposes a substantial increase to support NOAA’s expanded NPOESS responsibilities under the restructuring, we intend to make full use of the NPOESS investments and work done to date by all the NPOESS parties. I can assure the committee that OSTP remains actively engaged in overseeing the transition to a new 

direction for this program and committed to ensuring continuity of satellite coverage 

needed for weather forecasting and storm tracking, as well as for climate data 

records.

Depaitinent of Energy (DOE)

The Department of Energy (DOE) R&D portfolio totals $11.2 billion in the 2011 

Budget. This represents an increase of 3.8 percent in real terms, and does not include non-R&D cleanup, weapons, and energy-demonstration programs. The 2011 

Budget includes support for four Energy Innovation Hubs to accelerate cross-disciplinary R&D for transforming advances in energy science into commercially 

deployable materials, devices, and systems: three appropriated by Congress last 

year to advance fuels from sunlight, modeling and simulation for nuclear reactors, 

and energy efficient building systems design; and one new Hub to conduct R&D on 

batteries and energy storage. The existing 46 Energy Frontier Research Center 

(EFRC) grants to address scientific roadblocks to clean energy and energy security 

through collaborative research receive continued support in the President’s 2011 

Budget, and funding for a new solicitation for additional EFRCs to capture emerging 

opportunities in new materials and basic research is included as well. The 2011 

Budget proposes $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 

(ARPA–E) that is authorized in the America COMPETES Act. ARPA–E will fund 

high-risk, high-reward research to yield revolutionary changes. in how we produce, 

distribute, and use energy. ARPA–E announced its first set of grants last October, 

and in 2010 will make additional awards with Recovery Act funds. The 2011 Budget 

will allow ARPA–E to make additional awards next year. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science pursues discoveries and scientific 

tools in economically significant areas such as nanotechnology, high-end computing, 

energy, and climate change. The 2011 Budget of $5.1 billion, 3.5 percent more than 

the 2010 enacted level in real terms (4.6 percent in current dollars), increases funding for facilities and cutting-edge research 

Investments in DOE’s clean-energy R&D programs will help reduce dependence 

on foreign oil and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. The President’s 

2011 Budget proposes R&D funding increases for solar energy, geothermal technology, energy-conservation building technologies, and nuclear energy. DOE also 

proposes an investment of $144 million in R&D to improve the reliability, efficiency, 

flexibility, and security of electricity transmission and distribution networks, $19 

million more than the 2010 level.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Science and Technology (S&T) program of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is $847 million in the 2011 Budget, just slightly above the 2010 enacted level. This amount includes computational toxicology research and the Science 
25

to Achieve Results (STAR) program that awards competitive extramural research 

grants in areas such as endocrine disruptors, green infrastructure, and air quality.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

The total United States Geological Survey (USGS) budget of $1.1 billion is a $22 

million increase over the 2010 enacted level, with substantial increases in the areas 

of climate change, renewable energy, and environmental satellite systems. Specifically, the 2011 USGS budget requests $72 million for the Global Change program, 

an increase of $14 million over the 2010 funding level. This includes funding for the 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and carbon sequestration research. There is also a $13 million increase to support new ground-system capabilities for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D totals $1.0 billion in the 2011 

Budget, a reduction from the 2010 enacted level. The President’s 2011 Budget proposes $109 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office’s Transfoxinational 

and Applied Research (TAR) portfolio and transfers it to the S&T Directorate in 

order to consolidate R&D activities department-wide.

Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D programs receive $1.0 billion in the 

2011 Budget, a slight cut in real terms compared to the 2010 funding level. Central 

to DOT’s R&D activities is the Federal Aviation Administration’s Research, Engineering, and Development program. The 2011 Budget for that program is $190 million, roughly the same as the 2010 enacted funding level. The Budget request includes funding for several R&D activities in the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) as well as the Joint Planning and Development Office that coordinates this important effort with NASA and other participating agencies.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports the discovery of knowledge and 

therapies that will lead to better health outcomes for all Americans through a robust program of intramural and extramural research, education, and training conducted or sponsored by 27 Institutes and Centers—The 2011 Budget provides $32.1 

billion for NIH, an increase of $1.0 billion, or 3.2 percent above the 2010 enacted 

level. Investments will focus on five strategic priorities with great promise: applying 

genomics and other high-throughput technologies; translating basic science discoveries into new and better treatments and diagnostics; using science to enable health 

care reform; global health; and reinvigorating and empowering the biomedical research community. NIH will also continue to award and oversee the $10.4 billion 

provided in the Recovery Act.

Department of Defense (DOD)

The 2011 Budget proposes $77.5 billion for Department of Defense (DOD) R&D. This $3.5 billion reduction from the 2010 enacted figure primarily reflects proposed 

cuts in lower priority weapons development programs. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would receive $3.1 billion for longer-term breakthrough research, an increase of 2.6 percent in real terms. The 2011 Budget sustains DOD’s basic research (‘‘6.1’’) with a record commitment of $2.0 billion, and provides increases for research in high priority areas such as night vision, 

cybersecurity, enhanced GPS, deployable force protection; nano-manufacturing, and 

advanced distributed learning.

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) works with 

OMB to ensure that the President’s S&T priorities are reflected in the budgets of 

all of the Executive Branch departments and agencies with S&T and S′′1’EM-education missions. OSTP also provides science and technology advice and analysis in 

support of the activities of the other offices in the Executive Office of the President 

and supports me in my role as the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, with the responsibility to provide the President with such information about 

science and technology issues as he may request in connection with the policy matters before him. In addition, OSTP coordinates interagency research initiatives 

through administration of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 
26

serves as the lead White House office in a range of bilateral and multilateral S&T 

activities internationally, and provides administrative and technical support for the 

very active 21-member President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology 

(PCAST). 

OSTP personnel in addition to the Director include a Senate-confirmed Associate 

Director for Technology, who is also the Nation’s Chief Technology Officer; three further Senate-confirmed Associate Directors (for Science, Environment, and National 

Security and International Affairs): and a further 40 technical professionals plus 

supporting administrative staff The 2011 Budget requests $6.990 million for OSTP’s 

operations, slightly below the 2010 enacted funding level. This support for OSTP reflects the President’s continuing recognition of the importance and diversity of 

OSTP’s functions in keeping ‘‘science in its rightful place’’ in his Administration, as 

he pledged in his Inaugural Address.

Interagency Initiatives

A number of priority interagency S&T initiatives are highlighted in the President’s 2011 Budget. These initiatives are coordinated through the NSTC, which as 

noted above is administered by OSTP.

Networking and Information Technology R&D

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

high-confidence systems, information management, and other information technologies. The 2011 Budget provides $4.3 billion for NITRD. 

Networking and computing capabilities are more critical than ever for nationaland homeland security, reforming the health care system, understanding and responding to environmental stresses, increasing energy efficiencies and developing 

renewable energy sources, strengthening the security of our critical infrastructures 

including cyberspace, and revitalizing our educational system for the jobs of tomorrow. The 2011 Budget retains an important focus on investment in high-end computing research for both national security and large-scale scientific applications, 

particularly in advanced scalable simulations. The 2011 Budget also continues to 

emphasize foundations for assured computing and secure hardware, software, and 

network design and engineering to address the goal of making Internet communications more secure and reliable.

National Nanotechnology Initiative

The 2011 Budget provides $1.8 billion for the multi-agency National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a reduction of $19.5 million from the enacted 2010 

level. Research and Development in the NNI focuses on the development of materials, devices, and systems that exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter at the nanoscale. NNI-supported R&D is enabling breakthroughs in biomedical 

detection and treatment, manufacturing at or near the nanoscale, environmental 

monitoring and protection, energy conversion and storage, and novel electronic devices, among many others. The 2011 Budget proposes $35 million for nano educational and societal dimensions research and $101 million across several agencies 

for nanomanufacturing. 

Consistent with the NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental 

Health and Safety (EHS) Research, agencies maintain a focus on developing 

nanotechnology responsibly, with attention to the human health and environmental 

impacts as well as ethical, legal, and other societal issues. In recognition of the special importance of these issues, the 2011 Budget increases the priority of nano EHS 

research with a request of $117 million, more than 27 percent above the 2010 level.

U.S. Global Change Research Program

The Budget includes an expanded commitment to global change research. Investments in climate science over the past several decades have contributed to an improved understanding of global climate. These additional investments will be a critical part of the President’s overall strategy to mitigate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a clean energy economy. To continue to assist the government and society to understand, predict, project, mitigate, and adapt to climate 

change, the 2011 Budget provides $2.6 billion for the multi-agency U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 21 percent or $439 million 

over the 2010 enacted level. 
27

The USGCRP was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 

1990 (Pi. 101–606) to improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science, expand global observing systems, develop science-based resources to support policymaking and resource management, and communicate findings broadly among scientific and stakeholder communities. Thirteen departments and agencies participate 

in the USGCRP. OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work 

closely with the USGCRP to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure the program is aligned with the Administration’s priorities and reflects agency 

planning. 

In addition to enhancing research and modeling of the physical climate system, 

the 2011 USGCRP Budget will also allow for a comprehensive, coordinated focus on 

four areas of particular need: Earth observations, adaptation research, integrated 

assessment, and climate services.

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Job Creation

The President believes that we must harness the power and potential of technology, data, and innovation to transform the nation’s economy and to improve the 

lives of all Americans. The President’s 2011 Budget targets strategic investments 

in technology to spur innovation in the public and private sectors and does so in 

a manner that changes the way Washington works. Let me share with you a few 

key highlights. 

As articulated in the President’s Strategy for Innovation released last year, the 

Budget proposes a permanent extension of the research and experimentation (R&E) 

tax credit to spur private investment in research and development (R&D) by providing certainty that the credit will be available for the duration of the R&D investment. 

The Budget also promotes the commercialization of promising technologies through smart, strategic investments. The Budget proposes $12 million for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support a new Innovation Ecosystem where universities will partner with other institutions to increase the impact of the most 

promising innovations through commercialization, industry alliances, and start-up 

formation. The Budget proposes an additional $10 million in National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) programs to foster innovation in manufacturing 

with an emphasis on sustainable nanomanufacturing. 

The President’s Budget is also focused on entrepreneurs and small businesses as 

engines of innovation, and has targeted policies and investments to help entrepreneurs and small businesses build new and vibrant enterprises that lead to new 

jobs and economic growth. Given the difficulties in this recession for many small 

businesses to access the capital they need to operate, grow, and create new jobs, the 

Budget provides $165 million in subsidy costs to support $17.5 billion in Small Business Administration 7(a) loan guarantees that will help small businesses operate 

and expand. It also proposes to increase the maximum 7(a) loan size from $2 million 

to $5 million and to provides incentives for the private sector to invest by extending 

an additional year of the 50 percent deduction of qualifying investments. The Budget provides a one-year extension for small businesses to immediately write off up 

to $250,000 of qualified investment and it proposes to permanently eliminate smallbusiness capital gains for investors who hold their investments for five years. 

The Administration also recognizes that competitive, high-performing regional 

economies are the building blocks of national growth, and that we must expand and 

accelerate our efforts to cultivate regional economic clusters across the country. The 

Budget provides at least $75 million in regional planning and matching grants within the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to support the creation of regional innovation clusters that leverage regions’ competitive strengths to boost job 

creation and economic growth. 

What I have given you is only a brief snapshot. As you know, there is important 

work being done in broadband, spectrum policy, patent reform, standards and measurements for emerging technologies, support for the development and adoption of 

health information technology, and export promotion. These efforts and investments 

will help build the foundation for sustainable recovery, by fostering the new jobs 

and industries that will arise from the innovative and entrepreneurial talents of the 

American people.

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

The President has been emphatic about his commitment, which I share, to increase the participation and the performance of American students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, aiming to improve our performance in comparison with other nations from the middle of the pack to the top of the pack over 
28

the next decade. Over the past year, OSTP has been working with the White House 

Domestic Policy Council, the Department of Education, and a number of science and 

technology agencies to identify and promote concrete actions to help meet this ambitious goal. 

The 2011 Budget invests $3.7 billion in STEM education programs across the Federal Government, including a historic $1 billion commitment to improve math and 

science achievement among K–12 students, that latter figure an increase of over 40 

percent. The impact of these investments will be magnified by ‘‘Educate to Innovate’’, a campaign launched by the President to motivate and inspire young people 

to excel in STEM education. This campaign has already mobilized over $500 million 

in financial and in-kind support from companies, foundations, philanthropists, universities, non-profit organizations, and grassroots volunteers. 

In addition to these investments, the Administration has made great strides in 

integrating STEM education into broader education programs. For example, the 

$4.35 billion Race to the Top fund in the Recovery Act provides a competitive advantage to states that commit to a comprehensive strategy to improve STEM education. 

The 2011 Budget, by providing an additional $1.35 billion in funding for Race to the 

Top, builds on these historic investments to create state capacity, focus on student 

achievement, and help prepare America’s students to graduate ready for college and 

careers. 

This Administration is committed to investing in and scaling what works, and to 

improving the coordination of Federal STEM education programs. The Department 

of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are leading an effort, with 

active OSTP participation, to increase the impact of the Federal STEM investments 

I’ve outlined above by (1) developing an aligned strategy that emphasizes key agency capacities; (2) clarifying evidence standards used to assess program impact; and 

(3) identifying the most promising STEM efforts for further validation, testing, and 

suitability for scale-up. OSTP looks forward to working with this Committee on our 

common vision of improving STEM education for all of America’s students.

Conclusion

The investments in R&D and S1EM education proposed in the President’s FY 

2011 Budget reflect his clear understanding of the critical importance of science, 

technology, and innovation in addressing the most compelling changes our Nation 

faces. While respecting the need for overall budgetary restraint under difficult economic conditions, the President is recommending an array of investments in R&D 

and STEM education that will keep this country on a path to revitalized economic 

growth, real energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better health 

outcomes for more Americans at lower costs, strengthened national and homeland 

security, and continuing leadership in science and in space. I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of the President’s FY 2011 Budget proposal into a reality. I will be pleased to try to answer any questions the Members 

may have.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. At this point we 

will begin our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Holdren, I think in your preface to your statement, you 

summed up very well the importance of R&D as well as STEM education to our future quality of life, standard of living and national 

security. That is why I think you have one of the most important 

and toughest jobs probably in the world, and so we want to see you 

succeed. I was pleased that in your statement, or the written statement, you had linked innovation, entrepreneurship and job creation 

and you highlighted the National Science Foundation’s Innovation 

Ecosystem program and the EDA’s efforts supporting Regional Innovation Clusters. In addition, DOE is supporting the creation of 

innovation hubs and clusters, and could you please explain how 

these initiatives complement each other and how they are being coordinated? And also, could you summarize the primary goals of the 

Administration’s innovative initiatives and the metrics used to 

measure their success? 
29

Dr. HOLDREN. Sure, I will give that one a try. Those initiatives 

are linked. One of the things that is in the new budget proposal 

in the Regional Innovation Cluster domain is something called E–

RIC, Energy Regional Innovation Clusters. Seven agencies are involved in that, building innovation clusters around the energy innovation hubs that the Department of Energy has already initiated. 

NSF is involved with that, along with DOE and five other agencies. 

The first one of those is going to be focused on efficient building 

energy systems. In the way of metrics, this is a longstanding and 

difficult challenge, figuring how to measure real progress in these 

domains, but we think we will be able to see that progress in the 

rate of job creation in these areas where these innovation centers 

are being set up. We think we will be able to see it in the rate of 

actual science and technological innovation reflected in publications 

and patents. We think we will see it ultimately in terms of economic indicators. 

Chairman GORDON. And what is the time frame on getting these 

clusters and hubs set up? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, they are already—the hubs are already 

being set up and moving forward into the 2011 budget with support 

for these activities. I think we will see rapid progress on this. I 

think the players are ready to go. We are getting tremendous enthusiasm, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, from industry, from 

the private sector for the Administration’s commitment to increasing public-private partnerships in all these domains. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, we have seen that in a variety of areas. 

Obviously with STEM education, the private sector dollars are coming in because they understand the importance. In ARPA–E, there 

is matching funds there, and we discovered that the private sector 

put up even more money than was required because I think there 

is a thirst for this R&D and a need. 

So with that, I now yield to my friend from Texas, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Dr. Holdren, my question will probably be longer than your answer, but I will read it 

the best I can. The Congress has seen a number of game-changing 

proposals over the years that you know about including several 

technology development and commercially inspired ideas. NASA 

pursued the X–33 Venture Star Orbital Space Plane, a crew return 

vehicle, X–37, as well as technology development programs such as 

the Space Launch Initiative, and I have an old pattern I follow in 

almost everything I have done all my life, and I got it from an old 

broke storekeeper. He said, ‘‘I ignore the impossible and cooperate 

with the inevitable,’’ and I want to try to cooperate with you because I know you are sincere, I hope you are correct, and I agree 

with you. I don’t care to go to the moon until our people can go to 

the grocery store. It is not the time to do that. 

But we do have to look at hard, cold facts before we make such 

changes as you recommended. These efforts that I spoke of a moment ago, spending billions of dollars without anything really significant to show for it. The Constellation program was born out of 

the Columbia accident. Its vision was rooted in key recommendations of the Columbia accident investigation board including, and 

I quote, ‘‘attempts at developing breakthrough space transportation 

systems have proved illusory.’’ The board believes that the country 
30

should plan for future space transportation capabilities without 

making them dependent on technological breakthroughs. Furthermore, the board said the design of the system should give overriding priority to crew safety rather than trade safety against other 

performance criteria such as low cost and reusability. The Obama 

Administration’s proposals ignore the lessons of the Columbia accident investigation board and the decades of human spaceflight experience that have been gained with the lives of at least 17 astronauts since 1967. So I ask this question: How can you defend the 

proposal to cancel the Constellation program without any rational—and this next is a huge word—proven alternative plan? I have 

used up most of my time but I would like to hear your answer. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I thank the Ranking Member for that question. I am afraid my answer probably will be at least as long as 

the question, but let me see if I can keep it brief. 

The first part of the question referred to a number of ventures 

in space in which we invested lots of money and seemingly nothing 

came out. I would argue first of all that we learned from every one 

of those. We learned a great deal, for example, from the X–33 and 

the lessons that we learned from those investments are still being 

applied and will continue to be applied. The second point I would 

make is that in terms of reliance on commercial firms, we have 

been relying on commercial firms from the beginning of the space 

program. McDonnell built the Mercury capsule. General Dynamics 

launched it on an Atlas converted from an ICBM. Rockwell International built the space shuttle. What we are changing in looking 

increasingly to the private sector to partner with for lifting astronauts into low earth orbit is not reliance on the private sector. We 

are changing the acquisition model so that we are acquiring services rather than acquiring the actual vehicles. But it will continue 

to be true that NASA will be deeply involved in and responsible for 

ensuring the safety of the astronauts, whatever we launch them on. 

Administrator Bolden, as you know, a former four-time astronaut, 

twice pilot, twice commander, was head of safety for the astronaut 

team in his time, has served on the advisory body on safety for 

NASA. This administrator is not going to settle for anything less 

than safety for the astronauts. 

With respect to the Constellation program, with all respect and 

kudos to the NASA team and the contractors who have worked 

very hard, the fact is, as the Augustine Committee concluded, the 

Constellation program was unexecutable in its current form. If you 

wanted to get Constellation to the point where it could return U.S. 

astronauts to the surface of the moon even before 2025, the additional cost of that over the next decade from 2010 to 2020 would 

be, in the Augustine Committee’s estimate, between $45 billion and 

$60 billion, and that to do something that we already did 50 years 

or more before we would be able to do it again. Each component 

of it was very seriously over budget. So we think that what we are 

proposing is a program that has a better chance of success than 

Constellation did at delivering what the American people want and 

expect from their space program, which is innovation, which is a 

forward-leaning program with exciting vision, exciting ideas, the 

possibility of ultimately taking Americans into deep space beyond 

the earth-moon system, with better technologies, more efficiently, 
31

more safety than Constellation would ever have been able to manage, and we are doing it in a budget that we can afford. Obviously 

in these times, matching the goal, matching the approach to the 

available resources is crucial and we think that the Administration 

proposal does that. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, and I go back to the word I spoke there, 

proven. That is the one that I think worries most of us. I thank 

you for your good answers, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Holdren, thanks for your testimony and thanks 

for your service and for being here today. I just very briefly want 

to commend the Administration and you. It looks like we are finally try to resolve two issues that have been longstanding and 

complex and threaten our viability in many areas of science. The 

NPOESS satellite issue we have had hearings on, so I commend 

you. It looks like you want to try to get that thing finally sorted 

out, and also the icebreaker issue that has long been a conflict between Coast Guard and NSF, so I want to compliment you on that. 

One of my colleagues has raised this issue of questions about research on climate change. It happens that several years back I introduced legislation that requested NSF to include scientific ethics 

teaching as part of all its grant recipients. So if you are a student 

receiving those grants, you have got to get some ethics training, 

and I think it is appropriate. My clinical psychology mandates that, 

and my doctorate training. 

But I want to ask you and give you the opportunity, notwithstanding the troubling emergence of questions about certain data 

sets—do you believe and do you care to comment on the overall evidentiary basis for human anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse 

gases leading to likely ocean acidification, increasing global temperatures and other phenomena. Would you care to address that, 

if you like? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, I am very happy to address that, Congressman. I would characterize the overall evidentiary base as robust. 

We understand the climate is changing in unusual ways compared 

to the background of natural variations. We understand with high 

confidence that human activities are responsible for a substantial 

part of the change we are observing, and I emphasize change we 

are observing. These are not computer models, they are measurements of rises in the temperature of the air, of the oceans, the retreat of glaciers in many parts of the world, changes in growing 

seasons, changes in species distributions, changes in precipitation 

patterns, and furthermore, the pattern of all of these changes fits 

what would be expected for the result of an increase in the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and 

others. 

We know as well from measurements that the acidity of the 

ocean is increasing. We know that is occurring. Part of the excess 

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is taken up in the ocean and becomes carbonic acid. We know that ultimately that will have impacts on coral reefs and other organisms that form shells and skeletons out of calcium carbonate. 

The revelations in the e-mails from East Anglia University’s climate research unit I think have been blown out of all proportion. 
32

They reveal an array of human frailties, certainly, including impatience with criticism, including defensiveness. Scientists are no less 

human than any other body of people, and when they are writing 

e-mails to each other, you will see some of those frailties. But what 

those e-mails add up to in terms of actually undermining scientific 

understanding of what is happening in climate is basically nothing. 

The particular controversy that those e-mails were mostly swirling 

around was a controversy that was settled by a detailed review by 

the National Academy of Sciences, published in 2006, which concluded that the overall funding of the study that was being criticized in many of those e-mails was basically sound, namely that 

with high likelihood it is true that the last 50 years have been the 

warmest half-century in the last several hundred, probably in the 

last 1,000 to 2,000. They concluded also that the method of analysis 

used to produce that initial report was fundamentally respectable 

and sound. Experts quarrel about the details but all of the different 

studies that have been done of that question with different methods, different approaches, different statistical techniques have all 

produced essentially the same result. 

Mr. BAIRD. So the key point would be that while one can find relatively isolated incidents where certain data sets may be called 

into question, the broad bulk of the data continues to point in a 

particular direction, particularly regarding ocean acidification and 

also temperature increase. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. BAIRD. One last comment. You talked about business. I was 

at the World Economic Forum recently, and my impression is that 

the bulk of businesses of the world, chemical industry, many energy industries, et cetera, accept the evidence that anthropogenic 

CO2 is in fact changing our climate and changing the ocean, and 

we need to do something about it, and they are in fact ahead of 

this institution and others in insisting that we do something to 

incentivize and support businesses doing the right thing. Is that 

your impression? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is my impression, and it is my impression that 

it has been true for years. We had CEOs of some of the biggest energy companies and chemical companies in this country testifying 

five years ago before a committee of the United States Senate, and 

uniformly saying, it is time we start to address this problem, and 

what the private sector wants is certainty. What the private sector 

wants is a level playing field. What they want is predictability. 

They don’t want to ignore this problem and they understand, a 

great many of them, that there will be a lot of money made in developing and marketing the technologies that are going to enable 

us to meet our energy needs while reducing our impacts on the climate and other aspects of the environment. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Doctor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Ehlers is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for being here and for a very cogent and thoughtful presentation. 

I would like to in the limited time that we are provided just comment about STEM education issues. As you know, I spent a lot of 
33

time on this. In fact, when I first started it was called SMET, and 

I objected very strongly to that term. It had a bad connotation, 

SMET education. 

Chairman GORDON. What is that acronym? 

Mr. EHLERS. Same words but different order, science, math, education, technology. 

Mr. BAIRD. Sherry Boehlert proposed it be METS but that was 

for a different reason. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, he was a baseball fanatic. 

But in any event, it is now STEM education. A continuing problem we have had not just with this Administration but previous administrations is a perceived conflict between the National Science 

Foundation and the Department of Education on STEM education, 

and in fact at one time the OMB in the budget tried to zero out 

the National Science Foundation participation and put that money 

into the Department of Education because it was duplicative to 

have two agencies working on the same issue. That indicated a 

very shallow understanding of the mission of both the National 

Science Foundation and the Department of Education. It is disappointing to me to see in this Administration’s budget proposal 

the same thing taking place, primarily zeroing out the NSF participation in STEM education. As you well know, as a scientist and a 

good friend of mine, there is a big difference between NSF’s role 

in this and it is a very important role to do the research on the 

effectiveness of various methodologies of teaching, to experiment 

with different approaches to teaching it, and the NSF has been 

very carefully doing the groundwork for developing good STEM 

education programs whereas the Department of Education is primarily interested in propagating that out throughout the school 

systems in the country. They should be working together. They 

should have equal funding, not so much in dollars but in terms of 

the work they do, and I am concerned that your Administration apparently—maybe it is just a carryover in OMB that creates the 

problems, but it is leaving the NSF high and dry. 

Now, fortunately, NSF got a fair amount of money through the 

Recovery Act so it is not a life emergency here but it is a trend that 

I would hope that you would speak out against within the Administration and be able to reverse, and it might be in fact a good idea 

to have an Administration work group outlining very clearly what 

each of those agencies can and should contribute to STEM education and then use that as a guide for the budgeting allocations. 

I would appreciate any comments or insights you could offer on 

this. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you, Congressman Ehlers, for that 

question. Let me make a couple of comments. I don’t actually think 

there is, in this Administration, tension any longer between NSF 

and the Department of Education about this. One of the things 

that President Obama made clear in the very first Cabinet meeting 

was that across the board in all the challenges we face, including 

education, the challenges are too big and the resources too limited 

for us to afford not to cooperate, and the President has called for 

cooperation and there is a lot of it. I meet regularly with Secretary 

Duncan. I meet with the NSF director, Arden Bement. Of course, 

Dr. Bement has announced his retirement to return to Purdue. We 
34

will be nominating a new director of NSF, and while I can’t say at 

this moment who that will be, I can assure you it will be somebody 

who is committed to the education component of NSF’s mission as 

well as the rest. 

The other thing I would say about the budget is that what has 

happened increasingly in NSF is that almost every science program 

has education embedded in it. A very large percentage of the 

grants have an education component. A lot of the divisions in NSF 

actually require that the grants have an education component, and 

I know from firsthand experience from when I was the director of 

the Woods Hole Research Center, when one of our scientists had 

one of those grants, that there has been tremendously innovative 

activity in STEM education going on with NSF money through that 

particular mechanism. 

But on your bottom line, that you hope I will advocate for continued NSF engagement in this domain and for cooperation between 

NSF and the Department of Education, I can assure you that I 

will. 

Mr. EHLERS. I just—it looks to me like you have flat funding or 

decrease in the K–12 funding at NSF. What am I missing here? I 

realize it is spread across the agency but that is—you know, those 

particular areas——

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think what you are missing, Congressman, 

is that there are lots of funds in NSF that aren’t labeled education 

per se in the budget line that are going to education. I give you the 

example that I am particularly familiar with because of the engagement of the Woods Hole Research Center. With it was a program on Arctic science that had a very large K–12 component in 

it, not listed as education in the NSF’s budget, but involving kids 

in communities all around the Arctic Circle in hands-on research 

on the chemistry of surface waters in the great rivers flowing into 

the Arctic in a manner that has propagated and led to programs 

additionally in the United States getting school kids involved in 

real measurements. This is just one grant. Not a dime of it is showing up in the NSF’s education line, but it is education of a sort that 

really matters, hands-on engagement of kids in science and technology. 

Mr. EHLERS. Rather than taking any more time on this issue, I 

will pursue it with you privately later on. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Happy to do that. 

Mr. EHLERS. But thank you very much for your interest in the 

issue, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. We will sign up Dr. Ehlers for support of 

STEM education. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, as long as it is not SMET. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Luja ́n is recognized. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you again for your service and for being here 

today. To take off or to lead off where the Chairman left off, Dr. 

Holdren, highlighting the importance of you linking innovation, entrepreneurship and job creation together, where we are looking to 

those that have the capabilities of solving problems and bringing 

that innovative expertise into the marketplace and creating job opportunities and solving big problems, I would ask this: that as we 
35

look to see what DHS has done most recently in collaborating efforts with some of our NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] facilities over at DOE to be able to solve big problems, to 

be able to look at systematic approaches to making sure that we 

are identifying areas that we need to depend on some of our scientists, where we are able to develop some technology for imaging 

to identify liquids and explosives from a technology that came from 

mapping the brain, and we are now seeing how that potentially 

could move forward for deployment. To support that, the Science 

Foundation has some of our brilliant scientists and most brilliant 

minds around the country, like at the Santa Fe Institute where we 

are challenging these brain trusts to be able to solve big problems, 

is something that I hope we can bring more support to. And as we 

focus on job creation and innovation in the next several months, 

years and decades, I believe that it is critically important for us to 

examine our role in promoting the transfer of technology from our 

Federal NNSA National laboratories. How we can learn from the 

Stevenson-Wydler and Bayh-Dole technology transfer acts that 

were signed into law over 30 years ago. Much has changed at both 

the federal and university labs over the years, as well as in the 

U.S. business community, and has the Administration given any 

thought to reviewing the only laws governing federally funded technology transfer and how their implementation might be optimized 

to support innovation and job creation in today’s globally environment? And how can we best ensure that federal funding directed 

towards technology transfer is being used efficiently and effectively? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you for that question, Congressman. 

Let me say first of all, I have a particular longstanding interest of 

my own in the national laboratories. My first job after my Ph.D. 

was at the Livermore Laboratory. I interviewed at both Los Alamos 

and Sandia as well, and I have actually been spending a fair 

amount of time in my current job meeting with Secretary Chu and 

the NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino talking about exactly this 

question, how we can get those great national laboratories to contribute even more to our national well-being by being more effective in the domain of technology transfer, of getting ideas and innovations from those laboratories and developed in partnerships between those laboratories and the private sector actually into the 

marketplace, and we have a number of ideas about how to do that. 

We are increasingly thinking of these laboratories that have sometimes been called ‘‘weapons laboratories’’ as being national security 

laboratories in the broadest sense, because so much of what they 

do has application far outside as you have already suggested the 

weapons domain itself. This is an area that we are working on and 

we will be looking at the existing array of laws and regulations affecting that manner of technology transfer and seeing how we can 

improve them. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that we have had conversations about 

this, and how we can make sure that we are working in a more 

collaborative way to be able to bring some of these big ideas to fruition and move to the side where we are commercializing these big 

ideas to technology that are game changers, really, and everyday 
36

applications and uses, and I very much appreciate, Dr. Holdren, 

the understanding on how some of this research with some of our 

defense facilities plays an enormous role in non-defense application 

and research and some of the gains and wins that we get out of 

there as well, and so I appreciate that very much. 

Lastly, Dr. Holdren, one thing that I wanted to also go over is, 

with the Administration’s request of the Office of Nuclear Energy 

increasing and so the Administration has recognized nuclear energy to focus primarily on closing the nuclear fuel cycle and developing advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The President has 

also asked and has created a blue ribbon panel to examine alternative solutions to waste storage, and so can you elaborate on the 

Administration’s plan for developing safe, long-term solutions to 

managing the Nation’s spent fuel rods to waste by using science to 

either recycle or break down the spent fuel? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is a very wide range of technical possibilities for how one deals with spent fuels. Some of those possibilities 

of course involve trying to recover the energy value in the fuel in 

various forms of reprocessing and recycling. Other approaches involve simply trying to process it in ways that reduce its radiological 

hazard over time. I don’t want to prejudge what the findings of the 

Blue Ribbon Commission will be. I was involved in consultation 

with Secretary Chu in picking the folks who would be put on that 

commission. I think it is genuinely a blue ribbon group. It has 

some of the smartest people in the country in terms of their understanding of this array of possibilities. I think they are going to lay 

out the options in a way that will be very useful. There are a variety of different ways we could go. They have economic connotations, environmental connotations, national security connotations. 

The panel has a charge that requires it to take all those into account. So I am going to wait for their report before I weigh in with 

any thoughts of my own about what the winner might be. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. You raised an important question, or issue, in terms of technology transfer from research to the private sector to jobs. I think that starts with sensitivity in doing it. I am seeing that and feeling that, I think, with 

the national labs. And the other thing I really think is that ARPA–

E is going to help us with the model on how that can occur. 

Mrs. Biggert is recognized for five minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for being here. In your testimony, you refer to investments in R&D as promoting new technologies and maintaining 

America’s competitiveness, which I applaud you for. Do you believe 

that leadership computing capability, like what we have at Argonne in my district, is also important to those goals? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. I think computing capacity is immensely important, and it is important in a wide variety of domains, in national security, in scientific intelligence, in environmental science and a great deal else. We have a strong focus on 

information technology in this Administration. We have both a 

Chief Technology Officer and a Chief Information Officer in the Administration for the first time. The Chief Technology Officer, 

Aneesh Chopra, also works as the Associate Director of OSTP for 

Technology and has that domain, and we are doing a lot of, I think, 
37

really interesting and innovative things in investing in an improved computing and more broadly information infrastructure in 

this country because it matters not just to science, not just to national security, it matters a lot to the economy. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Then moving on to something else, the 

U.S. trade deficit in 2008, the deficit in high-technology products 

was $55.5 billion dollars up from $16.6 billion dollars in 2002. I 

guess those are the latest figures that I have. But the U.S. trade 

balance was last in surplus in 2001 and a portion of this deficit is 

from U.S. companies that manufacture overseas and bring their 

products back to the United States, and even if we invest more in 

research and development programs and attract more professionals 

into these fields, how do we discourage companies from taking 

their production outside of the United States? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have to say, Congresswoman, that that question 

is way outside my domain of expertise; that is, international economic policy is not my strength, and I would be worried about 

what Larry Summers would do to me or Christy Romer when I got 

back to the White House. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, I serve on those committees too so I am always try to find the answers. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would love to find the answer too. I know the 

President is committed to doubling U.S. exports over the next few 

years. We know this is immensely important. High-tech exports are 

going to have to play a role in it. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I know that he mentioned it in his State of the 

Union. I hope you convey that if we can get those trade agreements 

that on the table right now, that would be very helpful, Panama 

and South Korea and Colombia. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will convey that message back. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Then in 2009, you had an interview 

with Nature magazine and you said that we ultimately ought to 

look to put all uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing if any is 

done under multi-national control. You said, ‘‘I think the world is 

ready for that.’’ Could you elaborate on that statement, or do you 

still believe——

Dr. HOLDREN. I will elaborate on it a bit. If we want nuclear energy to be expandable again, not just in this country but around 

the world, and we want it to be expandable enough to make a difference, expandable enough to take a bite, for example, out of global greenhouse gas emissions, then nuclear reactors are going to 

have to be built in a lot of countries besides the United States, and 

if that is going to happen, the biggest single obstacle to achieving 

that in a manner that is in fact sustainable is avoiding the proliferation linkage, avoiding those technologies being misused to develop nuclear weapons capabilities in additional countries. The two 

points of vulnerability that link nuclear energy technology with nuclear weapons technology are the fuel enrichment plants, and if one 

chooses to reprocess and recycle, the fuel reprocessing plants. A 

purely technical approach to controlling that problem, simply by 

making periodic visits and measurements at uranium enrichment 

plants and measurements at uranium enrichment plants and reprocessing plants, are not adequate. Everybody who has looked at 

that picture realizes that the uncertainties in that process are too 
38

big, the proliferation dangers too large. In my judgment, in the 

long run the most certain way to avoid proliferation from nuclear 

energy is to put the enrichment plants and the reprocessing plants 

under international management so that countries watch each 

other. 

I think the United States could well afford to do this. Many of 

the other nuclear weapons states have indicated that they are 

ready to do it. And I believe it would give us the best option for 

a substantially increased contribution from nuclear energy around 

the world without an unacceptable proliferation liability. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And then going back to Yucca Mountain and the 

storage, and I am very much for reprocessing and whatever we can 

do and to speed that up so that we won’t have to store the nuclear 

materials, nuclear waste in such large quantity, and that is why 

I am concerned that the Administration has made it clear really its 

intention to shut down Yucca Mountain, and the Department of 

Energy has formally withdrawn its license application before the 

NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. Given the circumstances 

surrounding this decision, particularly the fact that it was made 

before the NRC could complete its scientific review of the application, and before the merits of any alternative options were reviewed, it appears that you could say that this is really a political 

decision, and I think that there should be important policy decisions on this rather than just a political decision. So, you know, we 

have expended more than $10 billion dollars in Yucca Mountain, 

taxpayer dollars, and it seems premature to do this. Do you think 

that this will go forward or—you said you have a commission that 

is looking at it, and how long will that take? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is a Blue Ribbon Commission that has been 

set up. I think the time scale for that is a year or two. It is going 

to be a very deep and wide-ranging study of the alternatives. I myself would argue, as I argued in a different context a moment ago, 

that the money that has been invested in Yucca Mountain up until 

now has not been wasted even if we don’t end up using Yucca 

Mountain as a repository because we have learned a lot about the 

characteristics of repositories and the challenges that have to be 

met in order to make a repository successful. 

You asked whether that was not a political decision. I think any 

decision made in Washington has politics in it in the sense that decision makers have to decide what is going to fly, what is practical, 

what do we have a chance of getting into operation. I think a decision was made that in light of both the technical uncertainties and 

the forms and degrees of political opposition that it was not likely 

that we could put Yucca Mountain into operation on any early time 

scale, and so that was the decision that was made, but the Blue 

Ribbon Commission is going to look at everything, and if they conclude that going back to Yucca Mountain is the best idea we have 

got, I am sure they will say so. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. I will also point 

out to the gentlelady that we are soon going to be having hearings 

with the intention of authorization concerning research programs 

within nuclear energy both in terms of design, reprocessing and 

storage. So we will have a chance to, as we should, vet this issue. 
39

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I look forward to that. 

Chairman GORDON. Mrs. Dahlkemper is recognized. 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Dr. Holdren. I wanted to ask you a little bit about the President’s 

determination to double our R&D expenditures by 2017, and just 

can you maybe comment on the importance of the maintenance of 

that funding growth and our Nation’s industrial, competitive, and 

economic security in the long run? I come from an area that always 

has been a manufacturing base, and we have certainly seen many 

jobs—I would concur with the trade deficit that we are currently 

seeing. We have lost many jobs in my area. I just want to have 

your comments on the President’s goals here. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me first be clear 

that the President has proposed to double the budgets of three specific agencies on that time scale: the National Science Foundation, 

the DOE Office of Science and the NIST laboratories. So he is not 

proposing to double the entire R&D budget of the country on that 

time scale. That would be a bigger challenge in the budget times 

we face. The roles of those particular agencies are very heavily 

weighted toward fundamental science, and in the case of the NIST 

laboratories, in a variety of directions that have the potential to 

support real advances in things like manufacturing. NIST works in 

nanotechnology. They work in advanced forms of measurement. 

They work in printed circuits. They work in a variety of fields that 

we believe have high potential ultimately for the manufacturing 

sector. And so those investments across those three particular 

agencies—the DOE Office of Science has very heavy investments in 

material science, in chemical engineering, in a variety of disciplines 

that again have high potential for the industries of the future. The 

NSF of course is active across a very wide range of fundamental 

science questions, and again, the attractiveness of doubling those 

particular agencies is not only that they are highly relevant but 

that they are relatively inexpensive compared to many other domains of applied research and development. So you get the potential for a large bang for the buck by increasing those particular investments at a time when you can’t afford to increase everything. 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. You did mention the nanotechnology, and 

there is a slightly decrease from the fiscal year 2010 funding. Can 

you please explain that decrease in the funding for nanotechnology, 

for the National Nanotechnology Initiative? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I feel a little premature in answering that because 

we have got a nanotechnology working group in PCAST, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, that we expect to report at the time of our meeting with the President in 

early March and they are looking at exactly that question. I would 

guess that part of that is that industry is becoming more heavily 

involved in the nanotech area, and we always want to look not to 

have the government paying for things that industry is willing to 

do, and as industry takes a larger role, the government can sometimes afford to take a smaller one. But that is a guess at this point. 

We have a very high-caliber group in PCAST looking at just that 

question, and so the next time I come and testify, I hope I will have 

a better answer. 
40

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I look forward to that. Thank you, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mrs. Dahlkemper. I will quickly 

point out that that doubling in the Office of Science, NIST and the 

National Science Foundation was really a fundamental part of the 

COMPETES Act and we are going to be reviewing that soon in 

terms of the progress, and I think that is a very important element. 

And in terms of nanotechnology, where there was a decrease generally in terms of health and safety, there was an increase, and 

that is really what I think industry is looking for right now is those 

health and safety types of validation as they get more and more 

products out to market. 

So Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, first off I would like to thank you for the letter I 

received just yesterday regarding the Administration’s efforts to ensure scientific integrity. You might recall I initially wrote you on 

July 13th and again on October 2nd and then once again on December 1st. In fact, I was beginning to wonder if the lights were 

on over there in your office. So it is good to know that you were 

able to find time to eventually reply to my letters the day before 

this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 

these three letters as well as the Director’s response into the 

record. 

[See Appendix 3] 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On March 9th—well, let me go back on the records, on these letters. These focus on basically three things: the magnitude of climate change, and I believe they have exaggerated the magnitude, 

the causes of climate change as well as the scientific method utilized, and in fact, I have asked questions before about scientific integrity and whether members of the Administration would at least 

admit that there is no scientific consensus about the causes of the 

climate change, and I have had a negative response from many 

members of the Administration on that because there is no scientific consensus on climate change. In fact, what I see from this 

Administration it seems to me is they are holding onto the idea 

that the world is flat. 

But going on, on March 9, 2009, the President directed you to develop recommendations to ‘‘guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch’’ within 120 days. The memo also stated 

that the ‘‘public must be able to trust the science and scientific 

process informing public policy decisions.’’ When I wrote you last 

June, I called your attention to a troubling pattern that I saw developing within the government where decisions were being based 

not on the best science but for political reasons. However, within 

six months, the Administration has already racked up quite a sizable list of questionable acts. Those were clearly laid out in my letter so I won’t waste time by repeating them but those issues still 

remain. Unfortunately, your response didn’t address a single issue 

I brought up in my July or October letters and you still haven’t 

issued any recommendations. 
41

Then last year, e-mails were released from the University of East 

Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that pointed to an upsetting record 

of group think where data was manipulated and withheld. Scientific journals were intimidated and reputations were attacked, all 

in the name of advancing political activism regarding climate 

change. Your reaction to these revelations has at least been consistent, and you showed this same reaction today, to dismiss all 

those that go against what this Administration is trying to promote. You proclaim that the contents of these e-mails, the actions 

of the scientists and the almost daily revelations of additional errors in IPCC claims have no effect on the underlying science. Admonishing the process and scientists at the same time that you defend their product is totally unreasonable. The science may not be 

affected by the recent revelations but right now we simply don’t 

know. Clearly, scientists have been exaggerating their claims, hiding data, intimidating colleagues and manipulating the peer review 

process. 

The credibility of many of the scientists involved in this work is 

dying by death of a thousand cuts. Simply putting your head in the 

sand and ignoring a flawed process will not work. Also troubling 

is the Administration’s habit of making arbitrary, uninformed political decisions before they actually look into an issue or develop alternative plans that are adequate. The decision to shut down Yucca 

Mountain arguably is the most scientifically studied plot of land on 

the earth without a plan for future waste. The decision to scuttle 

the Nation’s human spaceflight program and cede your leadership 

in space without any details or alternative plans. The decision to 

break up the $14 billion NPOESS program with little more than 

talking points all show that this Administration is putting the cart 

before the horse on too many decisions. The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric when it comes to scientific integrity and they deserve more than the arrogance, ignorance and incompetence that it is showing when it comes to making these decisions. 

Doctor, I have a number of questions for the record and I would 

like to submit those, since my time is out, for a written response. 

I am just flabbergasted at just what is going on here with this because as a scientist, I want to know the answers. The American 

public deserve the answers, and we are not getting them. I think 

that this Administration is showing a tremendous amount of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence, and the American people deserve better. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. Your questions keep 

us all on our toes, so thank you for that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, did you want me to respond? 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I didn’t hear a question there, but you 

are welcome to respond. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have a brief response to Congressman Broun. He 

won’t be surprised to know that I don’t agree with much of his 

characterization but I do agree that I owe him an apology for the 

appalling delay in responding to his letters, and the letter that I 

sent to him yesterday was only a response to his December 1st letter. The response to his earlier ones is in the review process now 
42

and I hope you will get it in the next few days. There is no excuse 

for a delay of that magnitude. There are some explanations but 

there is no excuse, the explanations having to do with your first set 

of questions, having largely had to do with the guidelines that I 

have been obligated to produce under the President’s memorandum 

of March 9th, and I had hoped to complete those guidelines before 

responding to your letter so that I could respond in full with the 

specifics of how we were going to address this array of questions 

going forward. It finally became apparent that the difficulties of 

constructing a set of guidelines that would be applicable across all 

the agencies and accepted by all concerned were going to cause further delay, and at that point I realized I just needed to answer as 

best I could the questions as you posed them. I do very much regret 

that delay and I agree that it is not acceptable. 

The rest of your characterizations of the state of climate science 

and the Administration’s decisions of course I don’t agree with but 

we can perhaps deal with that offline and in the questions for the 

record. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield? I will ask a question the 

doctor wouldn’t ask. Are you going to answer him this year? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, the answer—the set of answers to his most 

recent letter, which was December, were communicated to Congressman Broun yesterday. I expect the answers to the earlier letters will be communicated to him within the week. 

Mr. HALL. I was just being polite with you. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly, Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. Holdren, I accept your apology and I appreciate 

that. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. When in the Marine Corps, I was taught excuses—

there is no room for excuses, and I do accept your apology and I 

expect hopefully a rapid response from you, and I appreciate your 

saying so in a very public forum. I would like to work with you. 

As a scientist, I want to see scientific integrity. We need to know 

the answers. I happen to fall on the side where some of these 

things that the Administration is pursuing in policy, I fall on the 

other side from the Administration. But as a scientist, I do want 

to know the answer, and I hope that we can work together and we 

can work in concert to try to find some scientific integrity so the 

American people can get the answers that they desperately need. 

Science cannot make policy but science can help us develop the 

proper policy. When I was in medical school, things that I was 

taught as being absolutely scientifically true five years later were 

proven to be false, and we are teaching something exactly opposite. 

So science is not a static thing or entity, and we need to use the 

best science to try to help policymakers develop the best policy for 

the American people, and I am eager to do that, even if my personal biases today—I am open to the scientific process but scientific 

integrity is absolutely critical, and I don’t see that from this Administration, frankly, and I hope that we can work together and I 

do accept your apology. Thank you, sir, and I yield back. 
43

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I know you are sincere in your questions and you deserve an answer, and I am sure 

that you and Dr. Holdren are going to become pen pals. 

And so Mr. Lipinski is recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr. 

Holdren for all of his work and the work of the Administration. 

You know that—I am sure you know we are working right now on 

NSF reauthorization. I was very happy to see that the Administration has recommended an eight percent increase in NSF funding, 

so I want to thank you for that recommendation. 

One thing I wanted to focus on is the infrastructure that we have 

right now for doing research in this country because I think it is 

critical for our competitiveness, and of course NSF reauthorization 

is going to be incorporated in reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, which is critical for our Nation. The most recent NSF 

survey of science and engineering research facilities found that academic institutions were deferring about $3.5 billion in needed renovation projects. From my experiences touring DOE facilities, I am 

concerned that there is also a backlog there of needed infrastructure. In the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I was happy that the Administration and Congress put in there $200 million for ARI, 

Academic Research Infrastructure. Obviously that $200 million is 

not going to go too far towards a $3.5 billion backlog. I was wondering, the first part is, what the Administration, what you are 

doing looking at the backlog of infrastructure needs at our academic institutions and at our labs, and also just yesterday we had 

in my Research and Science Education Subcommittee a hearing on 

whether or not we should reinstitute the Academic Research Infrastructure program or find another way of funding the backlog at 

academic institutions. So it is a two-part question. First, is there 

a—what is the Administration doing looking at the backlog at both 

academic institutions, DOE labs and infrastructure, and second, 

are there any plans the Administration has for moving forward to 

address this backlog? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for that question, and I think it is a 

tough one because in my view, in this country, we have been 

underinvesting in the maintenance and the renovation of our infrastructure for a long time across a wide range of issues. We have 

done it in the communications sector, the energy sector, the transport sector and the science and technology sector including in our 

universities and our national labs. This is not a problem—this 

underinvestment in infrastructure is not just a problem in the domain you mentioned, and I am not smart enough to know what the 

solution is across the board. I am hoping that some of my colleagues in the Administration may have some good ideas about 

that. 

As far as the infrastructure for science and technology, the infrastructure for R&D, I have had a lot of university presidents in my 

office sharing their woes in that domain, and that is related to 

some very complicated questions including questions of overhead 

and where they can get the money to renew their facilities. I think 

we did make a contribution to addressing that problem as you mentioned, sir, in the Recovery Act where a fair amount of the science 

and technology money has gone into equipment and facilities at a 
44

wide variety of kinds of institutions, not just because it makes 

sense for its own sake but because that is one way to avoid the cliff 

where you have this big infusion of money and then it goes away. 

By investing in equipment and facilities, you have the benefit of 

that infusion of money stretching over a long period of time, but 

we haven’t done nearly enough. It is on our radar screen, but I 

have to admit, we don’t have a plan yet for addressing this in a 

systematic way, and that is something that I would certainly like 

to see happen going forward and I would love to work with you and 

this committee in figuring it out. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I look forward to working with you on that, 

and one other thing I wanted to bring up, in the 2007 COMPETES 

Act, we required the OSTP to coordinate planning for national research infrastructure across agencies, and we have not yet gotten 

that plan, so I think that is also a key part of this and I am looking 

forward to seeing that hopefully soon and looking forward to working with you on this as we move forward. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me just say in brief response to the last question there that we have been resuscitating the National Science 

and Technology Council, which is the vehicle we have for coordinating analyses and collaborations across the agencies. It was not 

terribly active in the last Administration. It is becoming much 

more active now. We have the top people participating. We have 

got its various committees. The technology committee is being 

chaired by our CTO, Aneesh Chopra. And so we do have a mechanism functioning again to address that particular mandate, and we 

are going to do it. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Olson is recognized. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. 

Holdren, thank you for coming today. Unfortunately, I am going to 

start out with an admonition and then I have got a couple of questions. 

One of the great things about this committee and U.S. human 

spaceflight is, there is no more bipartisan issue in the Congress 

than again U.S. human spaceflight, particularly with the current 

atmosphere we are living up here in Washington, and I want to 

specifically talk about a response you gave to Charles 

Krauthammer’s issue criticizing the Administration’s plan for 

human spaceflight, and you repeatedly referred to the Constellation program as George W. Bush’s program. With all due respect, 

sir, it is not George W. Bush’s program, it is America’s Constellation program. It has been approved twice in authorization bills in 

this Congress, 2005, 2008, with different majorities in charge. The 

2005 vote was 383 to 15. The 2008 authorization act was even a 

greater majority with the Democrats, 409 to 15. And we have got 

to be very careful. Again, one of the great strengths of human 

spaceflight, U.S. human spaceflight, is it’s largely a nonpartisan 

issue, and if we turn it into a partisan issue, we are going to lose 

much more than what is at stake with the Administration’s current 

proposal. 

Getting back to the Augustine report, it is very clear from your 

comments today, from what I have read in the media, from comments I have seen from Deputy Administrator Garber that the Administration puts great weight behind the recommendations of the 
45

Augustine Commission. One question I have is, there was a statement on the initial summary that came out from the Augustine 

Commission in September, and let me read this to you, and this 

is a quote: ‘‘There is now a strong consensus in the United States 

that the next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low 

earth orbit,’’ and yet as I review the Administration’s budget proposal, it condemns us to low earth orbit with no plan to go beyond 

low earth orbit. And so if you have given such credence to other 

recommendations of the Augustine Commission, why don’t we have 

a plan like the Constellation to get us beyond low earth orbit? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I agree with 

you that the space program has been and should remain a bipartisan effort, and it was certainly not my intention to undermine 

that in any way. I think it is something that Americans of all political persuasions should be able to agree about. 

With respect to the Augustine report, we agree with the proposition in the Augustine report that moving beyond low earth orbit 

is important. It is a goal that we are retaining. The question is how 

to do it, using what technologies, on what time scale, to what destinations. And the goal that we have is to take U.S. astronauts into 

deep space in a way that is safe, in a way that is affordable, in a 

way that gets them to an array of deep space destinations, not just 

a particular one at a particular moment. 

We believe, and the Augustine report supported this proposition, 

that the Constellation program as constructed and funded was not 

going to be a route that was sustainable for us to take to get U.S. 

astronaut into deep space. We think we have a better route to get 

there that invests much more extensively in advanced technology. 

We are certainly not giving up on deep space, and I would point 

out that Norm Augustine himself has endorsed the new plan. Many 

members of that Commission have written op-ed pieces or blogs or 

other statements indicating that they think within the constraints 

of budget the Administration’s proposal has embraced a large proportion of the findings of the Augustine Commission. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. You hit the nail on the head. It is within 

the constraints of the budget, and I feel very strongly that it is incumbent upon us here in Congress and the Administration to increase NASA’s funding. I mean, the big problem has been, for the 

past 10 years, we have had this great vision, and I think going 

back to the moon is the proper vision for our human spaceflight at 

this time but we haven’t been willing to give them the resources. 

I want talk to you, Dr. Holdren, just about how the process of 

this recommendation for human spaceflight came about. In the 

course of your discussions and debates for this proposal, did you 

meet with any of the current Constellation contractors and did you 

meet with anyone representing the private organizations, specifically SpaceX or Orbital, in putting together the Administration’s 

proposal? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, the Augustine Committee had an 

extraordinarily interactive and public process. They had a large 

number of public meetings. They met with everybody you could 

imagine. The Augustine report contains an amazing list of all the 

folks that they met with. When we got the Augustine report, we 

then had a process within the White House but also involving of 
46

course NASA to talk about and to explore the different kinds of 

possibilities that could be constructed as different options for the 

President’s consideration coming out of those findings and everything else that we had been able to learn about the space program, 

the options it faces going forward and so on. Certainly we heard 

from representatives of the private sector, big companies, little 

companies. We heard from just about everybody who has an interest in this matter. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Mr. Olson, Administrator Bolden 

will be testifying before us soon, and I am sure we will have an 

opportunity to go into more depth, and I think following on that 

theme, Ms. Kosmas is recognized. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Holdren, it is good 

to have you here and I appreciate your comments. As I have shared 

with you previously, you know that I am very concerned about the 

lack of specificity in the President’s proposal for NASA, and this 

follows closely on the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Olson. 

I too feel that this is a very bipartisan issue and an extremely important one as we move into the 21st century for this Nation, to 

quote you, ‘‘to continue America’s leadership in science and in 

space’’. Again, as the Representative for the Kennedy Space Center, 

I am particularly concerned that the budget has no concrete plans 

for a future exploration program. There is no goal outlined. There 

are no milestones for a program. There is no launch schedule. And 

this proposal basically leaves my constituents, which is a uniquely 

skilled and professional workforce, with no way to plan for the future. Under this plan, as you undoubtedly are aware, as many as 

7,000 people will be laid off in my district. They will likely move 

away, and the loss of this workforce will cause, in my opinion, 

great devastation not only to the community but to our Nation’s 

ambitions for space exploration. 

So my question to you is, can you tell me how the Administration 

proposes to avoid dispersing this workforce which is critical to our 

space program and the positive effects that the space program has 

on our national security, our economic viability and our scientific 

leadership? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congresswoman Kosmas. We have 

talked about this before, and I know that we have not yet provided 

enough detail, as much detail as you will want and the American 

people will want about this program but that is in process. As the 

Chairman mentioned, Administrator Bolden will be testifying here. 

He will have more detail. There will be more detail forthcoming as 

we develop and flesh out the options that have been identified in 

the new plan. But let me make a couple of points about your obviously very real and very valid concerns about the Kennedy Space 

Center. 

In the President’s proposal, we do propose first of all to fly out 

the shuttle manifest, even if that includes moving into 2011, which 

was not previously a done deal. You may say it is a no brainer but 

we agreed to do it, and that I think is terribly important that we 

fly out that manifest, we do it in a prudent and safe manner, and 

that of course will create for the period in which it lasts continuing 

activity at the Kennedy Space Center. We have proposed——
47

Ms. KOSMAS. And I thank you for confirming what Congress had 

already approved. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Indeed. We have proposed to extend the life of the 

International Space Station, which is going to mean more launches 

of U.S. astronauts, and we believe those launches are going to take 

place at a pace that will exceed what would have taken place under 

Constellation. That will be more activity at the Kennedy Space 

Center. 

Ms. KOSMAS. And they will be launched by what vehicle? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think there is a variety of possibilities for the vehicle that will do that. We are spinning up a variety of, and encouraging a variety of private contractors who have vehicles that they 

believe will be up to that task. As I mentioned before, the safety 

of those vehicles and their adequacy for that task will be examined 

and certified by NASA. But we have, I believe——

Ms. KOSMAS. But there is no notion for a NASA-led vehicle to 

transfer our astronauts to the Space Station? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Not at this time. At this time, as you know, we 

are dependent for launching into low earth orbit——

Ms. KOSMAS. And nothing has been developed——

Dr. HOLDREN.—on the Russians. 

Ms. KOSMAS.—by the private sector. In fact the private sector 

does not even have from NASA, at this point in time, what those 

safety specifications—what safety specifications will be required 

so——

Dr. HOLDREN. But they will get it. NASA is working on those 

specifications and they will be communicated to the private sector, 

and we believe there is a good possibility that the private sector 

capability to put U.S. astronauts in low earth orbit will be available before Ares I would have been available to do the same thing. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Let me restate my question. Do you have any specific plan that will help me to suggest, as the President did, that 

he will assist us in mitigating the job loss at Kennedy Space Center pending the expiration of the shuttle manifest? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. I had actually not gotten to that item on the 

list but we do have plans to invest in the Kennedy Space Center 

to upgrade the facilities, to do long-overdue renovation, to expand 

its capacities because we think there are going to be more launches 

from Kennedy Space Center. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Do you expect that those renovations will use the 

unique workforce that we now have doing the processing and 

launch preparation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The renovations per se obviously will not, but as 

we pursue the various possibilities for testing new technologies, for 

developing new heavy lift capabilities, there will be continuing action at the Kennedy Space Center that will employ some of those 

people. There is no question that there were going to be job losses 

associated with winding down the shuttle program. That was a 

done deal before we ever came to office. But I think we have more 

ideas and more specifics forthcoming about how to at least mitigate 

some of those job losses that were in place before, and there will 

be more detail on that. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. We will have additional hearings on this. 
48

Mr. Bilbray, I am sorry to start with you, but if you could try 

to hold your remarks to four minutes, then that way I think we 

could get everybody through. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Okay. I have to get over to Toyota pretty soon. 

Doctor, let me first of all congratulate you and thank you for the 

use of terminology when asked about the data on climate change. 

I think, you know, robust is a respectable term that doesn’t carry 

so much political weight but also leaves open the fact of healthy 

skepticism of any data, and I think that is reasonable. In fact, it 

is kind of interesting that the U.N. Council on Climate Change 

used the same term, robust, to basically say what was essential to 

address this issue in implementing certain programs, and my biggest observation after working over two decades on air pollution 

issues is the greatest threat to the credibility of the data is not necessary these e-mails and the scandal but the lack of commitment 

to the answers that we hear from the biggest proponents of the 

data in the political spectrum, basically crying that there is a major 

crisis but refusing to follow the guidance of scientists around the 

world on how to address those issues. 

But I will move on and say, as I go down this report, I am reminded of the fact that at the turn of the last century, the British 

Parliament outlawed the use of automobiles unless a pedestrian 

walked in front of that vehicle with a red flag, and the fact is that 

the political process almost outlawed that technology from being 

able to be used until technicians persuaded the politicians to back 

off and move the other way. And when I go down the list here and 

I am looking at all of this, my concern is, I do not see a scientific 

assessment of how government regulation, government oversight 

and government restrictions will keep all of this from being able to 

implemented along the line. I will give you one. I will go down the 

list. Will it take two years for this Committee to review the reprocessing of nuclear waste that France has been doing for over two 

decades? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure this is the forum for going into the 

details of the reprocessing issue but the French approach to reprocessing, in the judgment of Secretary Chu and in my judgment, 

would not make sense for the United States at this time. It does 

not significantly reduce the waste management burden. It increases cost, makes nuclear energy more complex. 

Mr. BILBRAY. It is mostly the cost factor that is the biggest factor, though? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I think if we want nuclear energy to be expandable in this country, we want to make it as inexpensive as 

possible, as simple as possible, as safe as possible, as proliferationresistant as possible, and as non-controversial as possible. Reprocessing using the current technology goes in the wrong direction on 

all those counts. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We need better reprocessing technologies. The Secretary and I agree on that as well. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Because I am on short time, the proposed budget 

here retreats from natural gas use when in fact it is probably one 

of the most essential transition fuels until our biofuel technology 

goes in there. Is there any review at all being talked about in look-
49

ing at government regulations restricting the use of natural gas in 

pedestrian vehicles? I drove one in 1990 and we still have regulations today and public utility commissions and building codes that 

specifically restrict the use of natural gas home dispensing to be 

able to replace the traditional gasoline when in fact we know this 

is probably one of the cleanest fuels readily accessible to the consumer today. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t see anything in this budget that retreats 

in any way from natural gas use. I think natural gas is a valuable 

resource. It is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuel resources. We 

could do much more with it. We have a lot of it. The private sector 

is going to do most of that. We don’t need a lot of money in the 

federal R&D budget in order to deal with natural gas. The regulatory issues there, I have to say, are not my domain. If there are 

regulatory obstacles to using more natural gas, I would like to see 

them resolved. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And I would like to see scientists stand forward 

and say that and get into it, and that is what is important. 

The Bush Administration bet the farm on every one of its renewable research facilities on ethanol. Is this Administration willing to 

basically give alternatives to ethanol the same standing across the 

board and retreat from this dead-end road of going to ethanol as 

somehow the magic fuel that I think scientists across the board 

have said is a dead-end road? Is there any possibility for the Administration to reverse those positions of the Bush Administration 

and allow the next generation of truly emission-reduced fuels to get 

into those research facilities with equity with what I call the ‘snake 

oil’ called ethanol? 

Chairman GORDON. Could that be a yes or no? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, we are interested in a wider array of biofuels, 

and will certainly support the pursuit of a wider array of biofuels 

as opposed to just ethanol. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Doctor, thank you very much, and I just want to 

say again, we need to hear the scientists stand up and say when 

things—when regulations are standing in your way, or we will still 

be driving behind a guy with a red flag for the next 20, 30 years 

while climate change and all these other crises continue to be 

talked about but action is never made legal to be implemented. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you because I know that were are going to have some more time to go 

into the human spaceflight component of the budget and I, like 

many of my colleagues here on this Committee, have serious questions about the Administration’s direction, vantage point and policy 

but I won’t go into them today. Among those, though, are, you 

know, what the impact is on the U.S. preeminence in space exploration, whether we are really mirroring the trajectory of international agency capacity and human spaceflight development. They 

seem to be going up and we seem to be going in a different direction, and obviously the questions around workforce and safety. And 

so I look forward to exploring those questions in greater detail. 

I want to ask today, though, Dr. Holdren, about STEM education 

and particularly thank the leadership of our Chairman and Ms. 
50

Johnson on making sure that we really understand what is going 

on with STEM with our young girls, with our minority communities and in the reach of these programs, but I wonder if you could 

give us a little bit more detail about how the programs through the 

National Science Foundation, Department of Education and these 

things are coming together in a more coordinated fashion, with a 

real vision toward K–12 education because it does seem there are 

all of these different holes and pockets and not a level of coordination that is really needed at the local level in school systems to understand better how to successfully implement greater capacity in 

our STEM learning. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congresswoman. First of all, this is 

clearly a very tough problem. We have been talking about improving STEM education for decades. Progress has been frustratingly 

slow. If it were easy, we would have gotten it fixed a long time ago. 

It is hard, and it is hard in part because you need both bottomup and top-down efforts of a variety of kinds to meet in the middle 

to cover the whole spectrum of things that need to be done. We are 

working much harder in this Administration than I think has previously been done to integrate these different components. The Domestic Policy Council, headed by Melody Barnes, is very much involved with this. Secretary Arne Duncan is very much involved in 

it. The NSF is involved in it. I am involved in it. And the President 

is involved in it. The First Lady is involved in it. We talk about 

this several times a week, of how to get these programs to work 

better together, to get the Race to the Top program and the Educate to Innovate program and the other initiatives that are being 

undertaken to reinforce each other so that we not only have better 

laboratories in every middle school and high school in the country, 

so that kids can learn science and engineering in a hands-on way 

rather than just being lectured at, but we also have the teachers 

who are trained to exploit those laboratory facilities in ways that 

kids really learn from them. A lot of things have to come together 

to make this work. 

I think they are starting to come together. Secretary Duncan and 

I have an op-ed piece coming out in The Hill next week about some 

of the stuff that we are doing together to make this happen. I 

would love to talk with you offline about it at greater length. This 

is one of the highest priorities of the President and I have to tell 

you that every event that we propose from OSTP for the President’s participation that has STEM education in it, he says yes. He 

comes and does it. He interacts with the kids. He is excited about 

this stuff. He knows how important it is, and as a result, we are 

all determined to get it done. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I would like to have an offline conversation 

about that because I do think it is a real challenge for our local 

school systems to understand how all of these puzzle pieces fit together so that there is success in STEM learning, not just for a 

handful. I mean, you know, in my district, you can go to any number of schools that are doing something right in individual schools 

but from a systemic standpoint, how is it that we get all of our children trained in the kind of way that they need to have skills to 

make them successful for this century? Lots more questions. Out 

of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
51

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. That is a very important issue. 

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me just note that stem cell research is of course really important, 

and those of us—I have actually taken some hits for taking stands 

on this issue, which are contrary to some of my other party members, but let me just note that——

Ms. EDWARDS. I just want to make sure, I am focused on STEM 

learning, not stem cell research. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, excuse me. I heard you talk about—I will 

talk about stem cell research then. What we have found, however, 

and because it leads into my basic question, in stem cell research 

we saw that issue being politicized on the Hill, which I believe it 

shouldn’t have been, and I might say politicized by both sides of 

the spectrum. We also have seen something even more politicized 

on the Hill over the last 20 years, and that this is the issue of global warming, and I noted that there are several quotes from you in 

the recent past where you talk about those who disagree with your 

position, disagree with this whole idea of the global warming phenomenon, you label them as deniers. I would hope that considering 

the revelations that we have had that has the evidence that has 

emerged showing mistakes, errors and, yes, outright fraud that 

took place in the IPCC reports, I would hope that you would watch 

your language in terms of just dismissing people who disagree with 

you on this issue. 

At this point I would submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, an 

article. This came out about the reversal of Dr. Phil Jones, who is 

one of the great global warming advocates who now suggests there 

has been no global warming since 1995 and has admitted that it 

is possible that there are earlier time periods of warming that 

would——

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—with human activity as well as including for 

the record a list of 100 prominent scientists from around the world 

including heads of major universities science departments who 

think that the concept of global warming was never accurate. 

[The information follows:]
52
53
54

With that said, let me get on to a question about space and let 

me commend you and the Administration for being courageous 

enough to take a bold step in dealing with space issues. The fact 

is that Republicans love to talk about cutting down government 

waste but whenever it comes down to actually cutting something 

or redirecting resources away from government bureaucracy in the 

areas of space or defense, we end up not being on the side of the 

angels. I would suggest that your Administration has tried to take 

an honest approach to looking at what NASA is all about. The goal 

of NASA should not be maintaining the NASA science bureaucracy. 

We just spent $9 billion on the Constellation project and have almost nothing to show for it, and there are about five or six other 
55

projects that we can say the same thing. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars with nothing to show for it. Well, I am 

pleased that this Administration is willing to stand up to the plate 

and try to challenge this and say well, let us see if the private sector can come up with some alternatives that will save us some 

money. 

Let me note that the Constellation wasn’t our only way of getting 

into space. We have Atlas and we have Delta rocket systems that, 

if we challenge the private sector to use those rocket systems rather than spending billions and billions of dollars of developing a new 

government rocket system, it might be the cost-effective way of 

using those systems coupled with some new innovation from the 

private sector. And thank you very much, and I know I have used 

up my time, but maybe if you could just say yes or no. 

Chairman GORDON. I think he will say both. 

Dr. HOLDREN. On NASA, yes. On climate change, no. 

Chairman GORDON. Many thanks for the angelic Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s, comments. 

And now we go to the patient Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for being here. My frustration is the same as Dr. Broun’s 

and Mr. Olson’s on the integrity of research. The eight years that 

President Bush was in, there were constant complaints about the 

altering of reports in the office and everything else, so I think that 

hopefully we can get beyond the past mistrust, hopefully with a 

party label, and look very honestly at the scientific research and 

scientific integrity and know full well that as we do research, 

things do change, new knowledge is found, and so many of the 

things that we are doing will show that. 

I think I heard you say that the investment would be where you 

could get some results a little cheaper and quicker in the areas of 

funding. I am from Texas and I believe in NASA, but it is very expensive, and I know that. It has rendered probably the best results 

of any research we have had but that too can change and so we 

have to prepare our young people to look at something different. I 

am very concerned about whether or not we are putting the right 

emphasis and getting the right results from the STEM education. 

Because if we are not doing that, it won’t make a whole lot of difference how much money we spend, because we still won’t have the 

qualified people to make the best of the research. And I appreciate 

the fact that you and Secretary Duncan are working together because it is very, very much needed. And I hope that all of us will 

continue to question without being that hostile about—because of 

party labels, but because we need to know this knowledge for the 

future and we need to have an opportunity and the ability to continue to seek it. So I look forward to the article you are talking 

about but also I wanted you to comment just quickly on some of 

the things that you might be working with Secretary Duncan as relates to America COMPETES and the provisions that were made 

in that, research and preparation of instructors as well, because 

that is where I think our biggest weakness is. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I can just say very quickly, I think you are 

absolutely right on all counts. I don’t disagree with anything you 

have said, and your last comment about the preparation of instruc-
56

tors is absolutely crucial and we are making big investments and 

thinking about how to innovate in both incentivizing some of our 

brightest people to go into teaching and doing a better job of preparing them for teaching science and math and engineering and 

technology in our schools. So there is absolutely no disagreement 

there. I think we are together on the need. We are together on the 

goals, and I think we will find that we are together on a lot of the 

means. 

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

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. Fudge and then Mr. Tonko, and then we will have to conclude. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren. 

My first question really you don’t need to answer today, but if 

you could get back to my office with it. I certainly understand that 

the President has pledged almost $4 billion for STEM education in 

the budget. My concern is with Race to the Top funding. What we 

continue to do, unfortunately, is to pick out a select few schools 

who have the resources to write grants, who have the resources to 

be involved, and we leave the masses of the children behind. I really do believe that every student deserves the opportunity to compete in STEM, and Race to the Top does not accomplish that. And 

so what I really want to know is how we can extend support to students from underserved areas so that they are given the same exposure and opportunity to develop their STEM skills. And in addition, I want to know if there is a plan at all to establish a clearinghouse for federal STEM programs because I have been trying to 

find one and I don’t think a complete list exists. 

My question is, in my district, which is from—I represent Cleveland, Ohio, and northeast Ohio. Obviously we had a very strong 

manufacturing base, and it is a part of the region that has been 

significantly impacted by the decline of the auto industry. In your 

testimony, you cite a recent White House report called ‘‘A Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing.’’ One of the recommendations in this report is for better coordination of manufacturing R&D programs across the Federal Government through the 

National Science and Technology Council. What is the status of 

that interagency process? Could you give us some brief overview of 

the Administration’s strategy and vision of how federal R&D investment should support American manufacturing and job creation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you. A quick answer on that, because I 

know time is limited. The National Science and Technology Council 

technology committee has been meeting on this. We have a committee of PCAST as well, the President’s Committee of Advisors of 

Science and Technology, that the President has asked to look at 

manufacturing initiatives of a variety of kinds, and we are doing 

that. The folks across the Administration understand the priority. 

Larry Summers and the National Economic Council are very much 

involved in this, understand the priority on revitalizing manufacturing in this country and getting back into a leadership stance 

with respect to our capacity to manufacture cost-effectively, to develop new products. This is a major push in the Administration 
57

and there are lot of different folks involved I it, and again, I would 

love to get back to you with some of the details. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. They are involved, but are they working 

across agencies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, we are working—I mean, that is what the 

NSTC is all about. 

Ms. FUDGE. I know that is what it is supposed to be. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is. We are doing it. The folks from the different 

agencies are coming, they are participating, they are communicating. They are starting to collaborate. We have a functioning 

NSTC again. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Tonko is recognized. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Holdren, welcome. I was pleased that you were talking about 

linking innovation, entrepreneurship and job creation. You highlight NSF’s Ecosystem program and EDA’s efforts supporting regional innovation clusters. We know that DOE is supporting the 

creation of innovation hubs and clusters. Can you somehow explain 

how these initiatives complement each other and if there is any coordination or collaboration effort underway? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, I addressed that briefly before. The notion 

of innovation ecosystems is being pursued in concrete terms in this 

Energy Regional Innovation Cluster where we have seven different 

agencies working together, including the DOE, to build innovation 

clusters around the energy innovation hubs that the DOE has already been spinning up. The level of coordination there is very 

high. The level of interaction with the private sector is very high. 

I think I said before, I have never seen so much enthusiasm from 

private companies wanting to partner with the government in various ways to get innovation out into the marketplace again in this 

country. You know, we could give you a long laundry list of the 

things that are happening but there is a lot. 

Mr. TONKO. And another area with the regulatory barriers of 

demonstrating renewable energy technologies, can you suggest how 

we might facilitate the coordination between OSTP and DOE’s research programs and other regulating agencies that have somewhat moved to the commercialization of our clean energy technologies, which I think is, you know, a very important linchpin to 

advancing a green energy agenda, clean energy economy. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is an important linchpin, and OSTP and DOE 

and PCAST are all working very closely together on this. We have 

a PCAST panel set up on energy technology innovation, looking at 

how to move things from the R&D stage into commercialization. I 

happen to be an old friend of Steve Chu’s. We worked together on 

many things long before either one of us was in government. We 

talk together several times a week. I am also and my staff are on 

very good terms with all the deputies over there so there is a very 

close working relationship between OSTP and DOE in this domain, 

and I think we are going to come up with some real innovation in 

how to advance this process of getting renewable energy out there 

into the marketplace. 

Mr. TONKO. And do you see that being—with a commitment from 

the funding that will require? Because I believe that it is going to 
58

take not only a huge investment, but coordination with the utility 

industry out there. When we look at some of the things being done 

across the globe, they are bringing about renewables because they 

are demanding that—you need a huge customer out there, I think, 

or a supplier, and I think our utility network needs to be part of 

that coordination. 

Dr. HOLDREN. They do need to be a part of it and you also need 

a transmission grid that can take renewable energy from the places 

where it is most abundant to the places where it is most needed, 

and we need to substantially increase investments in the grid as 

a general matter. We need a smarter grid to help get this done 

with an increasing renewables contribution in it, and we are focused on all of those issues. I agree with you about its importance, 

so does Secretary Chu. And I think the private sector is ready to 

work with us in getting some of these things done. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Holdren, that concludes our witnesses, 

and I want to again thank you for joining us today. I think the 

breadth of questions demonstrated that you have quite a broad 

portfolio, and that is one of the reasons that as I mentioned earlier, 

it is important for our country for you to succeed. We want to see 

you be successful for our future. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for answers to follow up any questions that the Committee may ask the witnesses. I am sure that 

you, as I say, and Mr. Broun will have the opportunity to have 

some discussions in the future, and again, we welcome you here. 

The witness is excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(59)

Appendix 1: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
60

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; CoChair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Your testimony re-asserts the goal President Obama announced last year to invest 3 percent of GDP on public and private R&D. However, while the budget 

projects that GDP will grow by 5.9 percent, the budget increase for R&D is just 

0.2 percent, so the public R&D-to-GDP ratio actually declines with this budget. 

What exactly is the Administration’s plan to achieve this goal, especially in light 

of the fact that its budget is going in the wrong direction?

A1. The 2011 Budget will make progress toward the President’s goal by increasing 

Federal funding for R&D as a percentage of GDP for nondefense activities. The proposals for the conduct of non-defense R&D (basic and applied research, and development) in the 2011 Budget, combined with spending from past appropriations, will 

result in outlays (expenditures) of $66.6 billion ha FY 2011, compared to $60.9 billion in estimated nondefense R&D outlays in FY 2010. This 9.2 percent increase between FY 2010 and 2011 would exceed the 4.6 percent growth in GDP between FY 

2010 and 2011 projected in the President’s budget (see Budget of the US Government FY 2011 Historical Table 10.1). The Budget shows a decrease in total R&D 

outlays as a percentage of GDP due primarily to a decrease in DOD’s development 

programs.

Q2. In your testimony you highlight a number of different agencies that are engaged 

in research in the area of climate change. Do you have any estimate on the 

amount of Federal research money that is being devoted to research on climate 

change? Would this include the funding provided through the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program? Does all climate research funding come under that 

header?

A2. The 2011 Budget proposes $2.6 billion for research on climate change from 13 

Federal departments and independent agencies, under the heading of the US Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP). The USGCRP budget crosscut is intended to 

capture most of the Federal government’s investments in climate research, with research related to the mitigation of greenhouse gases being tracked through the Climate Change Technology Program. OSTP is currently working with the USGCRP 

program office and the agencies to insure that all Federal climate change research 

investments are categorized as such.

Q3. In 2008, the United States trade deficit in high technology products was $55.5 

billion, up from $16.6 billion in 2002. The US trade balance in high technology 

products was last in surplus in 2001. A portion of this deficit is from US companies that manufacture overseas and bring the products back to the US. Even if 

we invest more in research and development programs and attract more professionals into high technology fields, how do we discourage companies from taking 

production outside the U.S.?

A3. The Obama Administration is taking steps to keep the industries of the future 

and associated jobs in the United States. The President’s Strategy for American Innovation, announced in September 2009, provides a framework for understanding 

how R&D investments, STEM education policies, and supporting policies in other 

areas such as manufacturing, trade, and entrepreneurship work together to keep 

high technology industries in the United States. To highlight the importance of 

manufacturing within the strategy, in December 2009 the Administration released 

A Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing. This document (attached) 

is a strategy for keeping advanced manufacturing jobs and value in the United 

States, and lays out the policies the Administration intends to pursue. Within the 

R&D area, the policies include expanded research in the 2011 Budget on advanced 

manufacturing and nanomanufacturing.

Q4. Your testimony states that the budget ‘‘sustains the President’s commitment to 

double the budgets of three key science agencies,’’ including the DOE Office of 

Science. However, the Office of Science is increased by just 4.4 percent, after receiving only a two percent increase last year. Do you intend to double the budget 

for the Office of Science? If so, over how many years?
61

A4. The Budget maintains the President’s commitment to double funding for key 

science agencies, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The 2011 

Budget establishes a budget profile to achieve doubling from 2006 levels by 2017.

Q5. The government has spent nearly 25 years and expended more than $10 billion 

on Yucca Mountain and it seems premature to allow the application to be withdrawn before there is any determination by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

as to whether it would be safe. And the Administration has repeatedly stated 

that it will be ‘‘the most open, transparent Administration in history’’. As such, 

can you assure us that your office will work with DOE to make sure all Yuccarelated paperwork, materials and documentation are maintained and made 

available to Congress for proper review and consideration?

A5. DOE has committed in filings with the NRC Atomic Safety Licensing Board 

(ASLB) that, until there is a final non-appealable order dismissing the license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain, DOE will keep its Licensing Support Network (LSN) website compliant and accessible through the NRC’s LSN portal. DOE 

is working with the National Archives and Records Administration to ensure the 

preservation of this material after the conclusion of the licensing proceeding. In addition, DOE is committed to preserving all documents and other materials of scientific value. OSTP will work with DOE to ensure that all materials are carefully 

reviewed for scientific value before anything is discarded.

Q6. Promoting ‘‘Green Jobs’’ or ‘‘Clean Energy Jobs’’ is clearly a priority for the administration as reflected in this budget. However, a growing body of data indicates that these models are inefficient and highly expensive. An authoritative 

study by one of Spain’s leading universities found that the average subsidy cost 

for each ‘‘green job’’ created in Spain was $800,000, and that Spain’s creation 

of 50,000 green jobs resulted in 110,000 lost jobs elsewhere in the country. A 

similar study in Germany found that wind and solar subsidization in Germany 

amounted to $244,000 per ‘‘green job’’ and added 7.5 percent to the cost of household electricity bills. If these reports are true, would you still support the policy 

of promoting ‘‘green jobs’’ instead of promoting job creation through the expansion of traditional energy resources? Are you aware of these studies and have 

you considered the concerns they raise in formulating your own green jobs agenda? Given the studies’ conclusions that such subsidies hurt job creation and increase energy prices, will you consider estimating the potential for similar expensive and counterproductive impacts as a result of the Administration’s green jobs 

agenda?

A6. Yes, we are familiar with the studies you cite. While we have concerns about 

the methodology used in these studies (e.g., see the August 2009 NREL response 

to the King Juan Carlos University report; reference below), the energy policies in 

question are substantially different from those of the U.S. Federal government. We 

have no plans, therefore, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the clean energy policies in Germany and Spain. We have, however, analyzed the potential benefits of 

clean energy investments in the Recovery Act, which is specifically intended to create jobs, including green jobs. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors estimates that the approximately $90 billion of Recovery Act investments will save or 

create about 720,000 job-years by the end of 2012. Projects in the renewable energy 

generation and transmission, energy efficiency, and transit categories create the 

most jobs: approximately two-thirds of the job-years saved or created represent work 

on clean energy projects. 

The Administration remains committed to creating green jobs. Beyond the Recovery Act, the President’s FY 2011 Budget expands by $5 billion our Advanced Energy 

Manufacturing Tax Credit; it substantially expands support for construction of new 

nuclear power plants by increasing loan guarantee authority for such projects by 

$36 billion; it provides$500 million in credit subsidy to support $3 billion to $5 billion of loan guarantees for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects; it continues to support modernization of our electrical grid; and it helps foster the growth 

of wind and solar energy projects. Further, the President has set a goal of doubling 

our exports over the next five years and thereby supporting two million American 

jobs, many of which will be in clean energy industries. The transition from fossil 

fuels to clean energy will challenge both America’s technical ingenuity and our political will. This challenge holds out tremendous possibilities not just for improving 
62

1Sources: NREL NREL/TP-6A2-46261, August 2009, NREL Response to the Report ‘‘Study of 

the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources from King Juan Carlos 

University (Spain)’’ http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf.

Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2010. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/economic-report-of-the-President.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. 

Written Testimony before the House Budget Committee, February 24, 2010. 

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg56l.htm.

our health and the environment, but also for creating new, high-paying green jobs 

and driving the recovery of America’s manufacturing economy.1

Q7. This is the second budget that the Administration has requested funding for the 

Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge (RE–ENERGYSE) program, an NSF and DOE collaboration to ‘‘attract and educate future American 

scientists in the clean energy field.’’ The FY 11 request for this activity is $74 

million. ($19 million for NSF and $55 million for DOE). Neither your testimony 

nor the DOE or NSF Budget books give detailed information on this program. 

Could you please give us specific details on RE–ENERGYSE, how it will work, 

and how this money will be spent?

A7. DOE and NSF 2011 Budget submissions provide detailed information on how 

this interagency effort will work and how funds will be spent. Attached are documents providing detailed information on the RE–ENERGYSE program from the FY 

2011 congressional budget justifications of NSF and DOE.

Q8. In your testimony you state that the three agencies involved in NPOESS (NASA, 

NOAA and DOD) announced that they are no longer jointly participating in the 

NPOESS program.

Q8a. Was this decision made by the agencies or was it made by your office with 

input from the agencies?

A8,8a. My testimony stated that the Administration is restructuring the process by 

which the three agencies collaborate to implement the Nation’s polar-orbiting environmental satellite program. In fact, all three agencies are still involved in some aspect of developing a next generation polar-orbiting environmental satellite system. 

The February 1, 2010 decision was made by the leaders of the relevant offices in 

the Executive Office of the President (EOP), specifically by me, the OMB Director, 

and the National Security Advisor., after an intensive interagency process involving 

an EOP Task Force and top officials and supporting staff from NASA, NOAA, and 

DOD.

Q8b. There was very little information accompanying the announcement on the dissolution of the NPOESS tri-agency program.

i. Was an estimate done on what it would cost to keep the program together, but 

move the whole thing (procurement, management, etc.) to either DOD or 

NASA? Was this estimate compared to the cost of separate programs? Please 

provide the Committee with the costs estimates of the options considered and 

reasons for taking the path you chose versus the others.

A8b,i. The EOP-led process analyzed cost-estimates for various options, including 

continuation of the program under the current IPO structure, as well as moving the 

management function for the program to either the Air Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center (SMC) or to NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). But I 

should stress that throughout the process, the Task Force recognized that cost 

should not be the sole driver in decision-making. The ultimate goal was to position 

the program for success in order to ensure continuity of the Nation’s weather forecasting and climate monitoring needs, by improving the governance structure of the 

program and aligning the program with proven acquisition center capabilities. 

When the Task Force began the analysis of the NPOESS program in August of 

2009, the official life-cycle cost estimate was $13.9B. The DOD estimates presented 

in October 2009 for the NPOESS program of record showed an increase of that figure to $15.1B, while the NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) provided a revised cost-estimate of $16. 5B in November 2009. NASA had also previously performed various cost-estimates for the NPOESS program of record, but these estimates assumed that the program had been conducted within NASA from the beginning, and thus were not comparable to the official cost estimates. NASA’s various 

estimates performed’’ at both the 70 % and 80% confidence level for the full lifecycle cost, based on parametric analysis (in effect, cost curves for different types of 

equipment), were between $17B and $19B or more, depending on the assumptions 
63

made about the maturity level of the various sensors. The agencies use differing cost 

methodologies and risk tolerance levels, which results in differing conclusions of the 

agencies on costs of the NPOESS program at given point in time. However, the 

agencies all agreed, and the Task Force concurred, that the life-cycle cost of the program would exceed the current official estimate of $13.9B. 

The fact that the cost estimates were continuing to increase, as well as the lack 

of consensus between the agencies on which was the appropriate estimate to use, 

all reflected a fundamental problem with the program—namely, divergent views between the agencies as to the overall requirements of the program as well as the underlying needs. The inability of the agencies to compromise on this basic matter 

highlighted a further conclusion of the Task Force—that over time, the goals of the 

agencies associated with the program had drifted apart significantly. The risk of further escalating cost, on a program with approximately $5B invested through FY 

2009 (and which was originally estimated to cost $7.0B in 2002), was notable and 

concerning.

ii. How is the tri-agency program going to be dissolved?

Aii. Direction to restructure was transmitted from EOP, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Environmental Sensing and the NPOESS Integrated Program 

Office (IPO) through a DOD Acquisition Decision Memorandum. With receipt of the 

formal direction, the FPO has begun restructure and transition discussions and activities with the agencies, including disposition of the current contracted and government efforts. The three agencies (DOD, NOAA and NASA) have formed a transition team to plan and implement the transition of NPOESS into the NOAA Joint 

Polar Satellite System. (JPSS) program and future DOD polar-orbiting programs. 

Efforts from the NPOESS program applicable to either NOAA or DOD follow-on programs will be transitioned to those programs as they ramp up. Current government 

staff positions will be adjudicated by the agency from which they originate.

iii. Will DOD still utilize the sensors that were developed as part of its commitment to NPOESS, specifically the Microwave Image Sounder, on future satellites?

Aiii. The Air Force is evaluating the full suite of sensors, including the Microwave 

Imager/Sounder (MIS) and Space Environmental Monitor for NPOESS (SEM–N), for 

use on the follow-on program. Current program funds will be used to continue both 

the MIS and SEM–N efforts in FY 2010 to their next major development milestone 

while DOD completes a thorough requirements review and an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) that will inform the follow-on platform decision. Regardless of the outcome of the review and AoA, DOD will have access to the data from the sensors 

that NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) will fly in the afternoon orbit, as 

well as the data that NOAA is seeking to access from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Global Change Observation Mission (GCOM) to fulfill requirements that MIS would have met for the afternoon orbit.

iv. DOD has enough legacy satellites to get them to 2020, possibly even 2025. 

Will they just go back to the drawing board for the next series of satellites 

to fly in the early morning orbit? Or will they continue using the NPOESS 

platform as the basis of any new satellite program?

Aiv. DOD is planning a thorough requirements review and will follow that with an 

AoA that will inform the follow-on platoon decision. In the meantime, DOD is also 

examining other ways to fulfill their requirements, including continuing with the 

current contractor team. DOD’s global mission requires that it have access to polarorbiting data from all three orbits: early morning, mid-morning and afternoon. Although DOD has remaining legacy satellites for the early morning orbit, DOD still 

has data requirements that will have to be fulfilled by receiving data from the European mid-morning orbit and the NOAA early afternoon orbit.

v. How does splitting the program up reduce the risk? What is the current risk 

of project failure?

Av. Although there is the potential for some near-term delays due to the restructuring efforts, the improved management structure of JPSS program will enable the 

program to proceed forward in the mid-to-long term in a more effective and efficient 

manner. The risks of the restructure should be compared with the potential risks 

of continuing along the path of the status quo. The NPOESS program encountered 

significant schedule slips and cost increases throughout its history. Delays in instrument development for NPP caused the launch of that satellite to be delayed six 

years from the initial program baseline. Cost and schedule growth for the VIIRS 
64

sensor caused similar delays in development of the spacecraft for the first NPOESS 

satellite. 

The inability of the NPOESS tri-agency governance structure to deal with the program’s cost and schedule growth was the source of much of the past difficulties. 

Maintaining this structure would likely have continued the history of schedule slips 

and cost increases. Although it would be difficult to quantify this risk, the past history of the program is indicative. The program restructure reduces the risk by clarifying acquisition authoritiesand making a single agency responsible for each orbit. 

The restructure also allows each agency to manage its program within that agency’s 

existing culture and environment. The newly restructured program will have greater government control over the development process. For example, NOAA will be 

able, with NASA as its acquisition agent, to have greater control over setting the 

pace of work that is required to develop the instruments as well as the space and 

ground segments for the afternoon orbit. The restructured program also provides 

clear accountability, responsibility, and authority for each orbit, simplifying the 

complicated tri-agency decision processes that plagued NPOESS. In response to recommendations of the Independent Review Team (IRT), the restructure also provides 

infrastructure from acquisition centers that will support each acquisition with a 

deep bench of technical and program personnel and rigorous, documented processes. 

The ability to recover lost schedule and rebuild critical spares program will not 

occur overnight. The program will take some years to restore the robustness of the 

nation’s polar satellite missions. The ability to use different-sized spacecraft as well 

as international and commercial platforms will provide some flexibility to achieve 

improved continuity of observation, however.

Q9. It is my understanding the DOD and NOAA will still utilize the new joint 

ground system, that the information will come in together. How useful will this 

be if DOD maintains legacy instruments? Is there a concern that we will only 

really be able to utilize legacy-level information from the new NOAA satellite 

since it has to be integrated with the DOD legacy information? If so, wouldn’t 

this make the entire upgrade a waste of money?

A9. The NPOESS-designed ground system is well suited to incorporate legacy systems, if this is desired by the DOD in the future. NOAA will continue to support 

development of the new sensors and the information and products they will provide. 

Today’s systems are unique and independent designs. The new ground system offers 

the agencies the opportunity to make operations more efficient by transitioning to 

a single enterprise solution for multiple satellites. For a period of time, NOAA and 

DOD will work to transition use of the new NPOESS/JPSS ground network by both 

legacy systems until the JPSS satellites and the future DOD satellites are in place. 

Current DOD Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and NOAA Polar 

-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) satellites are operated by 

NOAA’s Office of Satellite Operations, which can continue to support legacy sensors. 

This office has provided the command, control, and communication for DMSP spacecraft from Suitland, Maryland since 1998 with Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado 

providing back-up support. NOAA and DOD have had a long history of sharing data 

fully and openly for weather, space weather forecasting, and climate monitoring 

while operating separate polar-orbiting satellite systems (i.e. POES and DMSP). 

NOAA will continue to operate the DMSP and future DOD environmental satellite 

platforms in the morning orbit under the restructured NPOESS program.

Q10. DOD is currently responsible for 50 percent of the cost of the tri-agency program. Now that NOAA is going its own way, is it taking full responsibility for 

the cost of the ground system for which DOD would then pay NOAA to operate 

their half? Doesn’t this put a greater burden on NOAA’s budget if they are now 

responsible for all of the installed costs of the ground system, whereas before, 

they would only be responsible for half?

A10. The President’s FY 2011 budget provides adequate resources in NOAA’s budget to support NOAA’s efforts for complete development of the ground system, which 

will be used by DOD and NOAA for both the morning and afternoon orbits. NOAA 

believes the challenges that remain to field and deploy the ground system are manageable. 

Under the JPSS program, NOAA would need to have a ground system in place 

to support JPSS–1 and JPSS–2. Given the expected 2015 launch of JPSS–1, it is 

more cost-effective for NOAA to take the lead to continue development of the 

NPOESS ground system for its JPSS program. In fact, significant progress on the 

ground system has occurred at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF) 

where command and control of the JPSS satellites will occur. Similarly, the network 

of SafetyNet sites that would support the acquisition of data from JPSS satellites 
65

has been identified and NOAA would gain more from leveraging that work instead 

of starting from scratch. With respect to providing data to DOD from the JPSS 

ground system, the technological adapters that would be required to do so would be 

relatively inexpensive to undertake.

Q11. Will the contract with Northrop Grumman be dissolved? How much will it cost 

the taxpayers for the termination of the contract?

A11. The NPOESS transition team is currently considering how to proceed with the 

existing NPOESS contracts into the future. While termination is an option, NASA 

and NOAA are taking initial steps to remove responsibility for the development of 

the instruments and the ground system from the Northrop Grumman Aerospace 

Systems (NGAS) contract. The exact timing of these descopes will be determined by 

the transition team. Use of an NGAS provided spacecraft bus is still being studied 

by both DOD and NOAA/NASA.

A11. By DOD policy, the NPOESS program must obligate termination liability on 

contract each fiscal year. It is possible some termination and settlement costs can 

carry into FY 2012. The cost is under current review by DOD, and one-half of these 

costs would be NOAA’s responsibility. Negotiations regarding the contract will be 

led by DOD on behalf of the government. Termination and settlement costs are also 

highly dependent on the decision-making of the transition teams. These activities 

are extremely acquisition sensitive, and it is premature to discuss the terms of the 

changing of the contract until the transition team has completed its assessment of 

next steps.

Q12. Do you have a plan in place to fix the many problems in the current program 

in the event that Congress rejects your recommendation to split the project and 

chooses to fund the program in the same manner as currently funded?

A12. During the EOP Task Force deliberations, the agencies identified a number of 

critical steps that would be necessary to strengthen the current PEO and IPO organizations as well as underlying agency support to improve the likelihood of success, 

if such a route were taken. These steps have not been pursued in light of the final 

EOP decision to conduct separate acquisitions. 

The Administration believes it was in the best interest of U.S. taxpayers to restructure the NPOESS program. The decision is supported by the long history of reviews called for by House and Senate Authorizers and Appropriators and completed 

by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as other reviews completed 

by the Department of Commerce Inspector General as well as senior-level independent reviews of the program.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Overall, the education directorate (EJIR) at NSF receives a 2.2% increase in the 

FY 11. This is in contrast to an 8% requested increase to the research directorates. Why is there such a difference?

A1. The 2011 Budget proposes a substantial increase for NSF STEM education programs within a nonsecurity discretionary budget that is flat with 2010 enacted 

funding levels. The 2011 Budget proposes a 4.5 percent increase for STEM programs 

across NSF, as counted within NSF’s ‘‘learning’’ strategic plan goal. A 4.5 percent 

increase is substantial compared to overall growth in nonsecurity discretionary programs in the Budget. The fact that the total NSF budget increases at 8.0 percent 

is indicative of the President’s strong support for basic research as a key element 

for long-term economic growth. The 2.2 percent increase applies only to NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate, which accounts for most but not all of 

NSF’s STEM education funding.

Q2. More specifically, NSF K–12 Education Research programs are essentially flat 

funded, except for work focused on implementation. Where is the Administration 

funding ongoing research in how K–12 students learn and how K–12 teachers 

teach? The response that NSF is funding more education agency-wide is not acceptable; while I appreciate that the research directorates are working more effectively at incorporating education into the research mission, this should have 

always been the case. And for the most part, the education supported through 

the research directorates is NOT research into STEM education, but education 

on STEM research. Continuing to provide this response to the discrepancy between the RRA and EHR budgets indicates a sense of ignorance about the different types of research the NSF conducts and I would appreciate a more substantive response.
66

A2. The Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the Federal government’s primary engine for research on how students learn and how 

teachers teach. The 2011 Budget requests $739 million for IES, an increase of $80 

million or 12 percent over the 2010 enacted funding level. Within IES, the Administration requests $260.7 million for research, development, and dissemination, an increase of $60.5 million over the 2010 appropriation. The requested increase would 

be used to support new research activities in early childhood, elementary and secondary, and postsecondary education; evaluations of Recovery Act programs; and an 

impact study of professional development in mathematics for elementary school 

teachers, to be conducted in collaboration with the National Science Foundation. 

The request for 2011 would also support ongoing programs of research and development in mathematics and science education, mathematics and science education for 

students with disabilities, teacher quality in mathematics and science education, 

and learning and cognition. IES supports national research and development centers 

on validating measures of effective math teaching and cognition and science instruction. It is worth noting that as part of the Administration’s government-wide initiative to strengthen program evaluation, the IES request also includes significant new 

resources for the evaluation of education reform efforts under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and efforts to improve Science, Technology, Engineering. 

and Mathematics (STEM) education. IES communicates research findings to parents, educators, and policymakers through its technical assistance and dissemination network, which includes the Regional Educational Laboratories, the What 

Works Clearinghouse, the Education Resources Information Center, and the National Library of Education. For example, the What Works Clearinghouse has published reports on the evidence of effectiveness of education interventions in elementary school mathematics and middle school mathematics and has also published 

practice guides with practical recommendations for educators on assisting students 

who are struggling with mathematics and encouraging girls in mathematics and 

science courses. These and other What Works Clearinghouse reports are available 

on the IES website (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). The request for 2011 would provide 

nearly $90 million to continue support for these activities.

Questions submitted by Representative Brian P. Bilbray

Q1. Can you talk about where OSTP comes down on the issue of having research 

agencies dedicate a certain percentage of their budgets—8% has been suggested—to high risk, high impact research that is potentially transformative, 

and could contribute substantially to our national capacity for innovation? Just 

this past weekend, I (Congressman Bilbray) hosted a meeting of leaders from the 

San Diego research community and NIH Director Collins, and this issue was 

a topic of discussion. What Director Collins and I heard from this group of academic and business leaders is that there is a tendency for peer review to drive 

agencies in an overly conservative direction in terms of their funding decisions, 

particularly in times of great budget pressures such as these.

A1. I share your concerns about the sometimes conservative nature of peer review, 

and I agree strongly that research funding agencies should emphasize the support 

of potentially transformative or high-risk/high-impact research. Over the past year, 

OSTP has made support of such research a high priority and has worked with agencies to ensure that such research is funded. As one example, the R&D Priorities 

Memo issued jointly by OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

August 2009 articulating interagency priorities for the Federal R&D investment 

prominently emphasizes ‘high-risk, high-payoff research’ as a top priority for the 

2011 Budget. But I do not believe a percentage target is the best approach for encouraging such research. One reason is that a single percentage target is unlikely 

to fit the diversity of Federal research funding agencies. Another reason is that a 

percentage target for high-risk, high-impact research risks segregating such research from the rest of an agency’s research portfolio and also risks making the remaining 92 percent or so of the portfolio more conservative. We do not want transformative research walled off from other research, but instead prefer the approach 

of encouraging agencies to think about making all of their research more transformative in appropriate and creative ways. 

I strongly believe that consistent science funding is part of the solution to our current economic difficulties. Unfortunately, our government’s ‘‘peak and valley’’ pattern of scientific funding is disruptive to the flow of the scientific process if funding 

levels are flying high one year only to be followed the next year with a crash landing. If we are truly to harness the best that our researches have to offer we must 

settle on consistent funding levels that are fiscally responsible, prudent and scientif-
67

ically sound. Please elaborate on how the President’s budget request will help reduce the impact of the ‘‘peak and valley’’ funding pattern we’ve been experiencing 

recently. 

I share your belief that consistent science funding is important. The President’s 

2011 Budget builds on investments in the Recovery Act, 2009 appropriations, and 

2010 appropriations to sustain increases for key research agencies. These sustained 

increases build on four practical challenges for the Federal R&D investment that 

have consistently guided the Obama Administration’s R&D investment strategies: 

applying science and technology strategies to drive economic recovery, job creation, 

and economic growth; promoting innovative energy technologies to reduce energy 

imports and mitigate the impact of climate change while creating green jobs and 

new businesses; applying biomedical science and information technology to help 

Americans live longer, healthier lives while reducing health care costs; and assuring 

we have the technologies needed to protect our troops, citizens, and national interests, including those needed to verify arms control and nonproliferation agreements 

essential to our security. The 2011 Budget also carries forward the President’s Plan 

for Science and Innovation, announced by the President in April 2009, to double the 

budgets of three key science agencies. The 2011 Budget lays out a consistent, 

smooth path to doubling the budgets of the National Science Foundation, the DOE 

Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories by 2017.

Questions submitted by Representative Baron P. Hill

In 2005, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13385 which assigned 

the role and responsibilities of the President’s Information Technology Advisory 

Committee (PITAC) to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Prior to Executive Order 13385, PITAC provided a focused and 

credible evaluation of the funding, coordination, and implementation of federal highperformance computing (HPC) activities which PCAST, because of its broad and 

comprehensive mission, cannot be expected to fulfill. The elimination of PITAC has 

left a tremendous void in the advanced networking and information technology community and threatens to jeopardize US leadership in these fields.

Q1. Dr. Holdren—as the leader of PCAST, please comment on how effectively that 

panel has been able to take over the responsibilities previously held by PITAC 

since 2005. How do you respond to concerns from the HPC community that the 

lack of a focused and credible voice on these issues may jeopardize our leadership in these areas?

A1. The current PCAST, assembled in 2009, includes members who are highly regarded within HPC communities, notably Eric Schmidt, David Shaw, William Press, 

and Craig Mundie. PCAST is cognizant of its PITAC responsibilities, and with the. 

President’s approval assigned Eric Schmidt and Shirley Ann Jackson, immediately 

following the PCAST’s inception, to serve as PITAC Co-Chairs. 

PCAST and PITAC are committed to engaging and collaborating with the IT community (of which HPC is a part) to improve the breadth of expertise underlying recommendations to the President. PCAST recognizes that it lacks some expertise required to perform the totality of its functions, and has compensated for those gaps 

by assembling working groups with high degrees of expertise specific to the tasks 

at hand. For example, for the recent PCAST review of the National Nanotechnology 

Initiative, PCAST assembled a working group consisting of 12 non-PCAST members 

and three PCAST members to conduct the review, and invited an additional 37 

nanotechnology experts to testify at its working group meetings. 

A number of other PCAST efforts currently underway, such as the Health Information Technology and Advanced Manufacturing studies and the review of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, also involve HPC-related components and are informed by members of the HPC communities in a variety of ways. 

In addition, PITAC co-chairs plan to convene events where the IT community will 

be invited to attend and asked to identify additional areas for attention by PITAC. 

PITAC will then assemble working groups with input and representation from the 

IT community to address these issues.

Q2. Section 7024 of America COMPETES authorizes the establishment of an HPC 

advisory committee. Does OSTP support such an action and, if so, what has 

your office clone in this regard so far and what further actions are expected over 

the next six months?
68

A2. The PCAST mechanism described in the answer to the question immediately 

above will be used to provide the HPC advisory committee functions established in 

the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110–69), the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–194), and the Next Generation Internet Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–305). As part of its work in this domain, PCAST will review 

the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) 

program, including the elements set forth in the legislation above, and will report 

on its findings and recommendations.

Questions submitted by Representative Gary C. Peters

Q1. Dr. Holdren, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership is a program that is very 

important to me, and I know from companies in my district just how vital MEP 

support is to the long term success and competitiveness of small and medium 

sized American manufacturers. I think preserving and strengthening this program should be a top priority as we discuss job creation or economic recovery 

strategies. The administration has shown a lot of interest in supporting manufacturing and promoting manufacturing jobs, and President Obama’s framework 

for revitalizing manufacturing discusses doubling the MEP program over the 

next five years. Can you expand further on the Administration’s vision for the 

future of MEP? What changes do you envision for MEP if the program follows 

this course of expansion?

A2. For the past two decades, MEP has helped thousands of small and mid-sized 

companies improve their competitiveness through various programs such as lean 

manufacturing, six-sigma quality, etc. This has resulted in considerable cost savings 

and quality improvements. Recognizing the merits of the MEP program, President 

Obama has proposed to —increase the budget to $180 million by 2015. As part of 

this commitment, $130 million was allocated to MEP in the President’s 2011 budget 

to enhance the competitiveness of the Nation’s manufacturers by facilitating the 

adoption of more efficient manufacturing processes. With its thousands of agents or 

‘‘boots on the ground’’ spread across the nation, MEP is in a position to understand 

the pulse of the industry. We envision that it will respond quickly with new, innovative, and effective programs to keep our manufacturing base competitive. Such programs may involve implementation of best practices in any number of areas including sustainable manufacturing—from reducing waste in the manufacturing process 

to developing new, environmentally-focused products and workforce and supply 

chain development.

Q2. As you know, MEP currently functions with equal contributions from the Federal government, State government, and manufacturers. However, at least 23 

state MEP centers reported a decrease or elimination of state MEP funding in 

2009 alone, and some centers have been operating without state funding for 

years which increases the pressure on the small manufacturer to maintain the 

program level. I have introduced legislation with Rep. Ehlers this year that 

would reduce the matching requirements for small manufacturers—are these 

structural changes something the administration is considering as it grows the 

MEP program?

A2. I recognize the fiscal constraints many states are currently facing and the potential impact on the MEP centers’ ability to meet their cost share obligations. The 

matching requirement of the MEP program is a core component of the program’s 

success because it encourages significant local and state buy-in into the program. 

I understand there are proposals, such as yours, proposing changes and flexibility 

to the cost share. I am happy to work with you and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to explore ways to address situations in which states are in 

particularly dire circumstances. 
(69)

Appendix 2: 

RE-ENERGYSE FUDNING PROFILE
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

(91)

Appendix 2: 

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY CORRESPONDENCE
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

Æ